Humility

I wrote a while back how life is humbling, it's not just baseball itself is humbling, as many athletes say.  Most God fearing people are trained to be humble, and as we face the trials and trivializations of life this often becomes the case by default.

According to Wikepedia (sure why now), humble is defined as such:

"Humility (adjectival form: humble) is the quality of being modest, reverential, even politely submissive, and never being arrogant, contemptuous, rude or even self-abasing. Humility, in various interpretations, is widely seen as a virtue in many religious and philosophical traditions, being connected with notions of transcendent
unity with the universe or the divine, and of egolessness.

Humility means being aware of the feelings and needs of the people around you and finding a place for them in your heart. Sometimes needs are short term, sometimes long term.

Needs? What are needs?

Needs can be something physical like food and water and shelter, or something internal, like an ear to listen to you, a hug, or a friend.

Most people who who work in the medical profession say they went into medical field because they love people. Yet do they truly have "empathy?" Do they truly have humility?

I don't see humility when I approach the nurses station and the staff is complaining about how they didn't get a raise for the year, and how the bosses are "ignorant" for not giving "me" a raise.

I don't see humility in that, because a person with humility would see that the boss didn't give anyone raises so all staff could keep their jobs. A humble person would jump into his bosses shoes and see what it's like from that perspective (although there are selfish, greedy exceptions of course).

I have humility, I would imagine, when I get called stat to do an EKG that is not needed in my opinion. The whole time I'm walking down there I'm thinking what I'm going to tell the irritating nurses who keeps calling me stat for non life threatening instances.

Yet, once I see the nurse, I see them as the people they are, just working to make a living. So, instead of complaining to them, instead of lecturing them, I keep my mouth shut and just do the job.

I may not do it with a smile, but at least I'm respectful.

Say it's slow at work and your boss says, "One of you RTs needs to go home." Your coworker is burned out and really wants to go home. Yet she says, "Why don't you go home, you have little kids and a wife who is sick."

That was a humble act in my opinion.

Some doctors in the emergency room will not consider the opinions of any other person in the room. They order what they want and complain when it's not done. They walk with their heads high as though they are better than everyone else. Humble they are not.

On the other hand, the humble doctor says, "Does any one else in the room have any ideas that might help this patient?"

Humility is sacrificing your own pride to lift up the other person's pride. Humility is sacrificing your time and energy and your own personal needs to make someone else happy.

Facebook
Twitter

Everything is a crisis these days

This guy obviously needs the assistance of Big Mother Government

So a snowstorm, or blizzard, was expected to blow through the eastern states, and the media talked about it, even before it happened, as though it were the worst storm ever.  As it turned out, the extent of the storm was blown completely out of proportion.  Yet this comes as no surprise by those of us who already don't trust the media.

It was so overblown that both Connecticut and New Jersey banned road travel, and over 6,000 flights were cancelled. The government told people in many areas not to leave their homes.  It got so bad that in Bound Brook, New Jersey, police stopped teens who were snow shoveling work.  They were told by police that they had to stop.

One elderly person in the neighborhood reported the incident, saying, "Are you kidding me? Our generation does nothing but complain about his generation being lazy and not working for their money.  Here's a couple kids who take the time to print up flyers, walk door to door in the snow, and then shovel snow for some spending money. And someone calls the cops and they're told to stop?"

One of the officers later responded, claiming that that the kids weren't ticketed for soliciting work without a license, but were warned about being outdoors in dangerous weather conditions. He said, "We don't make the laws but we have to uphold them," he said Tuesday after reading some of the online comments about the incident. "This was a state of emergency. Nobody was supposed to be out on the road."

Look, snow is not a death sentence.  We're talking about people who have experienced 5,10,15,20,30, and probably even 40 inches of snow before.  These are not inexperienced dummies we're talking about.

These are people who have lived through short and long winters for their entire lives, generation after generation.  They know how to handle themselves in a snowstorm.  They known when to stay in and when to go out.  They know what is safe and unsafe.  

Yet here you have people in the media, in government agencies, who feel they have to create a panic. And I know the reason for it. It's because when people feel panicked they act panicked. They rush to the stores and buy all the items in them. That's why all the stores shelves in New York are empty today. It's because the media and the government created a panic.  

This is progressivism at full steam.  This is how they get their agendas through to the people: by creating panics and wars.  When the people feel panicked, they call to the government for help.  

And even when they don't, the government assumes the people are stupid and only they know what to do.  So they tell people to stay inside, to not do anything, to shop for food and other materials that aren't needed, and to hoard them for a storm than might not even be close to as bad as expected.  

And even if it is as bad as expected, it's nothing these people haven't experienced before.  They will survive.  A panic is not in order here. But everything to these people is worse than it is, and it's for a reason.  

To make matters worse, weather men and women think that they have to stand outside in the conditions that are supposed to be to cold and dangerous for us just to prove that it really is cold outside.  But all people have to do is look outside and they can see for themselves that it's cold out.

