Down Time

Brief Introduction, in case you scroll right passed it

Due to the end of the semester and potential health issues, I have been forced to take a hiatus from this blog. Since I do have time now, I'll give my quick thoughts on some recent stories.

Michael Brown

Hobby Lobby and Entitlement

Introduction

I'm sure by now we're all familiar with the SCOTUS decision about Hobby Lobby, and by extension, other closely held companies. Some people, like Wil Wheaton (@wilw), have fantasies about Rastafarians, as seen by his retweet of a @JohnFugelsang. Or to better illustrate, Wheaton's nearly concurrent tweet says that "women need to incorporate, if they want to have things like 'rights' and 'freedom'" No educated individual should conflate such things as "freedom" with "you aren't entitled to a company giving you what you want."

Making an Example

Wil makes the following mistakes: strawman (attacking the ideas of rights and freedom rather than addressing the ruling); makes a red herring (he might have a point, but it's irrelevant to the case and how it was decided), loads the question (or implication, as if women have no rights or freedom at all unless they incorporate); and perhaps some appeal to fear or emotion. In a single tweet, especially with the tone of the other tweet mentioned, Wil Wheaton not only makes a complete ass of himself, but he shows the sense of entitlement I often see in social media.

Perhaps some reductio ad absurdum is in order. Let's say I'm working for a warehouse, as I did a few summers ago. I had no benefits. Likewise, in this pretend example, I sue the company, not only for not having benefits, but because I'm not being provided contraception, let alone something that is an abortifacient. Odds of success: 0%. Odds may increase if I was a woman. I feel dumber just for typing this. Women and men alike can work elsewhere if they don't like what Hobby Lobby or any company does or doesn't offer, including but not limited to,  pay, benefits, time off, and promotions. I am no more entitled to benefits at the warehouse than others are entitled to contraception. Note that this is not a legal argument, but a moral one.

Closing

A great irritant to me is celebrities who do stupid things like Wil Wheaton did. They step out of what they're good at, influence the masses, and are usually much less informed then they think they are. The issue isn't "women's rights." It's that people aren't allowed to follow their conscience. If you'll excuse me, I need to order a cake from a Muslim Bakery with a hot lady on it. After all, I'm entitled to it.

On Donald Sterling

Let's get this straight: Mr. Sterling is a scumbag. He's a lecherous adulterer, the poster boy of dirty, rich old men. To defend his actions, especially after his racist remarks, would be social suicide.

Right?

I have redacted this post because of the information that conveniently surfaced after Sterling was forced to sell his then-team. Apparently, he asked to have his conversations recorded. There was also the housing thingy.

Since Sterling was part of an organization, he had to play by their rules. In day to day life, one might call what happened to him the work of thought police. It contrasts a state of being with a state of doing.

Sterling couldn't actually keep "colored people" from attending his games. His state of being is racist. His state of doing wasn't much of anything. Still a scumbag, true. My point is that the moment we move from demonizing actions to demonizing thoughts, we land in 1984 territory. A racist who does nothing sucks, but don't lock him up for it. He wants to do something about it? Then hit him with the book. That's all I'm asking.

Lietz Rants: Abortion

Introduction

This summer I fell out of my habit of keeping up on recent events. Luckily I was able to find out what happened with the abortion bill in Texas. This was the most important story I had yet to fully follow. Once I read a few articles about the bill passing I was able to glean some thoughts from the comments posted on each. What I saw was mostly Leftist rhetoric and hateful attacks on the few who don't support abortion that posted.

As this is a rant, it will read more like a newspaper "advice" or "thought" column and I will not be citing statistics or studies. Google is your friend and frankly, I've still been attacked despite having all sorts of numbers and studies to support my point. Pro-abortion  people are often going on such assaults. Well, I'm mad as hell and now it's my turn.

