Sex Positivity and Conservatism

I was wondering about something.  I wondered if sex positivity and conservatism could possibly go together.  Many more liberal minded people would probably say no.  After all, conservatives want to take away birth control,  and access to sexual health information.  Is that exactly true?  I don't think so.  At least not for me.  Sure, some republicans, mostly of the more fundamentalist religious stripe, want to take away those things.  That is NOT what I believe.  I have said it before and will say it again.  Everyone should have access to health information and that includes accurate information about sexual issues, birth control, STDs, etc.  People should be educated about consent and the possible emotional issues involved with sexual activity.

Thing is, though, that I seem to lose touch with this sex positive stuff when they start saying that promiscuity is a good thing for some people.  Yes, I understand that not everyone is the same.  Not everyone lives by the same moral standards or views sex the same way.  I realize that I am reading this through my own views.  I also realize that promiscuous cannot really be defined and that it is typically used against women and not men.  It is a loaded term, for sure.  I am introducing bias into this.

First, I want to say that sex doesn't do anything to anyone that a lot of religious presentations say it does.  Women do not become "used goods" or "chewed pieces of gum."  That is a horrible way to think of a human being.  Sex has in no way an on the worth of any human being.  However, it is an activity that carries a lot of risks, physical and potentially emotionally.  In my view it is not something to be taken lightly.  Something can potentially produce new life, or introduce disease should be treated carefully.

It is it wrong that if I had children that I would want them to have a positive view of sex while at the same time discouraging them from sexual activity until they are older?  I wouldn't want to focus on the negatives.  I wouldn't want them to be shamed and scared like I was.  This where my bias comes in.  I would like for them to be in a relationship where they are mature, trust their partner and are educated in all aspects.  Maybe this is because I can't imagine having sex in a situation where I didn't have an emotional connection to the person.  That is my thing.

Studies have shown fewer risks for women who wait until their early 20's to have sex.  In part, because they typically have fewer partners.  Possibly because they are more mature more likely to practice safer sex.  Maybe because they are more emotionally mature and know more of what they want  out of a sexual relationship.  Of course, all of this could be conjecture.  Anyway, my point is that waiting has its benefits and I don't want that to get thrown out.

Sex can be a wonderful experience in the right situation with the right preparation.  It is natural and healthy.  Of course, I have my views about my own personal situation and so does everyone else.  I don't want tell anyone how to run that very private part of their life.  Anything that happens between consenting adults is nothing I would legally fight.  I just don't want to live in a society that makes sex a very causal thing when in so in many ways it is anything but.

So what does this make me?  Am I sex positive or still too "puritan?"

My Coming Out

Wasn't quite sure how to start this one but I felt the need to get something off my chest.  I am not sure what I believe.  Scary, isn't it?  For some people, yes, for other people, no.  It comes naturally to some to question and not worry that they do so.  I am pretty much the opposite of that.  This pretty much sums it up:

On the other hand, I am not entirely sure I fit the label sometimes.  I do not consider myself atheist.  The best I can describe it is I don't know.  This is a frightening development for someone who felt sure about everything for the first 20 or so years of her life.  I went through a period a couple of years ago where I didn't attend church.  I was trying to pray and sometimes I felt it was going somewhere.  I studied other religions.  I studied other forms of Christianity.  I knew I could never go back to conservative Christianity.  The subjugation of women, the treatment of gay people, the fights with science and the simplistic black and white thinking was too much for me.  I converted to a more liberal form of Christianity.  This solved many of my problems for a while.  It felt so right.  I was at home.  Now, I don't know.  I problems but the thing is this time it has to the beliefs of Christianity itself, not just the church.  

I don't want anyone to leave this thinking that I never believed or was never sincere about those beliefs.  I prayed the sinner's prayer for the first time when I was seven years old.  I remember that event so well.  Of course, this was nothing new.  I had been taught the Gospel my entire life.  But for someone to say that wasn't legitimate is insulting.  The experience was legitimate to me.  Despite this, I was always worrying that I wasn't really saved.  I prayed that prayer many times just to make sure.  After all, this was the most important thing in the world.  I was in church every sunday, youth group every friday, sunday school, special events.  Even went on retreats, to seminars, camps and other organized events.  I evangelized people with my church (even though I wasn't entirely comfortable).  Went on missions trips but in some ways I was never "one of them."  I listened to the wrong music, went to public school, and never truly bought into everything they told me.  Maybe the questions were the beginning.

If I had to place myself most days I would say I am an agnostic theist.  This could change and yes, some of my views right now are probably contradictory and don't make much sense.  I want to believe that there is a god that loves us and cares about what happens in the world.  I want to believe that this world has some type of meaning to it.  A part of me wants to feel like praying.  On the other hand, I kind of like the idea of giving your own life meaning.  