They think they have to tell us when it's safe and when it's not safe to go outside.  Yet any person who lives in cold regions of the U.S., places that get snow every winter, knows when it's too cold to go outside.  We don't need the media, and we don't need Uncle Sam telling us how what we can and cannot do.  We are not stupid.  

Charity

Charity should be a principle good deed in life. If you have money and time that is. It's more important to your spirit to give than to build up your personal empire. It's good to give of yourself and your time. The greatest gift anyone can ever give is charity.

By chaity I'm not referring just to money. I'm referring to anything that you give: time, money, an ear, encouraging words, etc. Any act of humility in a sense is a charitable contribution. It's anything that makes someone else better.

You can make a difference in another person's life. Don't let bad events change you either. Don't stop giving just because bad things happen, because bad things happen to everyone. Don't close off your heart.

It's important that you care about the entire human condition, not jut about this and not just about that and not just about yourself and not just about your family. You have to give of yourself in a way that you make the entire human condition better.

And it doesn't have to be something big either. For instance, I'm writing this blog and I have kids and I'm a respiratory therapist and I help people. In that way I have made the world better in just a small way, or so I'm lead to believe. You have your own way of contributing.

Are you an RT or a nurse or an EMT or a doctor? Then you are contributing. You are giving a charity to each person you touch in a positive way. Every time you smile to your boss instead of getting angry at him you are, in a sense, giving charity.

You are one person in a material world. No matter how much you have, no matter what gifts God has given you (or the peanut butter ferry if you don't believe in God), share it. Because you can make a huge difference. Give to charity. Give of yourself in some way.

FDRs Second Bill of Rights

FDR was irritated with the Supreme Court for finding some of his programs unconstitutional, so he threatened to stack the Supreme court with liberal judges and he threatened a 2nd Bill of rights. He hated the separation of powers. He wanted to be a totolitarian dictator and force socialism on the nation in the name of social justice.

He did not like the Supreme Court overruling ideas and programs he decided should be enacted for our own good. And therefore he opted to change the Constitution itself.

Thankfully he failed at both efforts. If he would have succeeded, he would have had king-like powers, and he would have made the U.S. a socialistic nation.

Here is FDRs 2nd Bill of Rights:

1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation
3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living
4. The right of every business man large and small to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad
5. The right of every family to a decent home
6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health
7. The right to adequate protection from economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployemnt
8. The right to a good education

None of these are inalienable rights.  These are not rights. These are attempts to create socialism. These are attempts to create the progressive ideal world, the same ideal world Stalin, Mussoline and Hitler tried to create and failed.

FDRs Second Bill of Rights was socialism in disguise.

Richard Nixon truly was 'Tricky Dickey'

Republicans probably voted for Richard Milhaus. Nixon on the premise he would revere the progressive programs of the Lyndon Johnson era.  What they got instead was a progressive republican who put many of Johnson's programs on steroids.

When he ran for president in 1960, 1968, and 1972, he made gallant efforts to cater to the conservative base.  Yet once the election was over, he became nothing more than another progressive president, only this time with the little "R" for republican next to his name.

Earning the name "Tricky Dicky," he would live up to this name.  For, while he catered to the conservative base to gain votes, history would prove that he was no conservative.  In fact, here are 21 reasons proving Nixon was just another progressive/liberal president.

1. While he championed against it during his campaign, he did not end the Great Societ, instead he put it on steroids.

2.  He created more government agencies with the power of making regulations without the approval of Congress, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

3.  Medicaid spending increased by 120 percent.

4.  In 1971 he wrecked what was rest of the gold standard and devalued the dollar.

5.  When inflation ran rot in 1971, he naively instituted wage-and-price controls in order to try to control it.  His attempt failed to accomplish his goal, and proved what many already believed, that wage-and-price controls do not work. These distorted the economy and served as precedent for harmful interventions by future presidents.

6.  Also in 1971, he imposed a 10 percent import surcharge.

7.  He called for national or universal health insurance in 1974. He would have required employers to buy health insurance for their employees and subsidize the employers who couldn't afford it.  This was far worse than both Hillarycare and Obamacare.

8.  He proposed the dreaded Alternative Minimum tax, which was a minimum tax that wealthy people would be forced to pay.  What the minimum would be, and what defined wealthy would be determined by experts in Washington.

9. He unsuccessfully backed a guaranteed income for all Americans.

10. He signed a Vietnam War ceasefire that caused South Vietnam to be taken over by Communists within two years.

11.  He embraced Communist Beijing and dumped American recognition of Taiwan.

12.  He created racial quotas on federal policy.

13.  He signed the command-and-control Clean Air Act into law on December 31, 1970 requiring new power plants to use the best technology to reduce pollutants that the people who created the law think are destroying the planet. Essentially, many plants did not open because prospective businessmen could not afford the to to comply with regulations. Later on old plants making upgrades had to comply with the regulation, making it so many were forced to close rather than making upgrades they could not afford. The Clean Air Act is unconstitutional because it creates floors and ceilings on agency actions, something the federal government cannot do.  I'm not saying I'm opposed to clean air, because clean air is good.

