Romney's Debate Win Didn't Cure Idiots

On Facebook, a leftwing fanatic expected to be taken seriously with an argument that, because Jesus did not receive money for raising Lazarus from the dead, this was proof that Christians were selfish and evil if they didn't want government-controlled health care. He asked how we could go to church in good conscience when we were so "heartless" as not to accept the entire socialist program without question. I naturally wrote a rebuttal, which included pointing out that Jesus didn't steal money from Lazarus' neighbors to give to Lazarus either. Today, then, I saw that another leftist, completely ignoring my rebuttal, offered support to the original big-government advocate, as follows: " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Like I tell my overseas friends, we have a stupid attitude of looking out for number one here (mostly on the right) and they feel good about that by hiding behind the Bible and the flag! Good question he asked! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ So I came back at him thus: And a good answer I already gave. You cannot possibly have spent much time around the right-wing Christians I routinely associate with, or you would have seen us regularly donating to food banks, tutoring and mentoring schoolkids, volunteering as hospice workers to comfort the sick, and outright giving away money out of our own pockets to people who need it (and NOT just fellow believers either). I'll take that any day over the phony "compassion" of relying on big government to solve everything by confiscatory redistribution.

Trying Again To Explain Certain Real-World Basics

In the Marxist approach to industry and commerce, the value of any commodity is determined by the labor that went into producing it. This view actually is true to a great extent, _provided_ that (1) the value of the item is sentimental, bound up with feelings for the _person_ who worked on it, or else (2) the point of creating the item was to give the worker hands-on experience. In most _other_ cases, however, the value of the product consists in the benefit or satisfaction received by the person who _purchases_ it, or the person to whom it is given. I could work for ten hours to make a kettle of stew; but if my stew has five brimming cups of salt poured into it, all of my labor won't change the fact that the stew is too salty for anyone to like eating it. Anyone tasting one mouthful of my labor-valued product will quickly gain a new appreciation for defining value by benefit received. One consequence of accepting the Marxist definition of value is that the _consumers_ of any commodity are denied _their_ say in matters of what is to be produced for consumption. A small-business entrepreneur, by the very nature of things, has to pay attention to what people want; and in a free-enterprise economy, he or she has the independence to make _decisions_ for production based on information about the market. But in a government-controlled economy, manufacturers are shielded from all accountability to the consuming public, which lets them get away with turning out junk. And where tight corporate monopolies exist, they become effectively THE SAME THING as a state-controlled Marxist economy, due to enjoying the same immunity from having to answer to the public. When Barack Obama spoke his malarkey about "You didn't build that," his excuse-makers insisted that he had "only" meant that every business is "a team effort.' But this _wasn't_ all that Obama had meant. His aim was, and is, precisely to belittle the role of entrepreneurs -- the persons who PLAN AND ORGANIZE a business in order to act on their own judgment of what consumers will want to buy. Obama wants to _eliminate_ these leaders from the equation, so there won't BE any leaders of industry except big-government collectivists like himself. So I pray now for America to be saved from suicidal stupidity....

