The title of this post comes from a Facebook post by someone I know. This person linked to an article like this one, regarding Romney’s position regarding eliminating taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood. The recent Democratic Party Convention spent an inordinate amount of time ranting about a woman’s right to choose to kill her unborn child. They had speakers, like the idiotic Sandra Fluke, to whine about the evil Republican desire to deny them contraceptives and abortions. It seems the left is heavily invested in defending one’s right to abdicate responsibility and damn it, the government must pay whatever it costs to do so. All that matters is that we can have sex any time with whomever we want and to hell with the consequences, all of which are to be shared equally by all, including those who act in a mature and responsible manner despite their own innate desires. So anyway, while I’m trying to decide how best to answer this question (as well as finding the time to do so whilst working over ten hours per day), the Weekly Standard was kind enough to run a four page article in their Sept 10 issue entitled, “Can This Be What Women Want?” It turns out that, according to polls, women aren’t all that concerned about using tax money for Planned Parenthood or demanding coverage of contraceptives. No. They’re more interested in the protection of their right to choose which job offer to accept, except that there are few jobs from which to choose. Damned if the ladies aren’t concerned about the economy and jobs. It seems abortion “rights” isn’t high on their list of important concerns. Who’d a-thunk it? Well, no one who buys in to the Democratic narrative that suggests a Republican war on women and uses Romney’s position against tax-payer funding of Planned Parenthood as an example. It seems, then, that the answer to the question is “Women would vote for Romney because they want jobs, a better economy, financial security to allow them to take care of themselves and their families.” Or perhaps we should ask, “What kind of woman would vote for Romney?” It would be one for whom tax money for abortions and contraceptives is a decidedly impractical, if not immature, issue on which to choose a candidate. Even if we were to buy into the notion that birth control pills are the best way to deal with non-birth-control-related health issues suffered by some women, they’re still only about nine bucks at WallMart. Before I go any further, I think it is important to point out very clearly that what is being discussed here is not outlawing abortion or contraception, but merely denying funding of these things with taxpayer monies. The Sandra Flukes of the world, AKA, the typical woman would wouldn’t vote for Romney because of his stance against federal funding of Planned Parenthood, demand that the rest of us join in and facilitate their immoral behavior with our tax dollars. Pregnancy is 100% preventable without contraception and thus, abortion does not require funding assistance from those of us who understand and recognize the incredible immorality of snuffing innocent life. And there exists no women’s health issue for which ONLY birth control pills are the solution. Therefor, there is no legitimate reason to demand that the taxpayer, the insurance companies or private corporations or companies must provide for these things. (As to the health issues where birth control pills are prescribed, how can the tax payer be certain sexual activity won’t still take place during the period such treatment is ongoing? Birth control pills do not prevent all pregnancies, but will cause miscarriages. In other words, chemical abortions.) I wonder also about the person who asked the question originally. What must the person think of women in general to suppose that this issue is one that must be a major consideration for them in choosing a candidate? So here’s another question: Why would any person believe that women must be turned off by Romney’s unwillingness to use tax money to fund Planned Parenthood? I like my women to be a little deeper than that.
I encourage my readers to read and compare two blogs from my lists below. Just posted on “Winging It” is a look at a passage from Acts that is often used to justify communist/socialist economic policies. At the same time, the most recent post at “A Payne Hollow Visit”, aka “Through the Woods” has another entry in the host’s ongoing series of posts looking at the Bible and economics. I would hope it is easy to see how one is reasoned and logical, taking cues from the actual words of the text…you know…what it is actually saying, and the other…well…doesn’t. One draws conclusions from the text and the other injects meaning into it.
I can’t knock anyone’s desire to understand Scripture, to uncover meaning and learn what God wants us to know about Him and His will and intentions for us. But it seems to me that there is only so much that is there, only so much that is intended to be drawn that at some point we can say, “I get it.” and from that point, further study simply cements the message into our skulls.
But then there are those who seem determined to find some secrets, or perhaps regard themselves as more able to divine deeper meanings. I think these people get themselves in trouble by supposing they are smarter than the average believer, have a better grasp that is beyond the common man and thus are no more than complete frauds on the order of a Pharisee. I can think of two in particular who visit here.
And then there are those who want the Bible to mean something that is more appealing to them than a stark reading reveals. We see this in the commonplace expression “God is love” that is put forth as the bottom line of Biblical teaching and all one needs to know. In the above example, we have a clear case of one’s economic preference being injected into anyplace the blogger feels he can stick the hypodermic needle. It is clear that he feels any place will do.
There is plenty we can learn from Scripture that Scripture intends us to learn without forcing meaning upon it. If one wants to say that It warns us against greed and the lust for money, I can deal with that, because it does. But it says so in clear terms without pretending there are underlying messages of this type in every other verse. Worse, the message that is so imagined by this particular blogger is used to support economic policy proposals that do not conform with the true message charitable giving and caring for the poor.