However, it was a real relief to know that could come out to my best friend her family and they felt the same way.  They love me no matter what.  I just don't know what to do about my family if and when I tell them.  Maybe I should just keep going the path?  Keep going to church?  Hope for more faith?  I care about the people I go to church with and I care about my family.  I haven't become different.  I am still the fairly conservative person I have always been.  

There is a possibility this is a phase and that is why I didn't want to go all crazy and tell everyone.  I don't even know.  I like Christian ethics (for the most part).  Treating people decently is important. This life matters.  Truth be told, I focus more on this life now, anyways.  I believe in forgiveness, compassion, kindheartedness, justice and all that good stuff.  I am more interested in how people behave opposed to what they believe.  All in all, though, I feel conflicted.  I don't like pretending but I don't like the alternative either.  Maybe this shall pass.  Maybe it is a "dark night of the soul."

Maybe in way I am not ready to "come out" or proclaim anything since I don't know what I am coming into.

Objectification of Women

Saw this cartoon on Pinterest and thought it was interesting.  Got a laugh out of it but at the same time I actually found it fairly thought provoking.  How we view women's rights and objectification is actually fairly dependent on culture.  The woman on the right might believe that she is shielding her body from men so they notice other, non-physical, things about her.  The woman on the left may believe that she is exercising her right to present her body how she sees fit.  Both think the other is giving into the male dominated culture.  But isn't the point?  They are complaining about a male dominated culture, which they recognize they are both living in.  Sure, it looks different but yet it is very much the same.

To me, the important thing in all of this is the women be doing this out of free choice.  Problem is, the way society is currently set up I don't think this is entirely possible.  Does the woman in the full body covering have a choice in if she wears that?  Is she threatened or sanctioned if she were to choose something else?  Similarly, is the woman in the bikini wearing that because that is what she wants to wear?  Is she doing because she feels it is the only way to be attractive to men?  It is tough to make these calls when we live in a society, along with other societies, that objectify women.

Ideally, a woman be able to wear what she wants without fear of being assaulted, demeaned or stifled in her day to day life.  Objectification is what makes all of this so complicated.  It's related to rape culture and the purity movement.  In either situation a woman can be reduced to a body.  In one case she could be reduced to a "loose woman" who is "asking for it."  In another case the woman could be again reduced to her body because she must cover in order to keep men from being led astray if she were to show some skin.

In both possible scenarios the woman is the one who is responsible for how men react.  They are reduced to bodies that must controlled in just the right way so men are kept in check.  Really, in both cases women would be the ones responsible if a man raped them.  Men are never responsible for how they react in either situation.  Of course, this is horribly messed up and shows how messed up things are.

I see this all the time in conservative religious circles when it comes to doctrines such as modesty.  You are supposed to cover all those alluring parts of yourself.  I can remember once at a church function getting told I had to change my shirt because my shoulders were showing another time I can remember being told I couldn't wear a certain bathing suit because it exposed my mid section.  Of course, I complied but I always felt so weird about it.  I wondered why men couldn't handle being exposed to a shoulder, for crying out loud.  It was because I would incite them to lust.  They couldn't choose how to respond?  Now, I do dress fairly conservatively.  I always have but I do now wear things that would not be considered appropriate by Baptist standards.

It's amazing how the more I turn a critical eye to society and gender all this stuff is tied together.  Women cause men to lust, rape them and objectify them.  NO!  Men choose these actions.  Men choose to view women as just a body.  To make assumptions off of the way they are dressed.  Are they a "nice" girl or they a "bad" girl?  They will be treated accordingly.  I believe that men have control over that.  I believe that a man chooses to be a rapist.  They choose to objectify women.  They choose to respect women.  They are NOT slaves to biology, just as women are not.  To be clear, I am not trying to put the blame on individual men entirely but rather to a societal system where women are assessed for "goodness" or "badness" by their clothing choices.

 I wish women had a choice.  I wish women were treated as human beings worthy of respect, no matter what they are wearing.  I wish women were not viewed as bringing on rape.  I would hope that women on both sides of this picture were able to make a choice, free of coercion, about how they are present themselves.  No woman is the sum of her body.

