RecroCon

So New York is on the verge of allowing same-sex marriage.  Opponent, mostly evagelical Protestants(70% against), say that marriage is between one man and one women.  This is true, from a faith perspective, and is the reason that same-sex marriage will become the rule of the land.

To understand we must understand the purpose of marriage.  The first is sex.  Marriage is the method that we in the US sanction sex.  Sex outside of marriage, or fonication, in considered inferior to sex inside of marriage so we push marriage.  The second is childfren.  Marriage creates a social structure in which the man can take care of his wife.  The wife in turn only has sex with the man so that he will also provide the resources for the care of her kids.  In this way we see there are two parts to the marriage pact. The first is the man and women, which creates kids.  The second is the one man and one women, which provides insurance to man that the kids are his, and the women that her kids will be provided all available resources by the man.

So this is all and good, and if this what evangelicals lived then same-sex marriage might be defeated.  However, since from a practical persepctive evangelicals do not believe this, the same-sex marriage proposition has gained huge traction.  How do we know that most evangelicals do not believe this.  The answer is simple.  Ronald Reagan and marriage practices.

In 1940 Ronald Reagan married Jane Wyman and the couple had two children within the holy bond of the union.  In 1948 Wyman divorced Reagan.  This, in itself, is not the problem.  However, the divorce was not on the grounds of any christian reason, such as adultry, so from a christian persepctive Reagan was still married when a church married him to his second wife Nancy Davies.  Notice that word ‘second’.  Marriage is no longer between one man and one women, but between many men and many women.  Though they may not all be fornicating simultaneously they are never the less in a polygomous relationship.  By marrying so-called divorced person, the evangelical churches are condoming even encouragind and institutionalized adultery.  Adultry, the sin that called for stoning, is not even blinked at in the modern church.  This is not even the worst of it.  By allowing Reagan to remarry the church left two kids without a father.

The reader might be saying that this was one church making one mistake and is not representative of the larger evangelical community.  Such an arguement is false.  Recall that Ragan recieved 68% of the white evangelical vote.  Let me rephrase that.  The majority of evangilacals were ok with having an adulturer in the White House, 68% of the evangelical community who voted did not believe that marriage was between one man and one women, but a man could have as many wives as he wanted, as long as he was not having sex with more than one at a time.  The majority of evangelicals did not believe that marriage was to protect children, as they were fine with Reagan abandoning his wife and children, people to which he pledged to god that he would take care of.

And this tolerance for the abandonment of the family and adultery is not confined to Reagan.  Evangelicals are in full support of the polygamous adulterers John McCain and Newt Gingrich.  In the case of Gringinch the evangelical Baptist church approved of his abdonding his family and the Catholic church reaffirmed his right to commit adultry when they married him to his third wife. How can institutions that promote adultry and the abandoment of children havd anything to say on the issue of marriage. Sure at one time they were the protectors of the family, but now they are just agents of situational ethics primarily concerned with the procrument of donation through whatever means neccesary.

I am not one to just complain, so let’s look at solutions within the context of current conservative thought.  Clearly on of the important things to the modern conservative is the constitution, and the constitution has one thing that will help us a lot.  Namely the separation between church and state.  It is my belief that all this is caused by the intermingling of faith and law.  By seperating marriage based on faith and based on law.

First, churches must be allowed to marry how they wish.  They must be allowed to not marry who they do not wish.  If they wish to marry adulteres and so-called fathers who abandon their children, so be it, if they wish to not to marry same sex couples, then so be it.  It is, as always, their choice. There was never a law that made churches marry adulteres.  It was a choice.

The change I propose is follows.  Due to seperation of church and state religious marriages will not be sanctions for federal or state purposes.  Rather, the couple will simply have to file paperwork with the appropriate authority for whatever purposes are neccesary.  This can be as streamlined as it is now.  This marraige contract will be betwen two people.  It can include the concept of the modern prenuptual agreement.