I cannot help but regard this type of interpretation as every bit heretical as any other unBiblical teaching. It doesn’t matter if the heresy is something that is actually taught elsewhere in Scripture (assuming it is). But injecting meaning that the text itself isn’t providing interferes with the message it intends to provide. One might even ignore the intended message in favor of the “underlying” message not truly intended. That can’t be good.
My informal poll includes only about a dozen confirmed respondents, a couple of which suggested they, in kind, polled others. I can’t count them as there are no numbers by which I can measure. But thus far, no woman asked has expressed a negative response as regards being referred to as “a babe”. There was one who, despite my attempt to be specific, answered as if the question referred to being called “Babe”, as one might use “Sweetheart”, “Honey” or some other familiarity. Another seemed to take it the same way, but had no problem personally. Unfortunate. But I will endeavor to poll more women as to get a better idea of how this horrible, horrible gaffe of mine is actually received.
I recall my oldest recounting how she overheard a student refer to her as “the hot teacher”. I don’t recall her taking offense. The idea is absurd. I submit that unless a woman is some lefty man-hating feminist wackjob, I won’t come across one who would seriously object to being regarded as “a babe”, which, as anyone who is not some lefty man-hating feminist wackjob would tell you, is no different than being regarded as “attractive”.
What woman, indeed what human being, would bristle at such a suggestion? Geoffrey seeks whatever he can to have me regarded in a bad light, and hoped this would be another way. I still haven’t heard from him as to whether his own womenfolk would find the description degrading. I’m certain that any woman who would so claim is being incredibly dishonest, or sadly worse, deflecting the implication that they have not, to their knowledge, been so regarded.
The poll continues. I’ll update here.
Having a bit of time before we leave for SC, I decided to spend it on a new post. I read this excellent piece at Neil’s blog, so I decided to steal it. It’s that good.
So much of what can be found in the article has been at least touched on in past posts here, as well as elsewhere. Walter Hudson put it all together.
For instance, points 6 & 5 touche on the goofy notion of our collective responsibility certain people feel whites must assume for past transgressions. And point 3 has this:
“Prejudice is not inherently racist, and loose accusations of racism based on isolated perceptions of prejudice are premature. Words have meaning, and we have different words to describe distinct concepts. Prejudice, bigotry, and racism are not interchangeable. While prejudice can be innocent and even reasonable in certain contexts, bigotry is the irrational maintenance of a prejudice in light of evidence to the contrary. Bigotry can be informed by a multitude of factors, of which race is only one. Racism is what we call bigotry informed by race.”
He then goes on to rightly conclude…
“These distinctions are important in any intellectually honest discussion of race relations. When prejudice, bigotry, and racism are used interchangeably, it is evidence that the discussion is not honest.”
How often do we see our leftist visitors confuse these terms, using them as bludgeons rather than to clarify truths? But then, intellectual honesty is foreign to our leftist visitors, so desperate as they are to demonize instead defending their position on their merits or demonstrating how they believe ours has none.
…as Elmer Fudd would say. Leaving for a long awaited vacation to Charleston, SC. Internet access unknown and not particularly a concern, though opportunity might present itself. I’m sure Parkie will stop by and poop himself like always, so watch where you sit if you decide to visit. He never cleans up.
I strongly encourage my readers to check this out. The post itself is goofy enough. But check out the comments, too. It takes an incredibly conscious desire to disconnect from reality to put forth such comments as if they reflect reality. If you’re up for a laugh (or maybe a good cry considering actual people claiming to be educated are making the comments), you’ll get one there.
I saw this on Yahoo today and had to comment. This Greek goddess (as in “babe-alicious”) was banned from Olympic competition for a tweet that went something like this: with all the Africans, at least the West Nile mosquito will have homemade meals.
Really? That’s racist? How exactly? Where is the Nile located? Isn’t it in Africa? So if the mosquitoes in question are of the same location as Africans, and mosquitoes dine on blood of people (among other species), wouldn’t an African qualify as home cookin’ to the mosquitoes from Africa? And what of the white Africans? Aren’t they being slighted by the assumption that an African automatically must be a black person? Can we please cut this racist crap from our collective mentality, PLEASE!
The fact is that there are far too many who insist on racism’s existence, that demand it continue and that there must be racists to feed their sad and desperate quest for significance. It’s getting to the point where actual racists are more tolerable than the race-baiters of the world. And THAT is sad.
For all that is wrong with true racism (and that is that there is nothing right about it), the race-baiters are far worse. Racists are at least sincere in their misguided belief of their superiority (or the other guy’s inferiority). But the baiters are self-promoting frauds who don’t care if their targets are actual racists or not in their attempt to inflate their value to society. Stay tuned as race-baiting lefties are likely to comment.
My Sunday edition of the Daily Herald carried an opinion piece by liberal chuckle head, Eugene Robinson. This rabid lefty is safe bet to vomit the typical lefty nonsense and falsehoods put forth laughably as logic and reason.