The Bill

First it is important to note that the Texas bill raises standards of abortion mills, forces them to have hospital care at the ready, and makes adoption the first choice that workers are supposed to refer to (though this last point is fuzzy and I cannot pinpoint it). Since 20 weeks is even less than Roe V Wade's ruling, many are in a tizzy. Despite many alleged incidences of unsanitary and poor practice at such clinics, many are bemoaning that hospital care must be available. The list goes on.

The main, over-arcing complaint is that so few Planned Parenthood clinics provide abortions. This may be news to some, but regardless of a single clinic's services, the workers are instructed (and will) reference a woman to a clinic that will perform an abortion. Considering abortions are the moneymaker for PP this shouldn't be such a shocker. Check the tweets of @Defund_PP to find some material on the matter.

The Irony

Growing up, though until I was a certain age I wasn't told precisely what it all was, my mother told me if "woman things" needed taken care of, there was a doctor (OB/GYN) for such cases. Miraculous, huh? Such a doctor isn't just for middle-age and old people. You want more of a walk-in style and such that PP offers? Petition it, don't use it as an excuse to keep PP running.

Never mind that the Leftist rhetoric and their sheep continue to spout "CHOICE OR ELSE!" in various formats. Life begins at conception. That life cannot function on its own for a certain amount of time is a massive slippery slope (this is logically allowed because it is true). It develops in the womb, yet it is unique with its own set of DNA, fingerprints, and other markers that we often use to define a person. But they aren't, apparently, oh no! They are simply "fetuses." While an appropriate medical term, the unborn is still alive. I can call an unborn baby a potato, a tree, a cup, or anything else whether its medically accurate or correct at all. It's still alive. "BUT CHOICE!," I've heard and been yelled at about.

Choice?

What choice are we talking about? Murder, essentially. Here's the clever part: even if life begins at conception, by referring to the baby as a "fetus" and thus not a person yet, the definition of murder doesn't actually apply. Forget that to murder is to kill which is the ending of a life. By deciding on their own definitions, Anti-Women people change that. Really it's just a matter of semantics. Life begins at conception and if that life is stopped at anytime beyond a natural death, it's murder. Telling a woman that it's simply a choice is a lie and disrespectful. Women are the noble ones who carry us and give birth to us. Do not lie to them and make them dishonorable for it.

The rationale is that since a woman carries the baby then she should have the say in what happens to it. First I find this logic abhorrent because it brings up more problems than it solves. Why not apply that to a child in someone's care? What about the elderly? Only difference is that they're outside the womb. Logically, they can be just as much a burden. They take resources, take time out of work (or are more expensive), and they are unique individuals. This left me scratching my head until I heard some women and pro-abortionists as to why abortions are just dandy.

Women should have the choice to get an abortion, they say. But in the case that a woman chooses to have sex, she automatically accepts the consequences, from emotional and physical to spiritual. Usual disclaimer: I'm aware of rape, but the exception should not make the rule, evil as it is. Copping out of that by saying you should be absolved of one of the consequences of your own actions is irresponsible. Last time I checked, I had to take responsibility and be honorable about my own actions. Of course I can't become pregnant so apparently I have no say. Sarcasm aside, there are special cases that come up that are claimed to be legitimate.

The first is physical defect. There are two sides to this, the unborn that will have problems or won't live long, and the defects that would hurt/kill the mother. Children such as those with Down Syndrome fall into the first category. Many people rant about how such children take time, money, and resources. Regardless of disadvantages and the perceived burden they would have, that doesn't make any such children not-people.

If a child won't live long, I question why a woman would want to have an abortion. There are indeed negative side effects of abortion. Why risk those? Yes, giving birth is no rose garden, my mother reminds me of that if I'm complaining too much. My point is that you should not be able to kill even if the targeted person will die anyways. Why be responsible for that? Why not remember even a brief amount of time with your child instead of just killing it? Never mind that there are cases of doctors being wrong about defects. Imagine the horror of finding out you terminated a normally healthy child. I know this borderlines on a scare tactic, but I sincerely mean it. That would not be a great exchange, finding out you did not, in fact, spare a child of suffering.

