Monday, November 18, 2013

A Bundle of Staves is a Heavy Burden

The pastor of the church we visited on Sunday quoted a puritan writer (he didn't say which one). It was a quote I had not heard before, but it struck me as true and relevant (despite the use of the word "staves").
"One staff aids a traveler, but a bundle of staves is a heavy burden."
 My husband and I love to hike. If the weather is good, you can find us climbing some hill or trekking through some forest on most weekends. Often, we see serious hikers on these trails. How do we know they are serious? By their camelbacks, expensive boots, and titanium (or other light-weight metal) hiking poles. Some people use one, others use two, but I have never seen a hiker with more than two poles at a time (except for a father who was carying his little girl and her hiking poles). And that father is a perfect example of how even the original two hiking poles becames a burden (not to mention the ones his daughter had been using!).

In a day and age when we are told that if some is good then more is better, the above phrase tosses modern logic on its head. There are so many instances (outside of hiking poles) that I can remember where more did NOT turn out to be better. One that quickly comes to mind is a story I posted several years ago about baking with my friend's children (feel free to read it at your liesure).

What I really took from this, though, is the need to re-evaluate. I get easily caught up in what I want and sometimes forget what is needed. Here is a list of some things I need less of, and the "more" that needs to replace it:
1. Less talking (more listening)
2. Less complaining (more gratefulness AND patience!)
3. Less procrastination (more action)
4. Less anger (more kindness)
5. Less "things" (more contentment)

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Breaking Bad: Why I Hate It

When my brother-in-law began raving about this rather popular television show he was hooked on, I knew I had to check it out. After the pilot, I was disappointed and unsure what all the hype was about. By episode three, I was sure I never wanted to watch another minute of this supposedly spell-binding show. My husband didn't understand why I hated it so much, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that I just couldn't take anymore darkness in my life. My work-life is steeped in the worst humanity has to offer. Every day I see images of death and destruction. I listen to evil men, praising their "god" for the successful destruction of their enemies (of whom, I am one). Watching a fake story of dark life, sinking into further darkness, with no hope of redemption is not something I find entertaining. Despite my lack of desire to watch the show, my curiosity about the grand finale (Felina), everyone was so eagerly anticipating, got the best of me. I had to read the cliff notes version of how the series ended. What I read did not surprise me in the least. It was the only possible ending for a man who had become addicted to a power-high. I can appreciate that the writers did not force the story, but rather let the characters they created mold the plot. The pilot is rather unlikely (most high-school chem teachers don't think of meth-making as their first course of action upon learning they have cancer), but once that decision is made, Walt makes all the expected bad choices and the rest of the story follows accordingly. There are several pivotal points in Walt's story, where it seems that he can undo the bad and prevent the breaking, but his wavering does not last for long and his bad choices compound on one another. The first one that I saw was when he killed Crazy-8 (the first killing I dismissed as self-defense). Had he let the dealer go, I as the viewer, could have forgiven his past sins and seen him as a generally good guy who went through a short, yet insane lapse of judgment (of course that would be the end of the series, three episodes in, and that would never happen). Once he kills Crazy-8 though, it is obvious (or at least it was to me) that he had crossed a line he could never come back from. Regardless of my husband's desire for Walt's redemption, I knew redemption was not going to be an option. Revenge and self-preservation could be the only plot-lines throughout the five seasons that made up Walt's "life." The second decision point was when Walt had made his first several million dollars. If he were really doing of it for his family, he could have taken the money, invested it for his wife and kids - or at the very least, hidden it somewhere for them, and then disappeared off into the sunset, never putting them through the torture of knowing what he had become. His decision to continue making meth makes it clear that he was in the drug-lord business for himself - not his family. It was no longer a means to an end, but had become an end in itself. I guess the real problem I have with the show is how the writers WANT you (the viewer) to sympathize with Walt and Jesse. Never mind the DEA agent (who was MY favorite character). They kill him off and we are supposed to watch and rejoice that a killer is safe from the big bad "Fed." I got tired of hearing my husband defend Walt's actions and portray him as the victim. He was the victim of his own sinful desires and nothing else. Walt was the BAD GUY. He hurt his family and everyone around him. That is NOT love. "Love is patient. Love is Kind. It is NOT proud..." The writers successfully made good look evil and evil look good... and that is what I hated about Breaking Bad. In the end, Walt does die alone, which, I suppose, is Gilligan's nod to justice, but it doesn't seem like enough to me. There is no silver lining to this story. It is a sad story. And the saddest part is that much of it is true. Every day families are torn apart because of drugs and drug-related crimes. The Walts and Jesses of this world are a scourge on society. The world would be a better place without them.