Many will say this provides an impediment to marriage.  I would say we need more impediments to marraige.  At least 40% of marriages end in divorce.   Marriages cost tax payers money, and with this divorce rate it seems that marraige is no longer a holy sacrement, but a cover for sex.  I do not think taxpayers should fund ssex.   A civil marriage with appropriate paperwork can make divorce less costly to tax payers, and spell out the legal responsibilities of both parties much more concretely than a wedding ceromony, which all couples are free to have at a church that will allow them to so do

So I was reading this book, Obedience: Still the Key to Prosperity, written by Wayne Coleman.  It is a Prosperity Theology guide to living a Christian life.  To be fair, the book does not promise prosperity, and does give some due to the idea that Humans primary purpose is serving the creator.  However, like so many prosperity books that claim to be Christian it spends way too much time catering to secular norms rather than helping people live a Christian life.  It is the secular norm is oversimplify life and blame everything on debt.  It is understandable to the common person.  But it is not faith.

What do I mean? The book talks about buying insurance as christian duty or a man to his wife and children. It takes about how to calculate the amount of insurance, as well as the duty of christian insurance salesman.  It talks about all this in the context of a christian not be a debrtor, as when one is a debtor one is serving a creditor, and a christian is only supposed to serve g-d, no one else.  It talks about this in the context of buying only what one can afford.  For example, if one wants a car, and has $4,000, then all one should buy a $4,000 car.  As we will see later, this may or may not be true.  If the car is worth less than $4,000 when driven off the lot, then one still has a problem..

But in the context of only buying what one can afford, of not being in debt, something like life insurance is not defensible. First, life insurance is speculation not investment, which we will talk about later.  It is saying if g-d wills me to die, then here is something to take care of my family because I have not faith in the devine.  And, the money is there so the children can be raised without a father. I don’t think that christians believe that children are best raised by just a mother.  The father plays a critical if infrequent role.

I think that the proper advice would be to save money so if the husband dies there will be money on hand until the widow can find a new husband.  This of course puts some responsibility on the wife and mother, that is to be a wife and place the needs of her children ahead of her own so that will be able to attract a man if her current husband dies.  It also requires that the woman be willing to accept another man even if he is not as desirable as her first husband. This would be especially true if she were old and could not bear children.  Of course none of this politically correct, so the author probably did not feel he had the freedom to instill this advice.  Rather he gave into the secularists who would have a wife in control of the family raising the children on her own.

Also not covered is what would happen if the wife died.  What ‘insurance’ should the man have to protect himself against the eventuality that a wife is no longer around to care for the kids, to clean his clothes and get him ready for work, to be there if he needs anything, to be there in bed for him.  Certainly money would be buy some of these services.  A maid for the house, day care, most christians would probably object to a prostitute, but really money, like in the case of the man dying, is not the answer.

No, the only insurance against a wife dying is to have a candidate ready for immidiate replacement.  Unlike in the case of the wife who can wait a while for a new husband, the man has no such luxury.  A careeer can be ruined it he must take time to be the primary care giver for the children, which will ultimately hurt the children as he will not have the funds to care for the new wife who will care for the children.  No, the husband has an obligation to keep a number of women on the sidelines in case the woman dies.  Let me be clear that I am not talking about an overtly sexual affair.  I am simply talking about helping out a young girl by buying her dinner to make sure she has a couple good meals a week, taking her home and making sure she gets in ok, maybe staying a while giving her advice that only a worldly man can give. It might even be good to go on dates with the kids to see how they like her.  If and when the old wife dies, or no longer wishes to perform the wifely duties, the new girl can take over most duties until the wedding, and the slip in without causing the man any undue stress.

As I said, none of this could be said in the book as in secular society wives canno be treated as property.  But the book makes clear that the man is to earn the money and the wife is take care of the children and obey the man, as the man is obedient to g-d.  The choice between a secular life with christian friges and a faith based life is clear.  The choice the author makes is equally clear, and can be further show with his ideas on credit and investment.

To begin, let us differentiate investment and speculation, something the author does not do.  Investment is building a financial vehicle that has a reasonable chance of generating a profit.  This financial vehicle could be the development and sale of a physical product, loaning person money for a home, or simply funding an existing firm that wishes to expand.

On the other hand, speculation is about buying product with no inherent ability to make profit.  Speculators buy gold, land, oil, in hopes of generating a profit as the price increases.  Speculators also use arbitrage to make a profit in the small difference in prices of a product in different regions.  It is also speculations when one day trades.