14.  He created employment quotas, and made it so affirmative action was synonymous with civil rights.

15.  He tried to implement the Family Assistance Program that would have set a minimum annual welfare payment for all Americans below a certain level of income. It was blocked by a coalition of conservative republicans and moderate democrats in the Senate

16.  Spending on food stamps increased from $610 million in 1970 to $2.5 billion in 1973. Today 1 out of every 6 Americans depend on the program (47 million Americans).

17.  He created the Supplemental Security Income portion of Social Security, which constitutes a guaranteed annual income for the aged, blind, and disabled and has been a key component in threatening Social Security’s economic sustainability.

18.  He embraced Keynesian Economics at a time economists were learning that it worked to the detriment of the economy.  He was the first president to submit a budget based on the premise that the government should always spend as if it were at full employment in an effort to bring about full employment, thereby encouraging deficit spending as normal.

19.  He never submitted a balanced budget during any year of his presidency, something even Johnson did at least once.

20.  In 1972 he supported automatic cost of living increases for all Social Security recipients. This would make it nearly impossible to restrain the budget when inflation accelerated later in the 1970s. Nixon later regretted this decision.

21.  Funding on social welfare programs grew from $55 billion in 1970 to almost $132 billion in 1975. This caused many to refer to him, until along came Barack Obama, as the last progressive/liberal president, or the last president to create laws to perfect society.

Conservatives and libertarians voted for him, and the thanks they got was proverbial a slap in the fact. Liberals didn't vote for him, but loved him because they got many of their programs their candidates championed for.

Richard Nixon truly was "Tricky Dicky."  He ran as a conservative, even hired conservatives to his cabinet.  However, like FDR before him, despite painting himself as a conservative during the campaign of 1968, he was for certain nothing better than another progressive republican.

References:

1. Fund, John, "Nixon at 100: 'Americas Last Liberal?', National Review, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337447/nixon-100-was-he-america-s-last-liberal-john-fund, accessed 1/25/14

Things that are not inalienable rights

We hear a lot of talk about inalienable rights, those rights that cannot be taken away (also called natural rights of men). Yet there is also talk (as FDR once did with his 2nd Bill of Rights and as gay rights activists do) of other rights that are not inalienable and they refer to them as though they were.

Listed here are some things that are not inalienable rights:

1. A good job
2. A good IQ
3. Good health
4. Good vision
5. Retirement
6. Good genes
7. A good wife or husband
8. A good marriage
9. Handicap access
10. Social security
11. Green grass
12. To fit in
13. Virtues

14.  Gay marriage

These are not rights, although they are incentives to work hard and obtain a better life; although they are things that legislatures can give you and take away.

Unalienable rights are those rights you are born with, such as the right to air, food, shelter, choice, defend yourself, etc.

Why the push to get rid of religion?

What harm has religion done to anyone? Why do some people work so hard to try to get rid of religion in this world?  Prominent Cosmologist and theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Krauss believes he has developed a method that would eradicate religion in one generation. Why would he want to?

He said: "“What we need to do is present comparative religion as a bunch of interesting historical anecdotes and show the silly reasons why they each did what they did. Instead of shying away from it, we have to explicitly educate people to confront their own misconceptions.”

Rather than do this, why don't people just leave religious minded people alone. Every study ever done on the matter shows that children who grow up in religious minded homes are more likely to grow up to become productive members of society than children who grow up in non-religious homes.

According to the Heritage Foundation, "Why Religion Matters Even More: The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability," by Patrick F. Fagan, studies also show that people who believe in God, and who regularly attend religious services, develop morals and values essential to forming:

• A stable family life
• Strong marriages and stable marriages
• Well behaved children
• Less incidence of domestic abuse
• Less incidence of crime
• Less incidence of substance abuse
• Less incidence of addiction 
• Increased physical health
• Increased mental health
• Longevity
• Educational attainment
• Satisfaction in life
• Higher self esteem
• Increased confidence
• Decreased incidence of divorce 

Perhaps equally important, is that the morals and values inculcated by the Bible are "intergenerational, as grandparents and parents pass on the benefits to the next generation."

And it's not just the Heritage Foundation that reports such studies, as you can find them by any simple Google search.  It's also common sense, as people five thousand years ago found the advantages of religion and Christianity without doing a single poll. 

Has the nature of men reached a new low?

This is a video of Shoshana Roberts, an actor who described herself as 34 DD, as she walked through some of the sketchiest neighborhoods in New York clad in jeans and a crew neck t-short.  She did this for ten hours, and along the way she was heckled and harassed over a hundred times by various men.  The catcall video received over 12 million hits.

The purpose of the video was to show how our society is changing, how culture has changed, so that men have no scruples, and lack respect for women.  The video was meant to show that men behave worse now toward women than ever before.  However, those of us who pay attention to history know this is not true, that men will be men will be men. 