What About...?

If the birth of the child would endanger the mother, then it is logical that you would not want the child to die or for the mother to die. Perhaps a C-section is viable or some other form of delivery. The bottom line either way is this: if the doctors have to choose a life to save, it is usually the mother, especially if the baby doesn't have much of a chance. This is not an abortion. It is the act of trying to maintain two lives and sadly failing at doing so. I'm sure some people would say that's a lot of trouble to go through, especially a C-section or special birth. Life isn't found on convenience and either way it would be more convenient not to have sex in the first place.

All this build up is to the old canard of pregnancy by rape. Yes, the old canard. You see, if a woman is impregnated by some sick psycho, the child chose not to be born any more than the woman chose to be raped. In case it isn't clear, neither the woman nor the baby asked for such an event to happen. To kill a child based on that is as sick of reasoning as the rapist's. Many would say "But the child would remind her of the rapist!" That's true and a very hard  truth at that. However, consider that killing that child and still having the memory of rape could be far worse. You would be answering one injustice with another, taking action on the helpless, just as the sicko who started it all.

Conclusion

The heart of the issue is abortion is used as birth control. It's seen as a convenience, not the taking of life. That's why abortion providers can't let bills pass that affect their bottom dollar. It's why the arguments that I debunk are made.

On Donnie McClurkin, the Pink Mafia, et al.

While I wish I had more time, I've recently been quite busy. College is about to start and I had many issues to sort out. That said, I wanted to start with a few articles to get some more readers. You know, talk about gaming or something else universal. After much prayer I have decided to write on the following article:

Alvin McEwen writes on Donnie McClurkin

For those unaware, as I was only an hour ago, Donnie McClurkin is an ex-gay, Gospel singer. While he was asked to be a part of the Martin Luther King, Jr. concert in Washington D.C. However, he was cut from the lineup, this by the black mayor of D.C., Vincent Gray. But why? Because of "potential controversy,"  of course. McClurkin has often spoke of God's freeing him from homosexuality, hence why he is ex-gay.

You see, I'm often accused of being a bigot, homophobe, and the list goes on. And yes, before someone comments about blacks and racism and having black friends, I do have both black and gay friends. The important thing is I take the true Biblical stance: homosexuality is condemned as a sin in both the Old Testament and New Testament. It is crucial that you the reader know that I recognize LGBT as people. They are not second-class citizens, nor are they outcasts of some kind. "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Thus I accept the person and tolerate the sin, just as others do for me. 

That does not make the sin right and I disagree with what happened to Donnie McClurkin on these grounds. Rather than tolerate his differing opinion, the Mayor  cut Mr. McClurkin from the MLK events. Thus it must be addressed that regardless of anyone's feelings, preemptively cutting Mr. McClurkin from the show is nothing more than bullying. Those who agree with the decision to cut McClurkin say that he is mistaken.Generally, the opinion is that he is a bigot; however, he has not demonstrated and such behavior. Additionally, McEwen claims that gays are not a result of child molestation and poor or single parenting,a beef he has with what McClurkin says in a video clip. 

As a cadet teacher I'm quite aware when bullying is going on behind the scenes. This occurrence is so blatant it doesn't take a keen observer; simply disagreeing with someone is no reason to discriminate. There are those who claim that McClurkin disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle, and that he was cut for good reason. By that logic, presidential debates would be non-existent or absolutely riotous. But they aren't because bullies aren't in charge, though I digress with recent memory of the last presidential debates in mind.

The real question, with the video in McEwen's article,  is "Is McClurkin right? If not, then he really is lying and that's unprofessional at the least and hateful at worst." Now that's a fair situation. So, do gays result from child molestation or poor/single parenting? There isn't a direct way to measure this; I'm sure no one periodically asks children how gay they feel after an event relating to these criteria. Thus, we must rely on statistics to at least give us an idea. That said, this is not some "nail in the coffin."  If successful, it will only show that there's a strong correlation.

