Dr. Helen asks: should men marry?

A good family is a wonderful thing; however, I admit to having been naive enough to do a post on marriage at my blog thinking that I would hear about the positive things men liked about being married. Boy, was I wrong. Here is what I heard instead:

I’m a single, never married guy. Professional, good job, etc. Have been dating a great lady for almost a year. I thought I was ready to ask her to marry me (she has been hinting for months that she wants to marry). Problem is, at least 7 out of 10 guys I talk to tell me that it is one of the worst mistakes that they every made. Some tell me not to marry American women, that they are all feminist at heart. One married guy told me that I could get the same effect by selling my house, giving all my money away and having someone castrate me. This is really starting to un-nerve me and the more I learn about the legal bias against men, I’m beginning to back off of marriage. I love my girlfriend, but all of these guys say their girlfriends changed once they married and begin to dominant and control. I am starting to think marriage in American can not be saved.

I’ve mentioned my position before. Unless you are a Christian and are marrying a woman who is at least as serious about her Christian faith as you are, don’t even think about marriage. If you are both committed Christians who want to start a family, make sure your friends and family carefully check her out and listen to their concerns, if any. It’s better to get married only by the church, not the State, but if that’s not an option for whatever reason, get a Covenant marriage which makes it much more difficult for a woman to run the typical flee-and-fleece with the aid of the so-called Family Courts.

Literally everything that marriage has to offer a man is on offer these days without it; all marriage adds to the equation is a very high risk of financial and emotional devastation. No one with even one-tenth a brain would consider an investment that came with the same risk-reward ratio of American marriage today.

I’m fortunate to be happily married, but I’m both luckier and smarter than the average bear. A happy marriage can be made, but it takes as least as much effort as anything else worth pursuing.

Advertisements

Immigration is the issue

National Review notes that Hillary has two weaknesses. One is immigration:

In the last moments Hillary began to crash—and all because Dodd—the dear darling Dodo—challenged her on a plainly dishonest answer about illegal immigration. Then the slippery Edwards, sensing blood in the water, swam snakewise to sink his fangs in her calf, and even the timid loquacious Obama felt bold enough to suggest that she may perhaps not have been wholly consistent. What this little thing demonstrates is that immigration is the issue that the Democrats know is their Achilles Heel.

The GOP’s problem here is that other than Tom Tancredo, the only Republican positioned to take advantage of this Achilles Heel is Ron Paul. And he is the only one able to take advantage of Hillary’s other weakness, namely, her ongoing support for the wars and occupations. Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Thompson and Huckabee all share Hillary’s positions on these two matters, this is why none of them can beat her.

Hillary could have avoided this perception of vulnerability had she heeded my advice – not that she ever heard it – and moved to the GOP’s right on immigration. Don’t be surprised if she does so once she clinches the Democratic nomination, she’s obviously not afraid to jettison her former positions, at least in public.

Not so smart after all

It seems Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart aren’t brilliantly incisive individuals, they’re merely a different breed of performing monkey:

The canaries in TV’s creative coal mine are latenight hosts such as David Letterman and Jay Leno, whose monologues and sketches are dependent on union writers. If history is any guide, both shows will almost instantly go dark, as would “Saturday Night Live.” Comedy Central’s latenight stalwarts “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart” and “The Colbert Report” would also likely switch to repeats in the immediate aftermath of a strike.

If you can’t do your own talk show because you don’t have someone to put words in your mouth, well, I’m just not very impressed with you.

Too close for comfort

I finally got around to taking a Jung-based personality profile test. I’d been told in that past that I fit one of them rather well, but I didn’t remember which one it was. After reading the results for the INTJ, it was a little surprising to see how specific some of the descriptions were and how well they fit, especially given my skeptical attitude towards all things even remotely related to Freudian fraudulence.

INTJs are perfectionists, with a seemingly endless capacity for improving upon anything that takes their interest. What prevents them from becoming chronically bogged down in this pursuit of perfection is the pragmatism so characteristic of the type: INTJs apply (often ruthlessly) the criterion “Does it work?” to everything from their own research efforts to the prevailing social norms. This in turn produces an unusual independence of mind, freeing the INTJ from the constraints of authority, convention, or sentiment for its own sake.

INTJs are known as the “Systems Builders” of the types, perhaps in part because they possess the unusual trait combination of imagination and reliability. Whatever system an INTJ happens to be working on is for them the equivalent of a moral cause to an INFJ; both perfectionism and disregard for authority may come into play, as INTJs can be unsparing of both themselves and the others on the project.

This is, of course, somewhat amusing in light of my longtime occupation as a game and technology designer. Even as a novelist, it is the world-building aspects that interest me most. And I suppose I have been accused of demonstrating a certain amount of disregard for authority from time to time.

The INTJ profile is also labled the Rationalist Mastermind, a description which no doubt will tend to make my rational materialist critics want to gag, although it probably goes a long way towards explaining the substantive difference between my response to the New Atheist canon and that of other theists such as D’Souza, McGrath and Wilson.

It is in their abilities that Masterminds differ from the other Rationals, while in most of their attitudes they are just like the others. However there is one attitude that sets them apart from other Rationals: they tend to be much more self-confident than the rest, having, for obscure reasons, developed a very strong will. They are rather rare, comprising no more than, say, one percent of the population….