The video was made by Hollerback, and the woman had apparently been sexually assaulted more than once, which was the motive behind the video. So as she walks the streets for over ten hours she was the victim of verbal street harassment over 100 times in ten hours.  For the purposes of the video they culled 10 hours down to four minutes.  

So the purpose of the video was to show how low men in our society have become.  They wanted to show that this was new.  But it's not new.  This type of behavior by men has been going on since the beginning of time.  It's nothing new.  I wouldn't do it, but there is something about seeing a hot, sexy woman that causes men to say and do goofy things, and most of it all in god fun.  They wolf whistle and cat call and they mildly intimidate her.  They ask for a phone number and stuff like that. "Hey, baby. Looking good today, girl. Have a good day. How are you? Ooh. Ooh. Looking good."

There were a couple instances in the video where a man was following her for five or so minutes, and that was pretty scary.  But most of the chants and whistling by men was just men having being men and having fun.  So this video basically shows the nature of what men do.  It's nothing new.  

The effort to end this type of behavior is nothing new either. There was a movement after WWI, and there was another one in the 1960s and 1970s.  Those who are old enough might remember Miller Lite commercials of women scantily clad, walking through construction sites being wolf whistles at by men.  It wasn't new back then either.  

The purpose of the movements is to stop men from treating women as objects.  They wanted to force men to see women for having brains and minds, and not just beautiful bodies.  They wanted men to stop insulting women by only seeing a large breasts and hot legs.  

 They wanted to make it so men would  feel uncomfortable due to peer pressure and never do this again.  People who resorted to this type of behavior would be shunned and shamed by society.  And usually it works for a year or two, and then men forget and go back to doing what comes natural to them.  

There was an article in a 1995 issue of TIME Magazine that tried to prove scientifically that boys only acted the way they do because of the environments they were raised in.  They fight and have wars with their toys only because we given GI Joe toys, and girls only want to bake cakes because they are given miniature stoves and ovens to play with.  

So they did this experiment where they gave the boys miniature stoves and ovens, and the girls GI Joe toys.  What happened was the boys built forts and had wars with the miniature stoves and ovens, and the girls dressed up the GI Joe toys in different costumes.  So this little scientific experiment proved what most people who use common sense knew all along, that boys will be boys and girls will be girls.  

So, human nature is what it is.  We are as we were created to be, and no political movement can change that.  There is no law made by Congress, and no executive order by the president, that can change the nature of men.  It's not even possible.  

There are certainly those of us who have respect for women and wouldn't do this sort of thing.  There are those of us who would see such heckling as an intrusion of their space and that they shouldn't do it.  Still, while there are women who will disagree with me on this, there are women who might see such behavior as deeply threatening, but what I saw in that video was mostly harmless. 

Still, if I lived in Manhattan, if I had a girl and I lived in Manhattan, I'd encourage her not to walk alone, especially in some of the sketchy neighborhoods she willingly walked through.  I mean, that's just common sense.  

Stop Congress from controlling the Internet

In February, 2015, Congress will vote on whether they should be able to control the Internet.  The reason they want to do it is so they can eventually stop people like Pat Condell from being heard.

Condell is telling people that he does not believe what the media and the government are telling us about Islamic Terrorism.  Because the Internet is free and easily accessible, even people like Condell, with no political or media contacts, can get their opinions heard.

As Glenn Beck said on his Facebook page:

He doesn't have to march, petition, or set himself on fire to bet people to hear him. He turns on his computer, turns on his camera and meekly says how he feels. He is quietly saying that everyone who claims to be in control is not just wrong but a joke. And because of the internet, this one man, formerly a nobody, will have millions around the world saying - "you know what, this makes more sense than anything else I am hearing and reading from the elites. Maybe it isn't just me. The internet: a real and present danger to global power and lies.

There are people in Government who want the Internet to stay as it is, although there are people in the Government who want to control what is being said. They don't want your suspicions that the government and the media is lying to us to be confirmed, so they yearn to shut up voices like Pat Condell.

I am concerned for myself, because I enjoy sharing my opinion for free on the Internet.  As it is, Condell has an opinion similar to my own.  Even if he didn't, he should still have a right to say his piece.  The Internet is the best thing to ever happen to free speech, and the government should not make any laws to take this away.

An initial law may not do this by itself, but, for many, the ultimate goal is to control what information we have access to.

Beck concluded by saying:

Congress votes on regulation next month. Republicans and democrats both are for "regulation to make it more free." Spread the word. Call congress and tell them to leave the only real free space alone. Or I guess we can trust the same people who told you "don't worry, if you like your health care you can keep your healthcare." 

People who champion for laws to perfect the world only create chaos.  They made laws to make the healthcare system better, and it got worse.  They made laws to make the economy better, and they made it worse.  So now they want to make laws to make the Internet better, and we can only envision what that will lead to.