In this piece he states “The Republican-led crusade for voter ID laws is revealed as a cynical ploy to disenfranchise as many likely Democratic voters as possible, with poor people and minorities the main targets.” This is the stock line lefties use to demonize the logical implementation of ID laws intended to shore up the integrity of the voting process. From the fallacious column, he writes:
“Recent developments in Pennsylvania—one of more than a dozen states where voting right are under siege—should be enough to erase any lingering doubt: The GOP us trying to pull off an unconscionable crime.”
Can you say “Hate-mongering rhetoric”? He goes on to speak of PA House majority leader Mike Turzai as he addressed a meeting of the Republican State Committee…
“Ticking off a list of recent accomplishments by the GOP-controlled legislature, he mentioned the new law forcing voters to show a photo ID at the polls. Said Turzai,with more than a hint of triumph, ‘Voter ID, which going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania—done.”
Robinson states that the Dem candidate for president has carried PA since 1992.
“…the top Republican in the Pennsylvania House is boasting that because of the new voter ID law, Mitt Romney will defy history and capture the state’s 20 electoral votes in November.”
And why does this give Robinson the vapors? Because as he claims in his article, state officials presented figures recently that 758,939 registered voters of that state do not have a state driver’s license. Oh. The. Horror.
We’ve been through this before, but I guess Robinson feels it his duty to rehash the lame arguments in opposition to this simple and logical policy. His whine is that most of these people live in urban areas that are places where the poor and minorities tend to live. Like lefties everywhere, he apparently believes that the poor and minorities are people incapable of obtaining a photo ID. Here’s the funny part: On June 11, as reported in Human Events, Eric Holder addressed an NAACP convention in Houston and referred to these laws as “poll taxes”. Yet, one had to show a photo ID to get in to hear him say it.
Now of course, one who claims to be a serious journalist might want to check out the death defying and brain numbing requirements for obtaining these state IDs. Listing the incredible difficulties the oppressively impoverished and minorities of Pennsylvania must endure to do so might lend some weight to the argument Robinson makes and tug mightily at our heartstrings. So I went on-line and found just how impossible it is. According to the PA DOT, getting a state ID will cost a bank breaking $13.50! OH. THE. HORROR!
How bad do lefties think the poor have it in this country that they can’t get up so little in two years time, assuming any of them care to vote in the mid-term elections? Even between now and the deadline to register to vote in November (and many of these people ARE already registered) how many truly couldn’t get up that small amount in time to vote? There’s about fifteen weeks between now and November. That’s less than a dollar per week to save assuming there’s not a dime in the cooky jar right now.
Of course, is he assuming that all the minorities are too poor to pop for the fee? Is Robinson suffering from a bad perception of minorities? And he a black man?
Like Jim has tried to put forth here, Robinson believes there is no fraud. But going back to that Human Events article, claims that fraud is rare is itself a fraud the left tries to perpetrate on the public in order to maintain their voting levels. It isn’t that it is rare, but that it isn’t easy to detect without safeguards that an ID policy can provide. The articles states…
“The controversial purge of illegal immigrant voters carried out by the state of Florida challenged a mere 2,600 names, and swiftly found more than a hundred illegal voters, with half of them on record as having actually cast illegal votes in previous elections. Many of these people were found by the simple expedient of reviewing a list of illegal immigrants who swore they were not U.S. citizens to get out of jury duty, and checking to see if the same people were registered to vote. For an allegedly “rare” problem, voter fraud is incredibly easy to find, for anyone who actually bothers to look.”
Robinson plays the race card by suggesting the problem “seems to be that too many of the wrong kind of voters—low income, urban, African-American, Hispanic—are showing up at the polls.” He’s either a blithering idiot or an abject bearer of false witness. The GOP does not have a problem with losing elections fairly (except that the wrong guy won), and to suggest that this initiative has anything to do with restraining the groups of people that Robinson lists, especially when some of them could vote GOP, is reprehensible and all too typical of the leftists in our country.
I’ve been thinking of using posts or topics from the lib sites of my blogroll for post ideas here. I don’t know if I will do it as a series ala Agenda Lies or just do them as the mood strikes me. Geoffrey’s blog is a veritable cornucopia of ideas and I thought of doing a series of just his stuff, calling it something like “Geoffie’s Place” or something to that effect. In any event, I have to draw attention to his most recent post as it is so astounding. This guy desperately wants George Zimmerman to have murdered an innocent black kid for no reason. There is little possible alternative explanation for someone to post such nonsense after all the facts that have come to light about the case and the people involved since the first malicious shrieks accusing Zimmerman of being a neanderthal racist who gunned down an innocent and unassuming black child. The irony is that Geoffie’s “interview” with Martin is a lame attempt to mock the Sean Hannity interview of Zimmerman, where he has for the first time spoken publicly to defend against all the Geoffies of the world who passed judgement without knowing anything beyond the skin color of the two involved. You’d think this “Christian” seminary student married to a preacher would at least step the hell back at this point from his own racist assumptions. Even more ironic is that just two posts earlier, in the comments section, Geoffrey asks the burning question, “Are we loving people?” For Geoffrey, the answer seems clearly, “No.”