Since I will focus on the child molestation angle, it must be said that poorly parented children do often end up participating in alternative behavior. This is problematic for two reasons: Firstly,  it's common sense but proves nothing specific. Does it blatantly cause homosexuality? It's quite possible. Without proper guidance, many youths take part in behavior from the benign to the irresponsible. Regardless, it is unprovable without a rigorous study. Secondly, there's no real way to measure this without a large sample of kids over a long period of time.  So is it offensive? I can't see how. McClurkin cannot be proven wrong or right without more data and quite frankly his comments aren't inflammatory. The best I can say is that I don't bar people from my get-togethers when they say church makes people into atheists. I don't like it, which I can see in this case, but rather than bully the person I continue with my life. Let's get to the next point and see if Mr. McClurkin is truly being hateful. 

To do this, we must look at the rates of homosexuals that molest children. Some studies claim that up to 10% of the USA's population is gay. While various statistics from 2002 (see link at end) put the number between 1 and 3%, any of these three numbers is useful. Even at 10%, if the majority of an action is done by homosexuals then it would be highly disproportionate to the actions committed by the straight population. See the frc link at the end of the article for the myriad of statistics cited.

"A study of 229 convicted child molesters in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 'eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.'" (frc)

While a small sample, five other studies in the same section corroborate this (#35-39). Still, how does this prove that the actions of the sick-minded (child molestation is sick, regardless of LGBT factors, yes?) makes those children grow up to be gay? This requires further development.

Citations 70-76 in the frc link detail how the abused can become abusers. Of these, 70 and 72 are especially important. By seeing that the abused are at higher risk to abuse it becomes clear that there is some link to child molestation and homosexuality. With so few Americans being gay but such high percentages involved in these activities it is very possible that McClurkin's claims are correct

This does not mean that all gays are as they are because of such situations. Mr. McEwen laments this in his article I linked at the beginning of this post, that McClurkin's comments are unfounded because "Gay men are not the products of child molestation."

Not all are, but statistics are usually telling. It is quite obvious that McEwen is firing from the hip to jump on the 
hating band wagon. Disagree, ignore, chide, but do not show bigotry to someone especially when crying for tolerance. McEwen isn't the only one who can make a claim without backing it up. "But Lietzy!," you might ask, "McEwen shouldn't have to cite a bunch of stats and have a huge write-out for his column!" You're right, dear reader, but he has to know what he's talking about! Now he's the one being unprofessional at the least and hateful at worst!

This is where the term "Pink Mafia" comes from. While I usually use the term "Rainbow Brigade" due to the LGBT flag, "mafia" is a much more telling term. Obviously not all LGBT are like this. Just like all Liberals aren't Communists and Conservatives aren't Nazis. Nonetheless, what happened to Donnie McClurkin is unacceptable. By barring his performance, Mayor Grey has caused discord and controversy, quite the opposite of the harmony he clamors about!


Sources: http://www.frc.org/?i=IS02E3

Afterword

I'd like to take a few lines to put down my inspirations for this blog. Reading Bill Muehlenberg's posts on his site was when I got the urge to start blogging. I enjoy the mathematical side of things and thus combined it with cues from Mr. Muehlenberg's work. Also, RKBentley and A Sure Word, another Blogger, have been a great inspiration. While he talks about Christianity and science I decided "Why not do Christianity and use math to corroborate?" Finally, my brother "Epic Professor" and my mother encouraged me to start this.

While I'm at it, I'll add my commenting guidelines since I haven't set that up quite yet. Be professional! Disagree, critique, congratulate, but be clean, concise and without cursing. Avoid slang and try to use proper grammar and punctuation. It helps me respond better and is easier for other readers to follow.

That's all for now, God Bless, readers!