Shame and Guilt as Motivators

Too often people use shame and guilt as motivators.  Advertising, work, relationships and religion.  I see this big time in Christianity.  How often is this used, especially when talking about sexuality?  People often shame other church members to show others what will happen if they dare to step outside the bounds.  Do people motivated by shame and guilt act any better?  I don't think they do.  I think they simply have more guilt about their transgressions.
The purity movement is built on shame and guilt tactics.  Don't have sex because you WILL get pregnant, get an STD and have lifelong emotional scars.  Do these things happen every time?  Of course not.  Shame and guilt usually leads into people needing to lie.  In this example, condoms don't work, you will have marriage problems if you don't go in as a virgin, and you will always compare your current partner to your past partners.  Of course, these things are not true most of the time.  Am I trying to defend more liberal sexual attitudes?  Not really, just trying to point out that shame and guilt can lead to dishonesty.
Another example, in some churches they will tell people that one sip of alcohol will cause them to become alcoholics.  In the majority of cases this is untrue.  One sip of alcohol means you are one sip drunk.  How silly.  I think the motivation is just to guilt people into believing that one sip of alcohol is going to ruin your life.  Truth is, most people can enjoy a drink or two and not hurt themselves or others in the process.  Do people abuse alcohol?  For sure.
I guess the point I am trying to make here is that there is always a potential for bad things to happen when doing, well, almost anything.  Shaming people by producing and instilling guilt is effective in the sense that sometimes people will be afraid and form unhealthy attitudes, which will keep them from said activities.  Other times, it just makes people feel lousy and doesn't change them at all.  If someone is doing something truly harmful how likely are they to reach out in an environment where theses tactics are used?  Wouldn't they be more likely to hide and continue these things in private?  It tears people apart emotionally and mentally.
Yes, there are things that are wrong that people should be discouraged from.  This is not about that.  Maybe it is time that we were open and honest about things.  Stop making up lies to scare people.  Be honest about the mistakes people make, including yourself.  People should be shown the positives to a certain way of living rather than convincing them that their reputation and self worth completely depend on it.  People that are willing to change should be commended rather than held up as nothing more than scare tactics.  There is a time for talk about negative consequences but most people don't need more shame, guilt and lies tacked on.

Boston and Faith

As we all know, today was a horrible day.  One of my favorite events, the Boston Marathon, was overtaken by senseless violence.  It just boggles my mind how people could do such a thing and inflict so much suffering on a group of people.  I am naturally a pessimist and an introvert so these types of things really raise questions about good vs. evil and how the world ultimately works.  Same thing with the Sandy Hook shooting.

My questions went something like this: Where is God?  Why is evil allowed, it seems, to overcome good so much of the time?  Is this just one of those things that signals to "end of the world?"  Are people really getting worse?

Of course, some of these questions are the result of my upbringing, especially the stuff about the "end of the world."  I kind of have a phobia about that so best not to go there most of the time.  Anyway, as a person with a somewhat skeptical nature it just confuses me so much.  Why doesn't God intervene?  How much does free will have an effect on the world?  These are the moments where I fall into periods of doubt and uncertainty.  I don't have anymore answers than anyone else.  It is the belief of Christians everywhere that good will eventually overcome evil.  Evil doers will be punished and the world will be set right.  But sometimes, in the deep recesses of my mind, I just don't know.

I get there are evil people in the world.  I get that people make their choices and we bare the consequences.  Maybe it just seems to me that things get worse as time goes on.  I do tend to look to the negative side all too often.  All I know is that people are capable of great good and great evil.  It just seems that some people choose to follow their evil inclinations more than their good ones.

And to add a more political element, people need to stop placing blame where blame is not due.  We don't know the facts.  All we know is that an act of terrorism was committed.  I saw people blaming everyone from liberals, atheists, Obama and Muslims.  The truth is no one knows why suffering happens and why people choose evil when they had other options.  Human nature is an uncertain thing.  Now is not to the time to place blame, as appealing as that may be.  Now is not the time to say why such a tragedy happened.  Now is the time to simply grieve and think of those affected.

How to Disagree

Lurking around the internet you often see some vile things.  People take the masks off and their true nature comes out.  People suddenly lose their kindness and civility, it seems.  What triggered this was seeing a nasty comment left on an atheist blog left by a so called Christian.  It was insulting, rude and deplorable, to say the least.  Name calling, death threats, and outlandish accusations are never appropriate or necessary.  Honestly, it says much more about the person writing it than the person it is written about.  Surely, we all say unkind things but it seems the internet makes that easier.  Problem is rules don't change or shouldn't change just because you are hiding behind a screen.  Believe in God or not you should want to have integrity, which means acting the same regardless of who is watching, or in this case, reading.  If you have to hide behind anonymous comments, there is a problem.  Thus, this brings me to what I consider appropriate and inappropriate ways to disagree.

Do's:
*Listening to a person.  That means really listening, not just pretending.  Think about the points they are making and how you could possibly learn something from them.
*Go in with an open mind.  Realize that you possibly be wrong or misguided in some regard.  After all, none of us know everything.
*Be respectful.  Everyone likes to be treated like their ideas matter and they are worth your time.
*Educate yourself on various points of view.  At least know what you are talking about.  No one likes to argue against a strawman!

Don'ts:
*Going in with the idea that you are going to change the other person.  This impedes true listening and understanding.  You can't have an open mind if you are always right.
*Name calling/insults.  It just makes you look like you don't have any real points so you must attack the other person.
*Making everything personal.  Just because you disagree with someone does not make them terrible.  Yes, you feel strongly about a lot of subjects but so doesn't the other person!
*Arrogance/superiority.  This goes along with changing the other person.  You are not the sole arbiter of truth on the planet, so don't act like it!

