Like Button

Saturday, July 29, 2017

News Weakly - 7/29/2017

Waiting for more kits
Minnesota announced a "transgender tool kit" intended to inform schools how to make transgender kids feel safe and affirmed in school. I'm hoping that they're not going to stop there. Why stop at gender? What about the unhappy white kid convinced she is black? Are her feelings any less valid? Since we're not sure what sexual orientation means anymore, why stop at race? What about the bisexual kids seeking comfort and encouragement? No one seems to be looking out for them. What about the poor young man with aspirations of marrying his favorite anime pillow? Are we really going to limit love? Come on, Minnesota, step up here.

The New Face of the Military
It used to be that the military world was the military world and the civilian world was the civilian world. While civilians might become military members, 1) it was not certain that they would and 2) when they did they stepped into another world -- the military world. The military world was more structured, more regimented, and certainly less free ... by necessity. It would appear that this distinction is fading. President Trump declared that they would not be allowing transgender individuals to serve in the U.S. military. He cited "the tremendous medical costs" and "the disruption" as two reasons for this closed door. And in the older world the civilian population would have said, "Yeah, okay, they need to put limits on people and privileges in order to accomplish their mission and defend our freedoms." Not now. The ACLU and other "pro-LGBT rights" groups are intending to sue the government to force the military to accept the additional costs and disruption (among other things) in order to insure what they see as personal rights override the needs of the military. Oh, and polls say that most Americans think that transgenders should serve. Now the public will decide what the military should and shouldn't do. Welcome to the new face of the military.

The State of the Economy
Linette Lopez of Business Insider wrote a piece explaining how the Trump administration isn't telling us the truth about the economy. White House Trade Council head Peter Navarro blames China for depressing our growth since 1990. Linette is sure it is "the financialization of the US corporation — the process of putting shareholders first, often at the expense of workers and consumers." She blames Reagan and his "laissez faire economics" for that. Linette is pretty sure that deregulation is the problem and the result is the evil of less "income equality" (because the only good income is an equal income for all?).

Me? I'm pretty sure neither the Chinese nor Reagan economics are to blame; looks to me more like sin and greed. Linette thinks that the solution is government regulation and, if you follow the rabbit trail, something like socialism. I think the solution is changed hearts. But that's just me.

Beiber Believer?
So, I understand that Justin Beiber accidentally ran into a photographer with his pick-up truck outside of a church in Hollywood. He stayed with the man until help arrived. No arrests were made. He ... wait ... outside of a church? Rumor has it that Beiber canceled his latest tour to "reconnect with his faith". Well, we can just pray that it's so.

Tyranny Lives
William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, said, "Men who aren't governed by God will be governed by tyrants." The Oil City Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) paid for a public bench to be set up as a remembrance to service members in a public park. In an ironic move by American Atheists, the bench was removed because it "violates the U.S. Constitution" ... thus illustrating the rule of tyrants such as the American Atheists.

More Irony
So, most of you are aware of Richard Dawkins, outspoken atheist and staunch opponent of Christianity. His bestseller, The God Delusion, written by what Amazon calls "the world's most prominent atheist", asserts "the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society" with special emphasis on Christians, a book lauded by many. So it is intensely ironic that the Berkeley-based public radio station KPFA canceled his hosting of a live discussion on their program because he insulted Islam. "Yes, Dr. Dawkins, you do well to attack Christianity. Islam, on the other hand, is completely off limits." It's interesting that Dawkins is classified as an "Islamophobe" for his concerns about Islamic violence, but not one word (nor have I ever heard the term1) that he is a "Christianophobe" for his similar statements about Christianity. The latter gets applause, the former censure. Irony defined.

The Newest Human Right
In Oregon 15-year-olds cannot drive, smoke, donate blood, get a tattoo or even use a tanning bed, but Oregon just passed a law that allows them to get a sex-change operation ... without parental notification ... paid for by the state. Yeah, that makes sense ... in some mythical right-is-wrong, reality-isn't-real universe, I suppose.

More Election Troubles
The weekly news wouldn't be complete without something from the Babylon Bee. And what could be more timely than this latest news item from CNN? Jake Tapper is reporting that "The conspiracy goes much deeper than anyone expected. We’re talking tens of millions of people involved in this secret plot to make sure Hillary didn’t make it into the White House and to prop up Donald Trump as the winner." Beyond the suspected interference of Russia, it looks like millions of Americans colluded to get Trump elected and Hillary defeated. Go figure. At least, that's what the Internet says.
1 To be fair, since "Christianophobe" is defined as "A person who irrationally hates or fears Christ, Christians, or the Christian religion" and much of America today does not recognize hatred of Christianity as potentially irrational, you won't likely hear the term applied, unlike all the other popular "phobes" out there today.


David said...

The last time an outside group dictated the actions of the military, we lost our first war. I wonder what will happen the next time we need troops and they all decide they don't feel like going? The precedent being set here will certainly lead to a weaker military.

David said...

Why is Christianophobe an irrational hatred but Islamophobe just dislike? Aren't most phobias irrational by there intensity? I dislike spiders in my house, but that's not arachnophobia. What is with this arbitrary reassigning of meanings? Oh, right, sin.

Stan said...

"Why is Christianophobe an irrational hatred but Islamophobe just dislike?"

No, not quite. In modern terms an Islamophobe is one who has an irrational fear or hatred of Islam. You know, like thinking, "Their Scriptures to command them to kill infidels" and the like. Irrational, see? A Christianophobe would also have an irrational fear or hatred of Christianity, except in today's view all hatred of Christianity is fully rational, so there aren't really any Christianophobes around ... in today's thinking.

David said...

I looked up the definition of islamophobia and it mentioned nothing about irrationality, only hatred our dislike. I imagine the same would be true for homophobia as well since one can be labeled as such even if one has a rational reason to dislike it.

Stan said...

Different dictionaries, I suppose. The Macmillan Dictionary says, "an irrational animosity towards or hatred of Christians, or Christianity in general." The Your Dictionary defines Christianphobe as "a person who irrationally hates or fears Christ, Christians, or the Christian religion." The Runnymede Trust Report from 1991 was the first to coin the term "Islamophobia" and defined it as "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims." Merriam Webster defines homophobia as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." So, naturally, I thought it meant someone who has an irrational or unfounded hatred or fear. My mistake.

David said...

You would think it is those definitions, but with how quickly they slap people with those titles, they certainly are ignoring the irrational part. But, like you said, since most people don't see dislike of Christianity irrational, they certainly wouldn't see any rational reason to dislike Islam or homosexual sex. Leading back to your original claim of unfair labeling, and we are in agreement.