Oh, My Poor, Poor Little Boundaries

The older I get, the more I see how many ways there are for societies, or individual psychology, to swing back and forth between opposite wrong extremes. There have been times -- probably most of the world's history -- when people were not encouraged to air their complaints openly. Especially if they belonged to an oppressed underclass, and of course there have been oppressed underclasses for most of history. But modern life, more than most eras, is plagued by the opposite extreme. Western civilization has not only largely liberated people from the sit-down-and-shut-up requirement; it has in many cases invited individuals to make up their own criteria for when they have a right to complain, and about what, and against whom. In fact, some people are permitted to make up accusations out of nothing... are led to expect that their accusations will automatically be believed... and, even given these privileges, are also permitted to act as if they are still part of the oppressed underclass. If you are in the right victim group, if you have the right self-pity narrative, you don't even have to allege that you were physically assaulted, politically persecuted, or financially exploited. You can just invent your own hot buttons, and then suddenly announce that someone's pushed them. You can take offense at the most casual, trivial thing someone says or does, and fabricate some way in which this "violates your boundaries," "makes you feel a hostile atmosphere," or "injures your self-esteem." You can make someone out to be a villain, for something which 99 percent of people would never even imagine getting angry about. This trend, naturally, causes innocent persons to be branded as hateful, or oppressive, or threatening, or bigoted, or uncivilized. And then, sometimes, insult is added to injury when the inventor of the false accusation "generously forgives" the falsely accused person... for an offense that never actually happened in the first place. This comes close to what C.S. Lewis had in mind when he wrote, "Sometimes, saying 'I forgive you as a Christian' is only another way of continuing the quarrel." In this way, a person who has intentionally chosen to be self-deceptive enough to make up grievances against innocent acquaintances, can choose the further self-deception of thinking, "Oooohh, I'm so noble for forgiving that other person"... when in actual fact, that other person did not even do the imaginary bad deed which is now being "forgiven." There are those who, seeing me expose the current wrong extreme, would be certain to take the lazy mental shortcut of assuming that I want society to go all the way back to the other extreme -- all the way back to a time when legitimate complaints (of domestic abuse, for instance) were ignored. Any who said this about me would be wrong; but of course, they would be given a free pass on it by the popular culture. The very possibility of discussing right and wrong to any good purpose has been impaired by the DAMNABLE SATANIC LIE that "Perception is reality." This is what allows self-pity addicts to make up their whining laments about how their precious little feelings have been hurt -- by things which no rational person would even consider being upset about. Perception is NOT reality. Reality is reality, and it is the moral duty of perception to pursue an ever-clearer awareness of reality. But I am not optimistic about this understanding being re-acquired by the mass of humanity in my lifetime.

Concerning Upward Mobility

Tsar Pyotr Velikiy, alias Peter the Great of Russia, was a better man than many kings were. His cruelties were no worse than the cruelties of many kings; and on the good side of the ledger, he took an important step toward liberty for the common people. What he did was to RECOGNIZE that persons NOT born to the aristocracy, might still have merits worthy of respect. Therefore, when he encountered peasant-class men with outstanding talents, he would recruit them into his service and raise them to positions of real authority. He even did this for one black African, a man whose name I believe was Abraham, a man who had been a slave in Turkey. Abraham was given a respectable job in the imperial government, was allowed to marry a white woman.... and became an ancestor of Aleksandr Pushkin, Russia's most-loved poet. What Peter the Great did in the early 18th century was meaningful. But since his time, the world has moved beyond his degree of progress. In countries like the United States, where there is free enterprise and a representative government, a person of exceptional talent DOESN'T need to hope that an emperor will give him or her that lucky break. We are allowed to create OUR OWN opportunities. This is a distinction which is in danger of being forgotten. Communist nations, and other nations with any kind of ruling elite, will SAY that they respect the worth of their people, because look here, a common person can rise to prominence in the party structure. But they refrain from admitting that THE BOSSES AT THE TOP are the gatekeepers, deciding WHO will be permitted to rise to prominence. In their world, you only get to rise to prominence if you conform to the wishes of the bosses. Thus, a ruling-party system is NO substitute for the freedom America's Founders promoted.

Now I'm The Last Ravitts Man

Last month, in Rockford, Illinois, my father, World War Two veteran Richard Burton Ravitts, passed away by means of cardiac failure. Happily, before he died, he and my fiancee Carol Palin (pronounced pa-LEEN) had the satisfaction of meeting each other in person. This confirmed Carol as becoming part of our family.

A family which, as far as "carrying on the name" is concerned, will die with me.

Recently I was thinking about what it means to be without a posterity in the Old Testament sense. The GENES of my parents are carried on in my niece Elizabeth and my nephew Luke; but their last name is Bretscher. Now, there's no reason why young people can't remember their ancestors on the maternal side as well as on the paternal side; but I have not been given much cause to believe that I will be very much remembered as an ancestor. I have assorted material possessions which no one may value as a keepsake; and I have insights to share from a long life, to which I don't know who will listen.

But amid the slow process of getting my house less cluttered, I saw something of Jan's which was marked with the Scripture: "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." This was timely for me to see. Hardly anyone remembers anymore that I used to be in Christian music ministry with Kevin Johnson, singing songs that we made up ourselves. The grass withers, the flower fades; but Heaven is there, never fading.

Don't get me wrong-- I rejoice that I have another woman I can love and marry. Not every double widower gets that blessing. Still, I have been reminded that earthly expectations and ambitions are written in melting snow.