A Ranting Blog

I have been fuming about politics again.

I do not really like this two-party system. I am not wildly crazy about either party. I do not like the way politicians are pressured to fit into a particular set of political views. Political bribery disgusts me, including that in the form of "pork barrel" legislation. I think if we had a few more serious parties, more decisions might be made based on their actual validity. For now, I'm all for having things as evenly divided as possible. Neither party deserves to have control of the decision-making process. Neither one should put on an act of righteous vindication when they get voted in, or of righteous indignation when they get voted out.

I, personally, find it hard to relate well to either party.

Take the question of killing. I am opposed to killing, be it killing unborn babies or killing enemies. War is not overcoming evil with good. And people need to quit thinking they have a right to pleasure without responsibility. Not that society as a whole will ever embrace those two ideas!

Or take the question of gay marriage. Let no one deceive you: the Bible is against homosexuality. Now, interestingly enough, it is not against men hugging or kissing (or crying) or verbally expressing love for one another. It is, however, against same-sex intimacy. HOWEVER--we have to understand something. Freedom of religion is not freedom of one religion to impose its views on everyone else. Basically, my understanding is that the only way to legislate against something is if it can be shown to infringe on the rights of someone else. Wherefore it is not popular to come out of the closet and admit to having a preference for little girls, no matter how intrinsically that may be a part of someone's nature. People recognize that even if such a preference WERE genetic, it would still be harmful to society. Thus, I think both popular sides of the question are somewhat hypocritical.

Also...

I am all for fresh air and clean water. But let's be honest--unless you are a "vegetable or mineral," you emit carbon. And the use of fire has always been important to mankind. So I think the whole thing about carbon emissions is way overrated. Yes, I am disturbed by the sight of smog hovering over a city, and if they can figure out a way to have that many people concentrated in one place WITHOUT getting all that crud in the air, why, more power to 'em. And I like the idea of alternative energy, just because you never know when someone might hit on something that really is vastly superior to the current status quo. And I definitely approve of the wise management of natural resources. But I'm much more concerned about chemicals in food and water supplies, drugged farm animals, uncontrolled erosion and irresponsible disposal of waste, than global warming or the ozone hole.

And it never ceases to appall me how dependent so many people are on so many drugs, and how aggressively drug companies advertise. I recognize that there are people with conditions that require either expensive treatments or miraculous intervention just to live a semi-normal life. However, I am convinced that a TON of medications people are on are NOT helping them. And especially right now I am pretty well disgusted by the marked preference at least some segments of the medical community show for doping people up rather than encouraging them to endure a little discomfort in the interest of long-range improvement. I'm not taking a position one way or the other about pain-killers in general. I'll say it's a personal decision. But our bodies do have some built-in mechanisms for dealing with pain (believe it or not), and giving someone a pain killer before they even ask for it is NOT responsible medical practice IMHO.

I am NOT a fan of big government. I believe there are essential services that only some level of government can provide. But I think government should strive to operate efficiently as well as effectively, and quit trying to micromanage our lives. (I know, it could be worse. A lot worse. But if we want to talk about the Founding Fathers, well, this is certainly not what the war of independence was fought to achieve.)

I think the rich SHOULD give to the poor, but not because someone figures out a legal way to MAKE them, but because it is their moral obligation. There is at least some personal satisfaction in seeing a need and being able to supply it. (And remember, if you are rich and successful it IS partly BECAUSE the poor are willing to work for that pittance you wouldn't dream of lowering yourself to.) But there isn't the slightest bit of satisfaction in being forced to dole out the cash ("or else") in the form of personal taxes, a big chunk of which may go to support causes that you couldn't care less about in the first place. And NO able-bodied person should be content to rely on handouts from anyone. The Bible is pretty blunt on that point: If you don't work, you don't deserve to eat. I guess there are people out there who are so incapacitated that they literally can't do anything useful for anyone. And there are people who work hard all the time and can still barely make ends meet. I'm all for helping people in those situations. The Bible has a lot to say about caring for widows and orphans, too. And I recognize that high unemployment makes it hard even for some who are willing to work to be entirely self-supporting. But helping people to have a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs, and food on their table is one thing. Enabling them to maintain a smoking habit, have a large-screen TV and a nice car, new furniture and name-brand clothing... no. And by the way, this is something parents need to be teaching their children. It would be nice if society would reinforce solid values, but teaching them IS primarily the responsibility of parents. You cannot blame the government for children who are leeches if you never expected them to lift a finger around the house when you were raising them.

That reminds me of a rant I could go off on about credit cards, pushy advertisements, and TV. One of the biggest parts of that rant is that advertisers can now happily target anybody, knowing that all that matters is getting them to use that card... after that, it's up to the credit card company to actually collect the money. If the sellers were the ones who actually had to get the person to pay, maybe they'd quit encouraging everyone to live beyond their means. The other part of the rant is the symbiotic relationship between TV and such advertisements, such that I am convinced that TV (and now more and more the Internet) is responsible for increasing discontentment and a sense of entitlement, even while offering the bait of short-term satisfaction in the form of entertainment which, of itself, is often disgustingly shallow, materialistic, unrealistic, and unholy...

But I reckon I've done enough ranting for now. I shall conclude this post and begin a fresh one on a more cheerful topic.