A lot of this boils down to treating people how you would want to be treated.  And frankly, it makes you arguments look weak when you can't present them in logical, calm, respectful way.  Emotions can take a good discussion into a bad place, sometimes.  Some empathy would go a long way.  No one likes being attacked or treated badly.

I heard a good piece of advice, "love your neighbor as yourself..."

Women Should be Silent in the Church

Anybody ever heard that one?  Of course, I heard it so many times growing up Baptist.  Now the phrase kind of makes my scalp itch.  This single verse has been used more times than I can count to put down women and refuse to listen to their points of view.  I think all the time growing up I knew there was something wrong with this but I didn't feel safe expressing it.  After all, this was the orthodox Christian view.  Who was I to argue with God?  Well, times have changed and now I see this for what it is.  It is a cultural view from long ago that is used to maintain male power and dominance in the church.  I am not saying that all men consciously feel this way or even really think this way it is there.  Of course, this thing, patriarchy, is everywhere.  Sounds very liberal and feminist of me, doesn't it?  I guess that's where the modern part comes in.

The plethora of books in evangelical circles about women is a sight to behold.  When I say sight, I mean unsightly.  Oh goody, now's a chance to mention my favorite *cough cough* book, Created to be His Helpmeet.  I was only tempted to throw the thing across the room several times. I think I did well.  Basic premise of the book: women were created to please men.  Too bad if you don't like something that is just the way it is.  It encourages women to stay with abusive husbands, with the only solution being more submission on their part.  It even states in the book that a woman fails if she has no man to please.  This is so wrong in so many ways.  A woman's worth is never dependent on a man.  Woman deserve to be treated with respect just like men.  That means having an equal say in relationships and in the church.

It means that a woman can go into a church and expect to listened to.  A women can get up in front of the church without fear of reprisal for stepping out of bounds.  A woman doesn't feel she has to be silent in the event of abuse or any type of wrongdoing.  Women are taken seriously and never dismissed because something is "merely" a woman's issue.

Women are hearing some pretty terrible things coming out of the pulpit.  Books written for women are pressuring women to adopt these dangerous attitudes because it is biblically "correct."  Girls are growing up hearing they are not as capable as men.  They are taught to lay down their rights.  They are taught to accept unfair treatment and even abuse in the name of "biblical womanhood."  Well, I have had enough.  I am not going to offer religious arguments.  I am just advocating for decency.  Women are human beings and have the right to be treated as such both inside and outside the church.

As Things Become More Gray

I know, it has been over a year since I have written anything.  But something, not sure what exactly, has inspired me to begin again.  This has been a year of a lot of changing ideas.  I blame it on reading too much philosophy.  Truth be told, I am not sure what I believe about some things now, although it is easier to put up a front that says I do.  My mind has already changed about some of the things that I have written.  Such is the internet, your views are out there FOREVER.  For those that wonder, I am still a conservative, although my views have moderated.  My religious views are in fluctuation, which is the part I have trouble talking about.

Compared to the people I was brought up with I am a raging liberal.  As I have written previously, I enjoy some things that would put me into potentially "liberal, heretic, backslidden" category.  Doesn't bother me, though because I am seeing that the world does not operate in black and white.  My views would get me kicked out of any religious right gathering.  Here are some samplings:

*I am in favor of comprehensive sex ed.  People don't stop having sex just because you tell them too.  Abstinence pledging has over an 80% failure rate.  Time to be realistic.  If you are serious about reducing abortions then you need to be serious about birth control.
*I am in favor of separation of church and state.  Christians wouldn't like it if Islam were established as the national religion and that is how a lot of people feel about Christianity.  People can feel free to practice their religion in their own place on their own time.  Simple as that.
*I am in favor of allowing gay couples full civil rights.  Marriage, at least to me, is a religious label.  Churches or other places of worship can make their own rules about marriage.
*I am in favor of allowing people to live their lives in their own way, even if I think it is absolutely immoral and something I would never do.  I care that people are not harmed by someone else's actions.

So what does all this make me?  Am I really a liberal in conservative clothing?  Nope, I think I just looked at reality and saw something lacking in absolutist views.  Life isn't one side or the other.  It is constantly reevaluating and realizing that sometimes you are wrong and things are far from black and white.

GOP "War on Women"

I am sure everyone has heard about the "war on women."  The one where a lot of women on the left claim that republicans want to take away their birth control and force them to give birth to tons of children.  Obama wanted to make it required for all employers to provide coverage for birth control.  This included religious organization, many of which were opposed to covering birth control as per their beliefs.  Thankfully, Obama backed down and allowed them to be excluded.  I don't blame Catholics for being angry, I would be angry too if I had to pay for something I found to be morally objectionable.