Here is why traditional marriage is so important

The modern definition of marriage, according to the Catholic Church, is for the good of the spouses and the procreation of children.  The idea here is that a man and a woman fall in love, they get married, and they create children and raise them to become productive members of society.  

Yet many people say: "No. Marriage is about love." 

The truth is that marriage is more than love. The idea of “being with someone you love” case fits nicely on a greeting card, but it also contributes to the divorce culture, because the implicit message is that when you no longer love someone, the purpose of the marriage is over. Adults' feelings will trump all, as they too often do already.  

If marriage were just about love, then any two (or more) people who loved one another could marry. There are some people who want to marry their dogs, cats or even pigs because they love them. If marriage is only about love, then that kind of leads down a slippery slope. It could become so watered down that there would be no point to marriage. 

In the traditional sense, people married with the implicit vow that they would stay married and loyal to their spouses "until death do us part."  

There are many examples of people who didn't necessarily love each other who stayed together because it was the right thing to do. One good example here is the wife of Benjamin Franklin. Lord knows Ben wasn't faithful to her, yet she stood by his side.

That's how people used to do it until the progressives came around and said, you know what, we don't have to be faithful anymore. We don't have to do things just because it's right. A perfect example of that is Bill Clinton. He just felt like getting a blowjob in the Oval office and he did just that. The heck with traditional American values. The heck with feeling guilt and taking responsibility for your actions.

Myth Buster: Half of all marriages end in divorce

Statistics show this cartoon is misleading.

There appears to be quite a gloomy view of marriage in our society about marriage, especially considering, as they say, 50 percent of marriage end in divorce.  But, according to livescience.com, this percentage is not even accurate.

The website notes:

It's a common trope: Half of the couples who tie the knot will be untying it before long. In fact, it's true that the divorce rate is about half of the marriage rate, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As of 2009, the marriage rate was 6.8 per every 1,000 adults in America, and the divorce rate was 3.6 per 1,000. But simply tallying those numbers doesn't provide a very accurate picture.

That's because the people who are divorcing each year aren't the same ones getting married; the comparison basically stacks up two different generations and equates them as if they're one and the same. Instead, a more revealing way to look at divorce rates is to calculate how many people have ever married and then subsequently divorced. These numbers peg the peak divorce rate, in the 1970s, at about 40 percent. [Marriage & Divorce in America (Infographic)]

The number has declined since, driven by fewer divorces among college-educated men and women, who tend to delay marriage.

So, you see, the divorce rate isn't as high as they say.

2 reasons I support an armed public

There are many people who believe that there are too many guns in America, including great actor Liam Neeson.  These people believe that more laws need to be created to keep guns out of the hands of the public.

And every time there is an act of violence involving a gun, they use this as a reason for more gun control laws.  The most recent example is the violent action that occurred in France where police officers are unarmed and ride on bicycles.  They also frequently use school shootings, where guns are not allowed. 

There are two reasons why I am opposed to gun control laws.

1.  Bad guys will still get them.  If you could convince me that guns would be taken out of the hands of every thug in the world, I'd be all for gun control.

2.  The Police State would control us.  If you could convince me that the government would never take advantage of an unarmed populace, I'd be all for gun control.

Look!  Bad guys will get guns.  If the good guys don't have them, and the bad guys know this, then there's little hope for the good guys.

Look!  The U.S. military will always have guns, because their Raison d'être is to destroy things and kill people.  When the public no longer has guns, who is to prevent some future thug from getting elected president who will take advantage of this to control the people?

You see, people who support gun laws are the same progressives/liberals (fascists) who think they can perfect the world.  They actually think that if they get rid of guns there will be no criminals.  So the logic that bad guys would still commit crimes in a gun free world slips right by them.

Logic says that bad guys would find a way to get their hands on guns. If factories don't make them, then they would.  And if all the guns in the world miraculously disappeared, bad guys would use knives to kill instead.  So are they going to try to get rid of all the knives in the world too?

The truth is that most people who own guns are law abiding citizens who have a natural right to protect and defend themselves.  Attempts to take away their guns solves nothing, and creates chaos.

The history of marriage

Marriage is a 5,000 year old institution that was not formed to create a stable environment for kids.  It was not an arrangement where a man and a woman could share their eternal love. The true purpose for marriage, according to Fox News, it was a way of getting in laws, of making alliances, and expanding the family labor force.

Historical evidence suggests that most marriages throughout history were arranged marriages to first and second cousins, and the reason for this was to strengthen alliances within the family.  This was necessary in order to keep the peace, but it was also necessary to create a labor force.

If a man married a woman who proved to be infertile, then he was free to dissolve the marriage and to marry another woman.  It was also common for men to have many wives, something that is considered immoral and illegal among most modern societies.

According to uscatholic.org: 

Jesus lived and preached in a world that saw marriage primarily as an economic contract. Jews considered marriage a commandment, but one intended to benefit the wider community by ensuring stability and economic prosperity.