Friday, March 08, 2013

A Life Worth Sacrificing


This is the most honest pro-choice advocate I've ever heard. In the past, it seemed that they always tried to canvass the truth with euphamisms: pregnancy mass, fetus, D&C - and their cliches: so every child will be loved and wanted, to save the life of the mother, to protect the emotional well-being... and on and on. But not this lady. Mary Elizabeth Williams comes out and tells it like it is. "I believe that life starts at conception. And it's never stopped me from being pro-choice." I was shocked when I read that. I have had so many debates with pro-choicers about when life begins, so it was kind of refreshing to hear someone from that camp admit what we've known all along. That being said, her stance is even more shocking. It is hard and cold and somehow unbelievable to me. Her argument is "All life is not equal." She goes on to say:
A fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always. 

Wow. Ok. I can kind of understand when they try to use the whole saving-the-mother's life dilemma. That would be a hard choice to make and I could see how people would fall on either side of that one. But when we talk of "reproductive rights," we are talking of elective abortions, not emergency operations or terminations. Williams says herself, "If by some random fluke I learned today I was pregnant, you bet your ass I’d have an abortion. I’d have the World’s Greatest Abortion." So, what she is saying is a woman's desire to stay skinny so she can look good in her bikini (or any reason, really) trumps a child's right to live?! I am beyond shocked. I am horrified!

Without the starting point that man is made in the image of God, made to have dominion over the animals, and given an immortal soul - once you get rid of all that, man is just another animal. Life is cheap, and Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest rules the day. It's odd that we do not take this to it's logical conclusion though. There have been a number of incidences where mothers could not deal with being mothers and so they killed their kids (Susan Smith is one who comes to mind, and more recently, Caylee Anthony's mother, even if she was acquitted). Why should these women be put on trial if their lives are worth more and their children's live were worth sacrificing? Is it because their kids lives were autonomous by that point? I mean, kids are pretty dependant for a long time after birth. At what age does their worth become equal to that of their mothers? Are babies of equal value once they are no long inside womb? Are they merely parasites until they break free of the host? And what other lives are not equal? Society often refers to certain types of criminals as "low-lives." Are those lives worth less? Maybe we can unilaterally decide to kill them too. Williams tries to argue her case from a non-emotional, logical standpoint, but she fails all tests of logic and resorts to "feelings" in the end anyway when she discusses how women feel relieved about an abortion, but feel grieved about a miscarriage. The moment emotions are employed to prove logic, the argument is lost.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Women are not Women, and Men are not Men... Anymore

My husband sent this article to me, asking for my thoughts and feedback. It was such a thought provoking article, I decided to post that feedback, along with the article.

I would agree that feminism is pervasive in our society.  I was drawn into it myself for a while. You can blame it on "Daddy issues" or "a strong matriarchal figure" or some kind of childhood abuse, whether physical or mental, but I would offer that it is simply the pendulum swinging the other way (as pendulums are wont to do). There was a time when women had to fight to be seen as equal with men - to be afforded the same opportunities. That time has long since passed. Women are now on equal foot in politics, in the work place, and especially in academia. Women have a higher enrollment and graduation rate in both undergrad and graduate degrees. I too wanted to prove I could do anything a man could do, AND do it better. It wasn't until college that I realized my attitude was not helping my guy friends. I was not fostering a spirit of friendly competition. Some of the guys I knew were adopting a "why bother trying" mentality. At the same time, there was an increasing frustration among my girlfriends about a lack of chivalry in the male population. The common refrain was "where have all the gentleman gone?" It dawned on me that we were fighting a battle that had already been won, and in going overboard we lost more ground than we had ever gained.

The author of the below article quotes Suzanne Venker’s article, “The War on Men,” to corroborate her own observations. I would like to partially disagree with the statement “It’s the women who lose." When the social balance is skewed, everyone loses. Women now have to be both Mother and Father, breadwinner and housewife. Children grow up among their peers in after-school programs, or in the streets. Men who have no drive within themselves, have no external factors encouraging them to be better. Rather, they are told they are good for nothing, useless, and unneeded. With little to live up to, they are successfully hitting the bull's eye.