Now, for those on the left, mainly feminists, birth control is viewed as a right.  They often use this to appeal to pro lifers, by saying that if conservatives would help make birth control more available then the abortion rate would go down.  Nice thought, but I am looking at the wider picture here.  Nobody has a right to have sex.  Sure, do things happen?  Yes, they do but that does not excuse us.  People make bad choices and end up getting pregnant when they had no intentions of that happening.  Truth is when opposite sex people have sex there is always a chance of pregnancy, always.  It doesn't matter if the people use two types of birth control at the same time.  The possibility remains.

Really this all boils down to the issue of personal responsibility.  If someone is insistent that they are going to engage in an activity that could lead to pregnancy when they do not want that outcome then they must take steps to reduce this risk, while recognizing that this is still a possibility.  Hey, liberals are always begging that we stay out of their bedroom so I figure I shouldn't get too involved by paying for their birth control, and forcing employers to pay for their birth control.

As a side note, I see no problem with insurance companies covering birth control for medical reasons, but if someone just wants to prevent pregnancy then I say pony up the money or well everyone knows the other suggestion...

Why I Will Never Be a "Good" Christian

Wait...this is not as depressing as it sounds.

There are some reasons why according to some I will never be a good Christian.  I listen to secular music.  I occasionally drink a wine cooler.  Talk about some Christian subjects do not excite me (such as "end times" stuff).  In a weird way it sends my anxiety level up.  I don't actively try to convert people unless the subject comes up and even then I prefer to have a conversation and listen to the person.  I think that sometimes we miss the point of treating people as individuals loved by God.  So what does all this make me?  Someone who has faith in Christ but someone who is human.

I am opinionated.  I check everything I hear, even if it comes from a Christian source.  I believe that God expects me to discern right from wrong not just follow the teaching of another human.  I don't believe that following more rules makes me more a better person, if not done in the right spirit.  I can never prove to God that I deserve his love.  Truth is none of us are deserving of that.

I could never become a hardcore Christian that shuns society.  I believe that I make my biggest impacts on society when I am actually participating in society.  When I did Habitat for Humanity I experienced God more in doing that than I ever have trying to live a strict Christian life, with all the "rules."  I finally knew what it was love your neighbor in action.

Although I am far from an ideal, striving is my goal.  My faith does waiver at times.  I have never lost faith even during times when it was weak.  There was a strange sense that God wanted me back.  I can't describe faith as something that I generated because there were times in my life when God was the one pulling me back.  I couldn't bear the thought of never communicating with God again.  When I read the Gospels I knew those were for me.

Sure I don't put up Christian facebook statuses everyday or try to convert everyone I meet, but I am not looking to be a "good" Christian.  There is no such thing.  I may listen to secular music and drink wine coolers but I have faith, although imperfect, that I couldn't stay away from God if I wanted to (and I wouldn't!).  There are no "good" Christians.  There are only those that put their faith in Christ and live their lives according to that.  Faith is something that is only real when you apply it to real life.

To me this means that my decisions are based upon what God would want.  Everyday I pray for the strength to do the right thing no matter the situation and everyday I fail in some way.  This is not meant to be discouraging but rather shows the mercy that God has upon us.  Everyday I ask for guidance in my decisions and how I can be a Christian to those around me.  I will never forget the time someone told me that I the first "real" Christian that had met because I spent more time caring rather than condemning.  Of course, I can only do this by the grace of God but sometimes I recall that when I struggle in my faith.  I hope that they remember that when they meet another Christian and it will help them to see a small portion of the love of God.

Well, there you have it.  I am not a "good" Christian.  I don't follow all the rules.  All I know is God loves me and everyone else and my sins have been taken care of.  All I have to do is have faith, which God supplies me with everyday.

Snow Update and Myths about Conservatives

Well, the big "nor'easter" was a total fail.  Our predicted 4-6 inches of snow was more like an inch, and is already melting.  The less snow, the less I have to shovel!

Now to my real point.  Myths about conservatives.

Myth 1: Conservatives are racist
Truth: Conservatives want race to become less of an issue.  When it comes to affirmative action, we view that as increasing the focus on race rather than merit.  We want a system where everyone can succeed based on their qualifications.  The most level playing field is one where, as Martin Luther King Jr. would say: "not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Or in this case,  qualifications.    

Myth 2: We don't care about the poor.
Truth: Conservatives don't want more government involved in people's lives and yes that means less welfare.  We believe that handing people money does not solve the problem.  People must be provided with jobs and have the incentive to go after those jobs.  When welfare in some states pays more than minimum wage jobs, we have a problem.  We believe that people want to be self-sufficient and are capable of bettering themselves.  Of course, conservatives want a safety net, and conservatives are big supporters of private charities that help people to get back on their feet.  In fact, even the nytimes has to admit that conservatives are more charitable!

Myth 3: We want a Christian theocracy
Truth: Yes Christians are more likely to be conservative, so maybe this is where this myth stems from?  Conservatives have always been champions of religious freedom.  Liberals are the ones that want to restrict religion by taking it out of everyday public life.  Such as the extremists that want to take "under God" out of the pledge of allegiance and take "In God We Trust" off of our money.  Many of these people are atheists that want to take away the freedom of everyone else to openly practice their religion.