Proverbs 31, today proclaimed at weddings as a poetic tribute to wifely virtue, would have sounded to its original audience like a job description. Can she oversee slaves? Does she understand viniculture? Can she spin both wool and flax? Not only were these skills worth more than rubies, they were far more practical.

By contrast, early Christian communities promoted celibacy and often scorned marriage, since marrying and establishing a household distracted people from preparing for the kingdom of God. Still, limiting the community to only celibate followers had some obvious drawbacks. Instead, early Christians outlawed divorce, polygamy, and incest.

Initially procreating was optional, but the early Christian Church was a "trailblazer" in urging people who were capable of procreating to do just that.  Regardless, guidelines among western civilizations encouraging monogamy were not encouraged until sometime between the sixth and ninth centuries.

During this time there was a battle between the Catholic Church who thought it was important to establish rules for how many wives a man could take, and kings who thought they should be allowed to marry whomever they chose.  Yet in the end the Church won out, and monogamy became the law of the land, at least among western civilizations.

By this time a marriage was considered legal and binding, but only between a man and a woman. Parents who had children that were procreated by extramarital affairs had to pretend these children were their own, or face serious consequences.  Yet by the 19th century people started to become increasingly tolerant to treating all kids as equals.

Prior to the 1500s the Church stayed out of marriage vows, and generally took the word of the couple that they had exchanged vows. After this time, and until the 1980s, the Church required the couple to wear banns indicating that they were indeed married, and had documents and witnesses.

Massachusetts was the first state to require marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th century most states required them.

The idea of marrying for love and sexual desire did not enter the marriage picture until about 250 years ago (about 1750).  Yet mutual attraction in marriage did not begin didn't truly begin until about 100 years ago, or around the turn of the 20th century.  It was at this time that family arranged marriages started to give way to love marriages, whereby a man and a woman fell in love and wed.

What played a key role in this transition was the transition from an agricultural economy to a market economy.  The reason for this was that, in an agricultural economy, parents maintained access to inheritance of agricultural land.  Since land was essential for economic growth, and the security of the family, arranged marriages continued to be of importance.  Yet this all changed with the market economy, thus ending the arranged marriage. For the first time ever people could marry whomever they chose.

The transition from monarchies and totalitarian dictatorships to democracies may also have played a role in the transition.  This was because as people democracies allowed people to utilize their natural right of free choice.  Over time people realized that freedom meant the right to choose whoyou spend the rest of your life with.

So, you see, it is only a modern notion that marriage is about love and sexual desires.

Myth buster: Values are worse today than ever before

Many people like to think that things, during the times they are alive in, are worse than they have ever been before.  Sometimes that's true, as we have never seen terrorism the way we are seeing it today, particularly from a non nation.  But in most cases, it is not true.

Consider that some people like to say things like: "The values of our kids is worse than it ever has been."

Something interesting that should blow the socks off people who say that is that people have been saying this, generation after generation, since the beginning of human existence.  Consider the the first person to say this in writing was Plato, and he was born in 428 B.C.

Plato said:

"What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets, inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?"

A few hundred years later, in AD 1274, Peter the Hermit joined the chorus.

"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint ... As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behaviour and dress."

You see, it's nothing new for people to think that morals and values are worse during their lifetimes than ever before.

The truth is that if Plato and Peter the Hermit said this, then it was probably said by philosophers before them, and it was probably said by people going all the way back to the beginning of civilization, and maybe even the beginning of time.  Proof of this comes from an inscription, saying basically the same thing, in a 6,000 year old Egyptian tomb.

So morals and values, particularly among the youth, are not worse today than they have ever been before.  People who say such, people who truly believe such words, have not studied up on their history.

5 myths about pro-life poeple

Kristen Walker wrote a nice article at lifenews.com called "Five Myths About Pro-life People and How to Refute Them."

1.  We're Brainwashed:  She said that most people are inundated by the pro-choice argument.  It's usually portrayed as a "sad but necessary thing." An example she gives is the movie Dirty Dancing, where young, impressionable people are exposed to a young woman who gets an abortion with a "dirty knife," and then a real doctor is called and the girl is fine.  Such pictures of abortion show it in a positive light, and have succeeded at "brainwashing" the younger generations to accept abortion as normal.  Most people are not exposed to the pro-life argument in this manner, and so people usually come to be pro-lifers on their own.

2.  We're violent:  This is an easy one to refute.  They say we are violent because pro-lifers have killed eight abortion doctors since 1973.  However bad this is, their side has killed over fifty million babies since 1973.  So it's clearly safer to be an abortionist than an unborn baby.

3.  We're religious, conservative, and old:  The truth is, there are many democrats who are pro-lifers, although they seem to be on the decline in Washington.  There are also people who do not believe in God who simply feel it is wrong to kill an innocent child.  And, to top it off, there are many young people who have not been "brainwashed" by the liberal elite establishment.  The truth is, more and more young people are supporting the pro-life movement. There is also a rise in the number of Catholics who vote for pro-choice candidates, so this myth seems to have no merit to it. Not all pro-lifers are religious, conservative and old: Check out Secular Pro-Life, Pagans for Life, or Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League.