Again caving to the secularists  the author does not differentiate between these two things.  We see this from the view on life insurance, which is speculation.  The man uses his earnings to pay into pool in hopes that something bad will happen and the family will get rich.  The problem with this is many, the greatest of this is the man is willing himself to die, a mortal sin.  Speculation is lack of faith in the will of g-d, investment is helping others to support themselves, make the creation a better place.

Which brings me to the only truly glaring error in the book, an error so great as it could be argued that the remainder of the book nearly worthless.  The idea that one should not be a debtor but should be a creditor.  The concept is valid.  We should only serve g-d, but if we borrow money then we serve someone else as well.  This can be true in some cases.  If this were always true, however, we would never be able to invest as we would set ourselves equal to the almighty.  The book said that if we borrow money we are to the creditor as we are to g-d.  Therefore if we loan money, then we are setting ourselves equal to g-d.  Clearly the author thinks borrowing money is bad but lending money is good, so where is the fallacy?

It is again is the lack of separation between speculation and investment.  If a man borrows money for trip or a TV or a sofa, then the man is saying that he is definitely going to live long enough to pay off these purchases.  If the loan is short term, and the money is in the bank, then that is ok.  If the man dies the bill can be paid.  But if the money is to earned, then the man is making an assumption.  It is not so much that the man is a servent to another men, but that both parties, credit and debtor, are engaged in a game of speculation whihch subverts the will of g-d.

But what if one borrows to invest.  What if one borrows only what a car is worth to drive off the lot?  Then there is no debt or servitude as the car can be sold at anytime to pay off the debt.  What if one borrowsto expand a firm?  Is this a debt? Yes, but it is an investment debt, not a speculation debt.  The creditor is banking on your ability to produce an income, not on your life or death.  If you live ling enough, the investment will pay off.  If not, it won’t pay off.

Again, the issue is speculation versus investment.  The differrnce is borrowing because one can’t afford to buy something, or  borrowing knowing it will not appreciably change your debt to asset ratio.  And, something that is not addressed in this book that seems to be more concerned with securlar and worldly pleasures than faith and relationships, it is knowing that you treat others in all transactions as you would want them to treat you.  Specifcally, if you want a good return on investment, then one should also pay a good return on your debt.  Being out of debt is not the purpose of life.  It is living in the name of the creator.

So NPR, the bastion of liberal, socialist, tax dollar stealing media, did a hacket job on Michelle Obama this morning.

In this story it was asserted that that Michelle Obama is one of the only First Ladies to push controversial interests, and in particular mentioned Lady Bird Johnson. This fiction reminds me of the effort to limit Hillary’s Clinton efforts and women’s influence in general.

The facts paint a different picture.  Lady Bird Johnson promoted Civil Rights and early education on her own accord. She promoted the the “Highway Beautification Act”, AKA “Lady Bird’s Bill”, which among other things attacked corporate interests by limiting billboards on highways.

Rosalynn Carter was equally controversial. She publicly supported the Equal Right Amendment, an amendment strongly opposed by many conservative and corporate groups due the perceived damage it would do to the bottom line and social structure.   She was one the few First Ladies that would appear before congress, and was not afraid to speak of what was happening in Cambodia.  Though the later  partially supports the story thesis that First Ladies are traditionally limited to helping the children, it also shows that helping children has wide ranging implications.

Then, of course, there is Hillary Clinton who attacked the basis of corporate structure by attempting to redirect medical dollars from HMO profits to effective medical care.  This won her many scathing talk show rants, very similar to the current rants again Michelle Obama.  The jist of these comments is generally that if people choose to allow harm to themselves or their children in the cause of aiding in the accumulation of corporate profits, they should be allowed to do so.

What Michelle Obama is doing should be much less controversial than what other First Ladies have done.  She is not trying to limit a whole class of advertising.  She is not trying to give right to whole class of people who previously did not have them.  She is not trying to bankrupt an entire industry.  She is simply trying to help parents raise healthy kids.