Myth 4: Conservatives are against women's rights
Truth: Oh yes, the old stereotype about conservatives wanting women to stay in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.  How is it then that females are entering the GOP race for president?  It seems it is liberals that want to limit women.  They are the ones that put down stay at home moms, and call it "oppressive."  Conservative believe that having a strong family means that wives and mothers are very important for this country.  The things that have become women's rights are actually very destructive.  Things like abortion, sexual "freedom", and the right to be a single mother.  Conservatives believe in the rights of women to be respected for being wives, mothers, and yes whatever else they choose.

Myth 5: Conservatives are against immigration
Truth: This relates back to the first one.  Conservatives are against illegal immigration because of the fact that it reflects poorly upon those who came here legally.  We are concerned about the safety of our country and want to know who is coming in and out.  We want to keep our jobs and benefits for our citizens so we can have a strong country.  Once someone becomes a legal citizen they are an American, period.

Those were the ones that came to mind.  There are ton more and I just came with some new blog ideas, I think.

Nor'easter in October!

A little different post from normal, but I am kind of a weather enthusiast.  I am a resident of the northeast, so we are expecting a big snow storm.  It seems like we didn't even have fall, and now we are being forced into winter.  Of course, in the northeast we are not immune to long winters and lots of snow.  From the forecasts it looks like 4-6 inches, maybe more with possible power outages.  We will have to wait and see about this unusual storm.

A nice mix of fall and winter.  Bundle up everyone!

Occupy Wall Street

I thought this video summed it up pretty well.

I would also like to point out that many conservatives, especially tea part conservatives were against these bank bailouts just as these self-described socialists are.  I realize that not all these people are socialists or even far left liberals, although I would argue that anyone who wants to redistribute wealth falls into that category, no matter what they call themselves.  I have even read articles that describe the movement as conservative.  Obviously, I do not totally agree with that but there are some similarities that they would not be so fond of mentioning:
*Both are not happy with the way government and business have become intertwined.  Both believe the government is neglecting the needs of the people.
*Both have staged protests.  Of course the tea party protests were never this big, but both movements have been affected by sweeping generalizations.  Who hasn't heard: Tea Party= racist, or fascist and Occupy Wall Street= hippies and anarchists.
*Both believe that things must change because Americans are becoming fed up.

Of course, ideologically these groups are far apart otherwise.  Occupy Wall Street wants more redistribution of wealth while the Tea Party wants less government involvement in individual finances.  Now before you think I have grown soft about this Occupy Wall Street thing, I will say that I have seen some pretty bad behavior come from this crowd, and I am having a hard time seeing how these protests are actively doing anything productive.  As much as I respect anyone willing to stand up for what they believe in, I think this is the wrong idea.  The fact that they are being supported by unions to basically be homeless is something I find ridiculous.  They are asking for donations when there are legitimately homeless people.  I understand it is to make a point, but when they take from others in need I can't support that.

Surely, every group has its "bad apples" or those who do not represent the group well.  But my, oh my, have these occupiers had some interesting, shall I say, moments.  From invading banks to debating whether to police public sexual behavior these occupiers keep us "interested."  Apparently, they provide their own "basic medical care," and handle rape allegations themselves.  Sounds good.  For all the signs people didn't like at Tea Party rallies, I think this is worse.  At least the Tea Party rallies had an actual organization to them and were peaceful.  Wonder how long this will last?

Lying About Military Medals

That is right folks, there is actually going to be a court case about whether lying about obtaining military medals is a crime.  Here it is for your reading pleasure.

I will summarize, with my commentary of course.  A man from California is going around saying that he won the Medal of Honor.  Did I mention this guy is a public official?  The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals thought that his free speech rights were being violated, of course veteran's groups were outraged.  But it also clear that they think the guy is not right in the head.  Even better, the guy has a history of lying about himself.  He went around and told people that he was a professional hockey player and a police officer.  I don't see the problem with this unless he impersonates a police officer.  Thin line there, I know.

That is the very short synopsis.  Interesting case if I do say so myself. In the past, it seems that the Supreme Court has been split over cases concerning whether false statements like this are free speech  so I guess we will have to wait and see.  Of course I think this guy is off the rails.  Makes me wonder if there is some type of mental disorder here?  Of course, I think it is offensive at best to claim that you are a war hero when you are no such thing, but on the other hand the guy might be protected under the First Amendment.  Never thought I would see a case like this.

Thoughts?

My High School Self

Who was I in high school? Pretty much the same person that I am today (with a little more maturity I hope!).  Probably could have called me a geek, dork, or perfectionist.  I was that shy, reserved person with the good grades, yet totally oblivious to social happenings.  I had a small groups of friends that were sort of like me, although most were probably more socially aware, shall we say.

