The Right Spin

A Russian photographer as has provided us with haunting images of abandoned structures throughout his home. There were to be many different things. Mighty industrial complexes, a children's camp, a hospital that never got a chance to cure anyone. I can understand the artist's obsession with these places. There's a timelessness to them. They speak volumes about the age from which they were born. I suppose you could call them modern ruins. We gaze in awe of the classical structures in Rome and Greece and the castles of the British Isles because they give us a glimpse into the past. This Russian artist gives us a glimpse into what our civilization will leave behind to be gazed upon hundreds of years from now. While facinating it seems less breathtaking than what the Romans, Greeks and other ancient civilizations left for us. Maybe there's a lesson in that.

NOTE: I'd trackback The Right Spin about this butthey don't have them!

So, being the computer geek that I am, I browse a number of internet forums. I believe I do so because I have a deep seeded need to piss myself off. That or I'm secretly masochistic - even to myself. Hmmm... that's one well kept secret. Anyway, I go to many forums and try to spread the joy and light that is the experience I like to call "Me". Often I never comment because doing so would only further cause me pain. Remember, it's browsing forums that fullfill my secret masochistic desires. Knowingly hurting myself is no fun.

So, I'm messing around with this cool web games called NationStates. It's a big ball of fun and I suggest everyone check it out. Anyway, after legislating my subjects my eye did wander about the page the same way it might wander about Monica Bellucci, so pleased I am with this game. And what did my eyes behold? A link to the forum talking about "12 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Is "Bad"". It then proceeds to link to a site that shoots these reasons down one at a time, or so the author of the thread states. I didn't look. I didn't have to. But, since I was already there I decided to look about. I had already decided not to post a though of my own because the number of comments had already exceeded 125 and I new a storm when I saw it. But, like clockwork, someone brings up God and the Old Testament for gay marriage being a bad idea. This happens to be a reason I agree with but I can come up with secular reasons as well if I have to (which I shouldn't have to... more later). The came the people saying "He's not my god" and so on and on. But I realized the conversation was doomed when someone called God a bigot. I mean, how can you have a thoughtful discussion after that? He called God a bigot. That doesn't make sense! God, any god, sets the ethical code His people live by. He is the final arbiter on what is ethical because, hey, He wrote moral law. So, how can the writer of ultimate moral law be a bigot? Don't we judge people as bigoted when they fail that moral law? Now, not just those who follow that law, but the Author Himself is a bigot. Seriously, where does the conversation go after that? Do you talk about puppies or something because any meaningful debate that could have been had is dead.

However, let's also talk about this whole Bible thing as a reason to object to gay marriage. I'm not going to debate what the Bible actually says about homosexuality but the idea that one cannot cite Scripture as reason for forming an opinion that one wishes to legislate. Often the reason cited by uninformed idiots (I suppose that redundant) is, as above, "I don't believe in the Bible or God" or some variation thereof. Well, Spanky, good for you! You can have the discussion with your Creator when you die. However, in this instance, your acknoledgement of God is not required. That right, a Christian is allowed to seek legisation on a moral issue derived from the Bible. Why? Because everyone else can regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof. And because you don't believe in my particular deity isn't a reason to object to me exercising my rights. That the Bible rejects homosexuality and as a Christian I reject gay marriage is just as good a reason as any secular one. Why? Because the Constitution says so. Can someone please show me where in any of our Founding Documents is it stated that a political ideal is only relevant if it's secular?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...

So, if Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, and cannot prohibit free speech why is religious speech less relevant than secular speech when it comes to politics? Why must Christians convert their religiously rooted political beliefs into secular terms to be accepted? They don't have to! If someone disagrees with a Christian's beliefs, well, too bad. They are allowed to express and seek legislation upon them as any other American. So, in the future, if you reject someone's idea because they're rooted in religion you, sir, are a bigot and are infringing upon thier protected First Amendment rights. So, if the arguement is gay marriage a religious reason for being against it is just as relevant as a secular one for it. It's called debate and when you start telling people what is and is not a relevant belief to base an opinion on you risk that same thing happening to you.

Feminists would have us believe that most women make 25 cents less than a man would doing the same job. This is bunk. Can anyone cite me an example from personal experience where this has happened and you know the gap is due to nothing more than gender bias? I work in a center with 300 other people doing the same thing I do. While men make up the majority of the people working there is no shortage of women as well. If anywhere you'd expect to see this wage disparity here but you do not. Everyone is stared at the same base wage (regardless of previous experience) and it goes up from there. Raises are issued by your performance as calculated by a number of stats generated by a computer. Even if your boss hates you that cannot affect your raise.

As this article presents, it's more likely that a perceived wage disparity exists simply because men are more willing to sacrifice home and personal time to make more. Whereas women are not.

Capitalism rewards the people more willing to sacrifice. But don't get the impression that a man who virtually abandons home and friends is doing a noble thing. An argument can be made that too many men sacrifice these things for the almighty dollar and women are correct in seeking a more balanced approach to work and home. But it's in seeking that balance that keeps women from earning their entire potential.

So, the questions is, ladies and gentlemen, what's more important: career or home? Studies show us men prefer the former while women the latter. Therefore men will continue to make more. Not because they are men but because they have no life outside their career.

Scott Kirwin over a Dean’s World writes an interesting piece on pacifism and non-violence to solve conflicts: It doesn’t work.

Now, that statement deserves clarification and he does a good job of doing just that. Pacifism doesn’t work against a foe who loathes using force. People like Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. achieved their goals because they acted against a system that didn’t oppress its people. People were free to express their opinions, practice their beliefs and demonstrate against the policies of the day without fear of government oppression. In regard to the Civil Rights movement in the U.S. there were moments of violence but in no way were these the official policy of the state.

Contrast this to the Cold War Era Soviet Union, communist China and even Saddam Hussein’s regime and history plainly teaches us that these state’s officially endorsed violence against anyone who spoke out against it. Pacifism, non-violence cannot work here because the state is more than willing to crush anyone that opposes it. The history of the beginning of our very nation attests to this fact. Until the Colonies took up arms against King George England cared little for the rhetoric coming from the other side of the Atlantic. It was violence that gave birth to peace and its violence that ensures peace thrives.

It’s a laudable goal to seek to resolve differences without violence but unless both parties value peace above all else violence will always be the only alternative. People who rule by force only respond to force and these is no greater force for peace in the world than a military backed by righteous indignation.