We know parents need help.  If kids see many happy ads for McDonalds, then they will want McDonalds. Parents will acquiesce, even if parent know better, because parents want happy kids so they get a happy meal.  If kids are taught that fruit roll ups are fruit, and video games are exercise, then what can parents do to redirect that message?

Really this is about promotion of dangerous products to kids.  Limiting promotion of  foods with minimal nutritional value to kids should be no more controversial than not promoting alcohol to kids.  Most sane people will agree with this, and most sane people will admit that companies would be better off  if they could build some brand loyalty when the kids are young.  But, despite what people want to say, we don’t let Bud market to kids. This is not excessive government control. Why is this not excessive government control?   Because we do not go and arrest parents that allow their kids to consume appropriate amounts alcohol.   In many states that is a decision left to the parent.  Foods of miniml nutritional value is the same issue.  If a parents want to feed their kids sugar, or dirt, or whatever, fine.  But why do we let firms promote such things directly to kids?   If we are honest we will admit that the only reason Let’s Move is controversial is because of who Michelle Obama represents, both in gender and race.

Conservatives, and liberals, have to move away from this fiction.  The world is not going to be different simply because we want it to be so.  For instance, we cannot simply say that medicine is safe and make it so.  If a medicine is unsafe, then it is unsafe.  We may say that for the greater good we have to sacrifice some children with unsafe medicine, knowing that the truth, though distasteful, is the best option.

In the same way, if we want to limit the power of women, we cannot create a fantasy in which the power of women has always been limited.  We have to start with reality and move from there.  Likewise, we do not have to make up stories of powerful women or escalate current example to super human status.  Great women have always existed, and we only need to name and state their accomplishments.

We live in a country that chooses to live with an oil economy.  This choice has been made explicitly and forcefully over the past 40 years.  For instance, during the OPEC oil embargo, President Carter gave the US an option to reduce the dependency on oil.  He was voted out of office and President Reagan scrapped many of his programs.  For example, in 1987 the speed limits were increased to 65 miles per hour.  Trucks were not included in average fuel efficiency standards, which lead to the proliferation of SUV.  Political policy was primarily concerned with providing cheap fuel for the average consumer, and environmental costs were minimized, as illustrated by the Sarah Palin chant ‘drill baby drill”.

Which is why Florida’s current whining about how it’s economy is now ruined due to oil is so pathetic.  First, I think we can all agree that without cheap gas there would be no Florida tourism.  If gas were $6 a gallon, many fewer families would travel to Walt Disney.  If gas were $6, many few college students would travel to Florida for the annual spring break orgy.    If jet fuel reached $100/b, possible adding 60 billion dollars to the expense of airlines, many few people could fly to florida.  In effect, cheap travel and widespread tourism goes hand in hand.

To take Florida’s complaint seriously, we must first stipulate that certain person have more rights to the limited natural resources that other persons.  What I mean by this is that Florida, the Gulf Coast, and the Gulf of Mexico has certain overlapping limited natural resources which may be exploted for profit.  Some may want to exploit the water to sell day trip for boats. Some may want to exploit the contents of the water, such as the fish or rocks.  Other may want to exploit the beachfront to sell hotel rooms.   Whie other may want to drill below the waters to exploit subterranean mineral rights.  By complaining about the oil spill, Florida is asserting that the person who exploit, for example, the beach, have more rights that the people who exploit the oil.  That somehow the builder of the hotels have a right in perpetuity to the beach, but the oil companies do not have similar rights to the oil.

There are two valid methods that the people of Florida might use to protect their livelihoods.  The first is government regulations.  A primary reason for government regulation is balance the conflicting desires of the citizens with respect to the exploitation of natural resources.  The government can say that this is how we can build hotels, this is how much we can fish, and this is how we can drill for fossil fuels.  A rational approach to balancing these individual needs, against the public conservative interest, can minimize the negative impact between groups.  Clearly we did not properly regulate deep water drilling, so shit happened.

But we cannot single out deep water drilling, becuase we must provide equal opportunity for all citizens to persue happiness. We cannot allow argicultural pollution which can damage fish stocks and then say that we will not allow fishing.  We cannot allow the unregulated destruction of wetland and then complain that the oil is destroying the wetlands before the real estate interests have the chance.  We cannot unallow unregulated development of the beach, and then complain that the oil is tainting the few pristine part of the beach that the developers left ot attract customers.  All of these would indicate that we are going allow cerain citizens unregulated access to profit, while other citizens are left with no access to advancement.