I was the person that always made the honor roll and freaked out about grades below an A.  Yet, no matter how well I did it was never quite good enough.  My friends were always so much smarter than I was.  Unfortunately, I am much the same in college.  If I don't make dean's list it is awful for me.  I know, so dramatic, right?  I kind of take this as being a part of who I am.  Perfectionistic, uptight me.

Socially in high school, well I think you can guess from the description above, I was in my own world.  Didn't really notice guys too much back then, and if I did it turned out they were gay.  What luck!  Being socially awkward, I guess these things were bound to happen.  Somehow I managed to make friends, despite my shyness.  Dating was out of the question, although I doubt I could have found someone that matched me in many important areas.  Conservative Christians are not as plentiful as you would think.  Yes, sadly I still have this problem.  Don't know why talking to guys is like rocket science to me.

The one thing I loved about high school though was cross country.  When I first started I was the slowest person on the team, not having any other athletic experience.  The people on the team were really great people and I felt myself getting better and better with every practice.  I admit, I was in a lot of pain for the first couple weeks of training, but I loved it.  I went on to actually place in a race senior year and made states for the mile in track.  I also did many other races, including once walking/running 35 miles.  Yeah that hurt.

What was the point of all this?  I guess just so people could get a better view of me from a personal perspective.  I am not just some heartless conservative ya know :P.

What do you remember from high school?

Protect Life Act

You know the bill otherwise known as "Let Women Die Act." When I saw Nancy Pelosi on CNN saying that I couldn't help but think how dramatic that sounded.  Despite what the left may say this bill would not leave women to die on the floor in emergency rooms.  The whole point of the bill is not to "let women die" but rather to control how federal funds are spent.

To put a few things straight this bill still contains exemptions for incest, rape and health of the mother.   This bill just makes it so federal funds cannot be used to cover abortion in elective cases.  Like it or not, taxpayers should not have to cover elective medical procedures, especially ones they may find immoral.  I totally back not having federal funding for abortion.

Further more, I think it is great that this bill does not allow federal funds to go towards health care plans that would cover abortions, except in the cases mentioned above.  Also, it allows for physicians to maintain their own personal beliefs on abortion.  A physician should never be forced to perform a procedure they would have ethical and/or moral opposition to.

The bill also states that the insurers must provide the same coverage they would have otherwise, only without the elective abortion coverage.  So it's not like people are going to get ripped off on actual healthcare because of this bill.  If anything, this bill protects people's health and yes women's health without paying for not medically necessary abortions.

As far as pro-life legislation goes this is a bill that I could support.  I think that it is both fiscally and morally responsible, no matter what Nancy Pelosi says.  Obama says that he will veto this bill if it comes across his desk.  Kind of makes you wonder what happened to his promise that Obamacare wouldn't cover elective abortions.  If he doesn't veto it then he goes against his pro-choice stance.  Quite a conundrum he has there I would say.

Thanks to: http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2011/10/13/dear-nancy-pelosi-kiss-my-grits/ for writing such a well thought out piece.

A Little Political Humor...

How to be a good...

...Democrat:	...Republican:
You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.	You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread because people are evil and should be punished.
You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.	You have to believe that evolution is a myth (despite the evidence of biochemistry and the fossil record) but that Intelligent Design theory should be taught in schools.
You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese & North Korean communists.	You have to believe that there is no causal link between legal, easily-obtainable handguns and high murder rates.
You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.	You have to believe that unfunded arts and school programs are still subject to government control.
You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs.	You have to believe that global temperatures are completely unaffected by fossil fuel emissions, that the best way to save the national forests is to allow logging companies to cut down old-growth timber, and the best way to save endangered species is to allow trophy hunters and wildlife traders to import more of them.
You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.	You have to believe that homosexuality is evil (despite the fact that it occurs in nature) and that women should stay at home to cook and bear children.
You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.	You have to be against abortion but support capital punishment.
You have to believe that businesses create oppression, and governments create prosperity.	You have to believe that corporations never purposely hurt anyone to make money.
You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.	You have to believe that hunting requires an automatic rifle.
You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.	You have to believe that middle class income should be taxed, but capital gains and inherited wealth should not be.
You have to believe that the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.	You have to believe that war is an acceptable solution to any economic or social problem.
You have to believe that the military is another political porkbarrel for wealthy campaign contributors of certain politicians.	You have to believe that everyone should support the troops - except when it comes to pay or benefits.
You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.	You have to believe the NRA is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.	You have to believe that taxes are for poor and middle class people, not the rich.
You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E.Lee, and Thomas Edison.	You have to believe that Oliver North and Monica Lewinsky are more important to American history than Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.
You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.	You have to believe that affirmative action is wrong, because everyone knows there's no more racism in America.
You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and really a very nice person.	You have to believe that Ann Coulter is normal and really a very nice person.
You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.	You have to believe that the only reason supply-side economics hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and sex offender belonged in the White House.	You have to believe liberals telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and draft-dodger belongs in the White House.
You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.	You have to believe that all Americans should be white heterosexual Christians.
You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese government is somehow in the best interest of the United States.	You have to believe that illegal Republican Party funding by corporations is somehow in the best interest of the United States.
You have to believe that this letter is part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy.	You have to believe that the media are biased toward liberals, despite the fact that all the major media outlets are owned by ultra-rich conservatives.