4.  We're hypocrites if we oppose abortion but don't oppose the death penalty:  Well, I do oppose the death penalty, so there is not argument here.  I explain why I oppose the death penalty here.  Plus, even if I supported the death penalty you can't compare the killing of a guilty person who chose to commit a crime to that of an innocent unborn child who never had a chance to make a choice.

5.  We have an ulterior motive:  Common ulterior motives that we are often accused of are: taking choice away from women, stopping unmarried people from having sex, and making pernicious girls feel bad about themselves. The truth is, we are pro-lifers because we care about women and their children.  We want to prevent women from committing "legal murder," and we want to save the lives of their innocent children.

Boehner victory good for progressive movement

Sigh!  John Boehner is a good guy, and he's been a good leader of the republican run House of Representatives.  But that's about all the media has gotten right about his victory.

Let's use the Washington Post "Bohner survives leadership challenge from conservative members."

It was the largest rebellion by a party against its incumbent speaker since the Civil War.

Okay, that much they got right.

After he won, Boehner entered to a standing ovation and gave a speech calling this Congress to work together and end its gridlock. He finished with a stirring, though epically mixed, metaphor.

This was an accurate statement by the paper, but proof of what people do not like about Boehner.  The midterm election was a call for republicans to oppose Obama at every front.  Yet instead of opposing him, Boehner is calling for an end to gridlock.   When it comes to stopping Obama and his progressive agenda, gridlock is good.

You see, Boehner, and other members of the republican establishment, and the media, and democrats, think that Boehner should be re-elected easily because he was responsible for the republican landslide.  What they fail to understand is they are wrong.  The reason for the republican landslide was the tea party, or people who oppose the expansion of government.

The paper continues, and this is where it is inaccurate:

The effort to depose Boehner was led by a group of hard-right conservatives and libertarians who did not think the speaker was doing enough to fight Obama over spending and executive power.

The effort was not run by a group of "hard-right conservatives" because there is no such thing.   It was run by traditional conservatives and libertarians who want to prevent government officials from trampling on the constitution.

Either way, the media and democrats are ecstatic the Boehner was re-elected as House Speaker, because he at least will give them a chance to continue moving forth their agenda.

Boehner has a history of being afraid to oppose the Obama agenda on the grounds that he is afraid of offending people and losing votes for his own party, even though the mid-term election gave him the mandate to oppose Obama.

He is a republican in name only (RINO), which essentially means that he is a progressive republican and not a conservative.  This is exactly why the media and democrats are so happy right now.

Two things that shaped my life

Two things happened to me in the past six months that have made me a happier person, at peace with the world around me.

1. A priest telling me to read the prayer of Saint Francis
2. My decision to become a libertarian

The prayer of Saint Francis has given me a purpose in life.  As I read it every morning, it makes me aware that in order to walk in the steps of Jesus I have to put myself aside and think of the other people I will influence my the actions I take during the course of the day.  For instance, even as I write this I am making a difference.

For instance, many times I have wondered why I even bother going to work because doctors frequently order me to do that of which I think is pointless. However, Saint Francis makes me realize that my actions are making a difference in the lives I touch.  

Saint Francis made me aware of the fact that, in order to walk in the steps of Jesus, my job is not to be understood, but to understand; my job is not to be loved, it is to love; my job is not to doubt, but to have faith.  

My decision to become a libertarianism has allowed me to clean my slate of opinion and look at the world around me in an open, subjective, nonjudgmental state.  

This has helped me to reshape many of my opinions.  For instance, I was once adamantly opposed to gay marriage on the grounds that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin.  But upon review I have decided this is a complete misinterpretation of the Bible.  

Moses wanted his people to be clean and pure in order to prevent the spread of disease.  He was aware that abstinent and monogamous persons were less likely to spread disease, and so he preached these actions.  It was a purely preventative measure, not an excuse to abhor your fellow men who live different than you.  

In order to protect that natural rights of men, or the freedoms and liberties we are born with, no majority should be allowed to make laws to take away these natural rights from the minority.  

This means that government, be it the legislature or the Supreme Court, should neither make a law, nor defend a law, that forces abortion on the people, nor takes away the right.  The decision should be left to the people, or the states to decide, as it was prior to 1972.  

Libertarianism makes it so easy to form an opinion.  Basically, what you do is let the people decide, while the government steps aside.  The people are allowed to make individual choices, and the government lives with the chaos that results.  

However, it is by this chaos that the best ideas are formed.  It is out of this chaos that Thomas Edison was allowed the opportunity to invent the light bulb.  It was out of this chaos that allowed Bill Gates to start a business of of his garage that would advance the world to what it is today.