Now that feminism has had its heyday, many of us wish we could return to a simpler time - a time when men were respected as heads of households, not because of their maleness, but because it is the role God created them for. We long for wives who are cherished and adored, and children who obey authority and speak with even a semblance of respect.

For those who have no moral or religious basis for marriage, it doesn't make sense anymore. Weddings are expensive; divorces even more so. Children are a financial sink-hole. And commitment is something that is passing away with our grandparents' generation. My Mom (and, I'm sure many other moms) used to say "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" Well, it seems today's young men have finally figured out the same line of reasoning.  There really is no longer a need for marriage (if you're ok with the what you see around you).


Young Men Giving up on Marriage: ‘Women Aren’t Women Anymore’
by Hilary White
January 10, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Fewer young men in the US want to get married than ever, while the desire for marriage is rising among young women, according to the Pew Research Center. Pew recently found that the number of women 18-34 saying that having a successful marriage is one of the most important things rose from 28 percent to 37 percent since 1997. The number of young adult men saying the same thing dropped from 35 percent to 29 percent in the same time. Pew’s findings have caught the attention of one US writer who maintains that feminism, deeply entrenched in every segment of the culture, has created an environment in which young men find it more beneficial to simply opt out of couple-dom entirely. Suzanne Venker’s article, “The War on Men,” which appeared on the website of Fox News in late November, has become a lodestone for feminist writers who have attacked her position that the institution of marriage is threatened, not enhanced, by the supposed gains of the feminist movement over the last 50 years. “Where have all the good (meaning marriageable) men gone?” is a question much talked about lately in the secular media, Venker says, but her answer, backed up by statistics, is not to the liking of mainstream commentators influenced by feminism. She points out that for the first time in US history, the number of women in the workforce has surpassed the number of men, while more women than men are acquiring university degrees. “The problem? This new phenomenon has changed the dance between men and women,” Venker wrote. With feminism pushing them out of their traditional role of breadwinner, protector and provider – and divorce laws increasingly creating a dangerously precarious financial prospect for the men cut loose from marriage – men are simply no longer finding any benefit in it. As a writer and researcher into the trends of marriage and relationships, Venker said, she has “accidentally stumbled upon a subculture” of men who say “in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married.” “When I ask them why, the answer is always the same: women aren't women anymore.” Feminism, which teaches women to think of men as the enemy, has made women “angry” and “defensive, though often unknowingly.” “Now the men have nowhere to go. It is precisely this dynamic – women good/men bad – that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes. Yet somehow, men are still to blame when love goes awry.” “Men are tired,” Venker wrote. “Tired of being told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren't happy, it’s men’s fault.” Feminism and the sexual revolution have simply made marriage “obsolete” for women as a social and economic refuge, but this is a situation that should not be celebrated by feminists, Venker says. “It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.” A cross section of research data from the Pew Research Center for the last months of 2012 shows the alarming trends for marriage and child-bearing in the US. One report published in mid-December said that the latest census data showed “barely half” of all adults in the United States are currently married, a “record low”. Since 1960, the number of married adults has decreased from 72 percent to 51 today and the number of new marriages in the U.S. declined by five percent between 2009 and 2010. Moreover, the median age at first marriage continues to rise with women getting married the first time at 26.5 years and men at 28.7. The declines in marriage are “most dramatic” among young adults. Just 20 percent of those aged 18 to 29 are married, compared with 59 percent in 1960. “If current trends continue, the share of adults who are currently married will drop to below half within a few years,” the report said. Moreover, the link between marriage and child rearing has become disconnected in the minds of the so-called Millennial generation, those between 18 and 29. While 52 percent of Millennials say being a good parent is “one of the most important things” in life, just 30 per cent say the same about having a successful marriage, an attitudinal survey found. The gap, of 22 percentage points, between the value Millennials place on parenthood over marriage, was just 7 points in 1997. The research found that Millennials, many of whom are the children of divorce and single-parenthood themselves, are also less likely than their elders to say that a child needs both a father and mother at home, that single parenthood and unmarried couple parenthood are bad for society.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Sigh...

Just when I thought I had an endless supply of subject matter for my blog, Punk goes back to school and Lazy Pants leaves (not sure if he moved out as he threatened the other day or if he is just staying away temporarily). In any case, all's quiet on the home front (for now, at least). Now that is what I call irony. I will not, however, complain. It is really quite pleasant. So I suppose I will enjoy whatever armistice is currently taking place above my cozy apartment, and get as much sleep as I can while it lasts.