The other rational recourse of Floridas citizens is simple property rights.  We all have certain rights within the law to do as we wish on our purchased or leased property.  If I do something outside of the law, for instance violate sewage code, the governing authority has the responsibility to write me a ticket.  If my violation of the sewage code results in damage to your property, then you may sue me.    But what happens if I don’t do damage directly to you, but to your land value?  Can you sue me.  What if I burn down my house, don’t fix it, and the empty lot results in a downgrade of the entire neighborhood?  Do all the neighbors have a right to sue me for the value of your house?

This is the question we are seeing in Florida.  The oil has not damged anyone’s property, merely thier livilioods. The oil has damaged public property, and BP owes huge amounts of money to the American tax payer for destroying a natural resources, but private payments are not clearly rational.    BP can and should pay loss of income to private owners for bussiness losses, but the kind of histeria we are seeing from the private bussiness interests are unfounded.  The fisherment do not own the fish.  The country does.  The hotels do now own the beaches.  The State does.  Whatever reparations are due, they are primarily due to the state.  Unless a fisherman is more entiled to the fish than we are to affordable energy, we cannot stop drilling just to save someone who does not have the ability to change jobs.

The other night was the amateur night for drinking.  On this night people go out to drink not because they want to, not because they want to contemplate  their lives, or hang with other people, but because some has told then that they are supposed to.  This is sad.  When people do things because they are told to, live gets a little lamer and frankly, more dangerous.  After all, people who drink only a few times a year may be more likely to fall to the peer pressure of other more competent persons around them.

There are other amateur times that tend to make life less interesting.  Valentines day is one of them.  Imagine needing one day to show love.  Those of us who are pros know that valentines day is the least meaning day of the year, while those little random things done the rest of the year is what matters.

The same thing applies to the time between Christmas and Thanksgiving.  This amateur time has people, many who do not do any real shopping during the year, find themselves in an unfamiliar competitive environment.  An environment that is not about thanking the almighty for the bounty of life, or thanking the almighty for giving us a chance to redeem ourselves, but to get stuff by any means necessary.

Amateur nights scare me.  This is why the current conservative movement scares me.  We have people who aren’t dedicated to creating positive policy, but to be seen, get stuff, and have thier face on TV.

Take George W Bush.  A person with no real political experience.  The Texas Governorship is a position with very little power.  It provides experience socializing with powerful people, which is important, but not actually executing any real decisions other than the decision to execute people.  As such, when the US was attacked on 9/11/2001, then President Bush had no real crisis experience because as Governor, he really didn’t do anything.  That Bush was elected rather McCain, the more legitimate war hero, indicates that conservatives value the excitement of American Idol more than the experience of Meet The Press.

This was exacerbated when McCain, finally given a chance to apply his vast experience to the highest office in the nation, felt he needed to choose an amatuer cheerleader to make his campaign more exciting.  This, beyond all, shows the damage of the amateur in the kitchen.  What is the first thing Sarah Palin did?  Why, promote underage sex by parading her pregnant daughter in front of the national screens like the Virgin Mary.  Why did she do this?  Because the greatest need of the amateur is tv time, and they are so desperate for it.  Sarah then went crazy buying clothes.  Again, why?  Because the amateur knows that the time for free stuff is limited, and therefore goes crazy.  It is like those kids at the free buffet.

And now we are at the time of the Tea Baggers.  There is nothing inherently wrong with this group.  There are some things that are good. like the fact that they won’t go into my bedroom and arrest me because I am having more fun boinking than they ever did.  What is wrong is the idea that amaturs are being promoted, and these amatures to do not seem to have thier own idea.  Take the previous election where a tea bagger was elected.  Did he talk about bringing the Republican party from the brink irrelevency by looking at how we deal with education, immigration, and the laws that prevent bussinesses from higher the best people at the most reasonable wages?  No, he focused on voting against health care reform.  Say what you will about health care, electing a one trick amatuer pony is not what we need.  Experience is not an evil word.