Thanks, S.

A friend sends me this link, which is worth the read and worth talking about with that special someone.

Tangentially:  My first wife had been rather sexually active in college; which was all the rage and very edgy, I suppose; but she permanently impaired her ability to pair bond.   I.e. she was wounded, like those women in the article.   Even secular sociologists are beginning to recognize this.  The higher the “count” the harder to bond.    This doesn’t make it impossible; but the Ostrich approach will not work; and compensations in how the masculine/feminine frames are placed must be considered.    Since taking the “red pill” I am able to see more clearly why some of the dynamics we had played out.

The Mighty Tenth Amendment

So, my Federalist (i.e. Libertarian, Constitutionalist) leanings cause me to support those States that in the recent election have moved to decriminalize Marijuana; but the Conservative side of me wonders at the social outcome of allowing both Alcohol and Marijuana – particularly when health care is now and for the time being, a Federal matter; and what this means in the long run.

Economics

I am amazed at the indifference of many to the regnant economic theories at play in the minds of our decision makers.

An analogy: Politics is downstream from culture. Culture is downstream from belief systems.

This is likewise true in economics: If someone really believes that printing more money will cure our ills, they will act accordingly. And suffer accordingly, as well…..

Video: Here

And another: Here.

Obama’s Faith

Martin Luther once said something to the effect of “I would rather be ruled by a competent Turk [i.e. a Muslim] than an incompetent [Christian] Prince.”    I am sure that I have the sense correct if not the exact quote. Of course he did not live in a Hamiltonian/Jeffersonian Republic.

Here we find varied Christian leaders, including, surprisingly, Donald Miller, signing on to a nebulously written letter.

What to make of this? The cognitive dissonance is amazing. I am more concerned that someone could sign on to a poorly written Policy Statement like this, almost, than the ideas it contains.

No, it is not outside the realm of polite speculation as to what Obama’s faith is. It probably should not matter that much, assuming a correct functioning of the various entities of government; though it does matter for certain large substantive issues; but this assumes a degree of seriousness that this man brings to the table viz. his faith, which I would think is probably “not much.”

All that being said, it matters that men like Don Miller and T. D. Jakes associate themselves with this. We expect cognitive dissonance from men like Sider and Wallis, not from more clear-thinking men.

The “this” that I take issue with — what I wonder at — are phrases like “…..Therefore, we urge public officials, faith leaders, and the media to offer no further support or airtime to those who misrepresent and call into question the President’s Christian faith..” and “…We understand that these are contentious times, but the personal faith of our leaders should not be up for public debate….”. This latter statement following on the heels of a declaration as to what they suppose their primary responsibility is, which they say is not politics.