(Written 6/21/14)

Update:  I have to add a third thing to this list: Republicans winning the mid-term election.  This has made politics worth reading about again, giving me hope the progressive onslaught on our Constitution may finally be slowed and hopefully stopped.  

It's my birthday

Okay, I turned 45 today, what is already a perfect day.  My 6-year-old woke me up with a soft kiss, a sweet smile, and the words, "Happy birthday daddy!"

There was plenty of daylight, meaning God and the kids allowed me to sleep in. Laney and I walked to the livingroom where the Christmas Tree lights were on, and through the bay window we could see that plenty of fluffy white Christmas snow had fallen during the night.

I started a pot of coffee, filled two bowls with Fruit Loops, turned on the Big Screen TV.  Myle's appeared from the hallway with his sleepy eyes and messy hair, and Laney rushed to my side in the love chair, supposedly to beat Myles to that spot.

Myles, instead of fighting with Laney for the spot next to me, peacefully turned so I could fit him up on my lap.  My two youngest children were perfectly content watching 7D on the Disney Channel, both crunching on Fruit Loops.

Yes, this was already the perfect birthday.

I opened up my Google Chrome Book, clicked on my email tab, and a message popped up:

Johnny!! Happy happy birthday!!

We already have plans to go to church as a family, and then my wife is going to make lunch, and then I am going to watch the Lions beat the Cowboys at 4:30 today as the crem de la crem of birthday gifts.

So I'm blessed with many gifts today; no need for any store bought ones.  Still, I can't help thinking that a Lions playoff victory today would be a special sort of birthday present, especially considering the last one was way back on January 5, 1991.

Coincidentally, that last victory was also against the Cowboys.  I remember watching it with my dad at Uncle Cash's house.  After the game dad and I called grandpa, what started a tradition of sorts.

When the Lions win today, my dad will call me with a buzzed joy in his voice, and we will talk about the victory.  And, of course, both dad, and mom, will sing me the Happy Birthday Song.

It's already a happy birthday!!!

P.S. After the Lions win today I will update this post.

The conundrum of creating perfect bodies in an imperfect world

As a healthcare expert who gives advice to people with asthma and COPD on a regular basis, I highly recommend that you eat healthy and exercise.

I don't mandate that you do this, but I highly recommend it.  And you don't have to be perfect either, as Lord knows an occasional day of fun is also recommended.

So it's quite clear that I don't have a problem with people recommending a healthy diet and exercise, so long as they don't make it a rule, or mandatory.  I don't think people should have to be healthy, it should only be a recommendation.  It should be taught, but not forced.

Physicians thousands of years ago recognized the benefits of a healthy diet and exercise without ever having done a study, and modern studies have proved these benefits.  So it makes sense that people should be encouraged to create and maintain healthy lifestyles.

That said, our society seems to have gotten away from making recommendations in favor of making rules.  Instead of insurance companies recommending that we live healthy, they tell us they are creating the "incentive" that if we "promise to live healthy" our healthcare premiums "will be lowered."

But if knowing that I do not follow their "rules" means that I have to pay higher premiums that I cannot afford, then this is not so much a "recommendation" as it is a rule or mandate.  They say it's a choice, but Lord knows there's no choice involved.  They try to fool us, you see.

As a parent we do this often with our kids.  We offer them two choices, both healthy, and then we tell them that they get to choose what they eat.  Well, really we are choosing and making them think they chose.

My wife does this with me too, giving me two choices both leading to what she wants.  In the case of my wife "tricking me" I'm fine with it because I chose my wife and like her choices.

Experts in Washington now use this same tactic to entice (force) us to comply with their euphoric agenda.  They say they are doing it for our own good.  They are trying to take away the hard choices by deciding for us for our own good. The ultimate goal here is to attempt to turn us into perfect people in their perfect society.

The problem with this, I think, is that most of us are flawed people.  Unlike the elites who live in Washington, those folks who live sheltered lives with plenty of time and money for eating healthy and exercising, most of us live in the real world with limited and flawed resources.

Most of us have jobs that don't pay ideal wages, and so we are forced to live in a stressful world where we have to sacrifice A to get B.  For instance, we have to pay $300 a month for healthcare premiums instead of putting that same $300 down on a car payment or vacation.  For instance, we have to pay thousands of dollars in taxes rather than using that money to pay off loans.

So while the experts who make these rules may live sheltered lives whereby they can easily live by their rules (and in most cases they don't, although they expect us to), stress from the real world causes the rest of us to fail at our New Year's goal of losing weight and getting in shape this year.

Look at it this way, if I won the lotto and had plenty of money to spend on stuff, I could buy that expensive membership at the health club next to my house without flinching.  I'd have plenty of time to run on treadmills and lift weights.  I'd have the perfect body.

But, be it the way it is, while the ultimate body is always on the agenda, the trials and trivializations of life, many of which come up at the most unexpected times, generally make it so at the end of the year not much changes.

This is the year, though, that it does change. Yeah!  Yeah!  This is the year.  It's gonna happen.  Yep!