Friday, January 04, 2013

Unanswered Prayers

I remember a friend of mine telling me that there are blessings in unanswered prayers - that is, prayers answered contrary to what we want at the time. It is amazing how often that is true. The job I begged for didn't come to fruition, but in its place I got more than I could have ever dreamed of. The guy I once thought I wanted turned out to be a loser, and instead, I now have an amazing husband. On the other hand, the apartment I wanted has turned out to be quite a challenge. But, really, that is not even what matters. The point is to content whatever one's lot in life - to be grateful for the blessings as well as the challenges. It is the single most difficult struggle of my life. I was listening to a song this morning on my ride to work... the lyrics are so beautifully put, I knew I had to post them. So here they are:

Daily bread, give us daily bread
Bless our bodies, keep our children fed
Fill our cups, then fill them up again tonight
Wrap us up and warm us through
Tucked away beneath our sturdy roofs
Let us slumber safe from danger's view this time
Or maybe not, not today
Maybe You'll provide in other ways
And if that's the case...
We'll give thanks to You with gratitude
A lesson learned to hunger after You
That a starry sky offers a better view
If no roof is overhead
And if we never taste that bread
~ Gratitude, Nicole Nordeman

Thursday, January 03, 2013

Landlady (pt 2)

Ok, so I finally met the landlady yesterday. She doesn't seem quite as much of a horror show as I had imagined. Actually, she was rather nice. It made me feel bad about giving her such a mean nickname. I shall henceforth refer to her as "landlady."

As a follow-up story to the last one, the much argued about bon fire took place in her own backyard. If she can't keep drugs and alcohol consumption from occuring on her own property, I doubt that she can control anything her children do. It's really quite sad.

Tuesday, January 01, 2013

The Landlady (pt 1)

I've not been very consistent in my blogging for a while now, and would like to remedy that in 2013. Part of the problem was a lack in subject matter. My focus was on my coming marriage and all that goes along with that. Most of you do not want to read about that. Inspiration arrived in an unlikely way. CJ has been living in an apartment with a horror of a landlady above him. Well, I now live in that same apartment. I could get mad, or just hate my living situation, but I thought better of it, and decided instead to write about the drama that goes on upstairs. Some of it is actually amusing. This will serve as the first of a series I plan to write.

Let me begin by laying out the cast of characters. First, there's the landlady herself. We'll call her Helga Beast. She is loud. Her regular conversational voice is loud, but she rarely uses that. She much prefers to yell... at everyone... for everything. When her kids aren't home, she talks on the phone (still yelling, most of the time). She can go from hysterical laughing to all-out crying in 2.7 seconds, and does so often. If it weren't so freaky, it would be impressive. Sometimes she sings along to the radio. Basically, the lady never shuts up.

Second is the son - a man of maybe 25 years with a couple of degrees, who seems to live home and works as a waiter at a nearby restaurant. We'll call him Lazy Pants. He's fairly quiet for the most part, except when he gets into fights with his Mom. Then he's a disrespectful brat (not that she commands respect in ANY way).

Lastly, and most obnoxiously, is the daughter. I suppose Punk will do as her pseudonym. She is probably around 19 years old, but she is such a spoiled child, one would assume she is MUCH younger. She fights with her Mom non-stop. Seriously. NON-STOP. If they are both home, we know it because they are at each other's throats. If I had a child like that. I'd disown her, or at least kick her out and send her to live with her father (a threat I hear often from Helga Beast). Once again, though, I blame the Mother. She has no idea how to get her kids under control and apparently never has.

Now that you have an idea of the players, let me relay a short story from last night - New Year's Eve.

Punk: [insert whining voice] I'm going to the bon fire.
H B: Nothing good happens at bon fires. All the kids will be drinking and smoking pot.
Punk: [indiscernible screaming and yelling]
H B: No. I don't want you going to the bon fire
Punk: [more screaming and whining]
H B: Well, you know that bon fires attract cops and you will get in trouble if you have pot or alcohol.
Punk: [intense screaming and fake crying]
[lots of screaming, laughing/crying, and yelling from Punk's friends]
Front door opens, Punk and her friends leave (presumably, to the bon fire).