Feminism: A Criticism

Yeah, I am gonna go there.  Just so people don't get upset, I do actually understand the meaning of that word.  I understand that feminism is supposed to be about equal rights for women, but does it benefit women as much as it purports to?  As a whole, I think that the modern feminist movement is focused on left wing/socialist causes.  I hear all the time about how the right is "anti woman."

I think that women should be educated and even have job skills.  I mean I go to school and will have a full time job once I get out.  This is not the issue.  I also understand that some women must work full time for various other reasons that cannot be easily solved.  What I am saying though is that there are women that leave their families all day, especially young children.  My personal opinion is that young children should be cared for by their own mothers, if possible.  Of course, there will always be exceptions but that is the general point.  You will never have back the time with your children no matter how much you provided for them in terms of material things.  And for the record, I don't believe that women should be chained to their houses, and it wouldn't hurt men to help out with housework.

Then there is the issue of abortion.  Being pro-life I have heard all the arguments in favor of abortion.  This does not change the fact that I find it morally reprehensible.  Go ahead and call me "anti woman,"  but I value life that is not able to defend itself.  I think that as a Christian this is a fine example of protecting the most vulnerable.  And yes, I believe in helping the children after they are born, not necessarily in the big government sense that liberals often mention but helping is important.

My final point about feminism is about how they seem to embrace a sexually promiscuous lifestyle as a positive.  They want women to feel free to not have sex or have a lot of sex without shame.  The Bible is clear that the only time sex is permissible is after marriage with that one person.  Of course, I think that the world would be better off if everyone followed this, but this is not realistic.  Feminists support comprehensive sex ed and birth control but obviously this has not solved the problem.  I think what we need is a cultural change not more birth control.  If people viewed sex as a serious thing that needs great consideration then things could turn around.  People, especially young people, deserve better than having birth control thrown at them like they are animals that cannot control their urges.  Anyway, I could go on with this all day.

Well, those are just a few things that I think about modern feminism.  Yes, I realize that feminists are credited with giving me the right to vote, go to college and work but this does not change the fact that I cannot agree with modern feminism in either its social or political goals.

Anybody like to add anything?

What I Think About the Purity Movement

Anyone heard of those purity balls, you know the ones where the fathers and daughters dress up and go on a "date"?  Yeah I think it's odd.  Some of these girls are not even teenagers.  This is coming from a person who doesn't believe in premarital sex for religious and moral reasons.  Why the requirement that the father "guard" their virginity?  Can they not make a decision about this when they are older?
Now let's make one thing clear: I do not embrace the whole modern hookup scene.  I think that it is destructive and pointless.  I could go on and on about this but the point is that the purity balls are an extreme swing in the other direction.  I have nothing against purity pledges but they are not necessary.  This is something someone must have a desire to do.  No authority figure can make you follow through with something if it is not in your will.
Then there is the whole not touching the opposite sex before marriage if you are not related.  I know that Orthodox Jews follow this.  I would be interested if someone could explain how this is achieved?  As conservative as I am I have already broken this.  Does shaking hands in a formal situation count?  I guess you would just explain it to people.  Anyway, I guess the point of my rambling was that following God's laws about sexuality comes down to your desire to please God not that of your father.
Also, I do respect anyone who can do the no touching thing, I applaud you, having never been in a relationship, I cannot imagine what that is like.

Shyness and Introversion: The Same Thing?

I would like to start off with a resounding: No!  Although I consider myself to be both there is a difference. Introversion has to do with how much time you like spending with people.  For example, I have few friends and I like it that way for the most part.  I enjoy time by myself and feel tired after meeting with lots of people.  How can you find out if you are introvert?  One test I found really interesting: http://theadventurouswriter.com/blog/test-introverted-personality-traits-introversion-signs/.  Now if you are anything like me you can't stand large crowds, noisy, crowded places and people that never stop talking!  I think I will stick with my nice, quiet life thank you.
Now about the shyness, that is a whole other issue.  Meeting new people is sometimes stressful.  Not knowing what to say, being easily intimidated, making small talk can all be difficult.  I used to be petrified of public speaking, but now that I have been forced to do it, I have a reasonable level of nervousness that I can handle.  Calling strangers on the phone, not fun, but I have learned that skill as well.  Walking into a room full of strangers or dating are still huge challenges.  I consider it a good day when I can have a short conversation with a cute guy!  Hmm maybe this would explain my lack of dates lol.
Anyway, I guess I was trying to say introversion is something innate whereas shyness is learned and can be overcome.  I am sure that even if I weren't shy I would not be dying to socialize with everyone and anyone.