Masterminds are not at all eager to take command of projects or groups, preferring to stay in the background until others demonstrate their inability to lead. Once in charge, however, Masterminds are the supreme pragmatists, seeing reality as a crucible for refining their strategies for goal-directed action. In a sense, Masterminds approach reality as they would a giant chess board, always seeking strategies that have a high payoff, and always devising contingency plans in case of error or adversity. To the Mastermind, organizational structure and operational procedures are never arbitrary, never set in concrete, but are quite malleable and can be changed, improved, streamlined. In their drive for efficient action, Masterminds are the most open-minded of all the types. No idea is too far-fetched to be entertained-if it is useful. Masterminds are natural brainstormers, always open to new concepts and, in fact, aggressively seeking them.

This is also somewhat amusing, as I am positively allergic to taking on the responsibility of leadership, but frequently find myself being nominated for patrol leader, team captain, editor or CEO. I’ve seldom regretted it after the fact, but the way those responsibilities always end up interfering with what I’d rather be doing tends to keep my resistance levels strong.

Anyhow, I’ll be curious to see what the most common profile here turns out to be in case any of you are inclined to take the test.

Watson may be the new Galileo

The secular narrative is backward. It is modern scientists who are proving to be more dogmatic and determinedly anti-scientific evidence than the medieval Catholic Church:

In early March, 2003, investigators turned to Tony Frudakis, a molecular biologist who said he could determine the killer’s race by analyzing his DNA. They were unsure about the science, so, before giving him the go-ahead, the task force sent Frudakis DNA swabs taken from 20 people whose race they knew and asked him to determine their races through blind testing. He nailed every single one.

Still, when they gathered in the Baton Rouge police department for a conference call with Frudakis in mid-March, they were not prepared to hear or accept his conclusions about the killer.

“Your guy has substantial African ancestry,” said Frudakis. “He could be Afro-Caribbean or African American but there is no chance that this is a Caucasian. No chance at all.”

Ironically, science will soon shatter the materialists’ Equalitarian dogma despite failing to dent Christianity in the 200 years since the Encylopedistes first declared it passe.

Your next president

Quotes from the queen-in-waiting, courtesy of Mr. Joseph Farah:

“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

“It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few … and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.”

“(We) can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”

“We have to build a political consensus, and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own … in order to create this common ground.”

“I certainly think the free market has failed.”

“I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched.”

Now, the Three Monkey Republicans will cite these statements by Hillary Clinton as reasons that one absolutely must vote for Giuliani or Romney, but they are incorrect. George Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mitch Romney, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee all possess very similar positions on every major issue.

They might speak a little different in public, but in practice they will govern in an identical manner. This is why Bill Clinton’s administration was “unexpectedly” conservative for his liberal supporters and George W. Bush’s administration has been “unexpectedly” liberal. Only those who haven’t seen through the charade were caught by surprise, unfortunately, this consists of 99 percent of the American voting public.

(It is not the voters who are the sophisticated political analysts, but rather, those who choose not to participate in the charade.)

Now, I don’t know if Ron Paul truly can make a difference or not; the odds are certainly against him and even if he did pull it off I suspect it may be too late to change the course of American history at this point. But what I do know is that supporting him does no more harm than does a bucket of water tossed on a California wildfire, and as the reaction to him by the Republican and mainstream media elites has shown, support for Paul is at the very least a worthy gesture of defiance to the bi-factional ruling party and its water-carriers.

And if America elects the Lizard Queen as its president despite these comments, as I have long expected it will, then the only reasonable conclusion is that there simply is no desire for freedom in the electorate, but rather a decadent preference for socialist servitude.

No crying in football

A crushing response to all the crying in NFL fan circles about those mean Patriots and Belicheat’s method of answering the charges that their rings are tainted and he needs to cheat in order to win:

Let’s start with a disclaimer: There’s no crying in football. You get your butt kicked like that, all you can do is suck it up.

Anyone who has a problem with what Bill Belichick is doing, there’s a real simple solution. Just make him stop. Make him punt. Pick off a pass. Do something about it. In the ultimate ubber-macho sport Belichick is letting everyone know each and every week who the Alpha Dog is and how loud he can bark….

In the middle of last week I was chatting in the parking lot with one of the veteran Redskins, who knew what is store. He wasn’t predicting the Redskins would get blown out, now, or anything of that nature, but what he did know is that if Belichick had any chance to run these Redskins off the field he would. “He don’t care man. That cat is going to (bleep) you up. He’s not going to do your job for you. I love that about him. Who don’t want to be a part of that?”

For all his personal flaws, and they are many, Belicheat is very, very good for the NFL. This destruction of the gentlemen’s mandate to quit playing while the game is still on promises to be a positive development for the league in the long run, as it will allow fans to see players playing for the full sixty minutes and prevent trailing coaches from their lame habit of playing conservatively in order to keep the score down.

Men love excellence. It’s telling that the veteran player’s response is not one of petty envy, but rather open admiration.

The Patriots are chasing history, and that’s what makes watching them all the more exciting even when they are blowing out careful, boring, losing teams like the Redskins.