Sandy Hook Elementary: "Where was God?"

The Sandy Hook Elementary mass murders shocked and saddened me like nearly everyone else in the country.  It also exposed once again some of the ugly sides of our society.

For one, it bared the media's obsessive-compulsive need to report first, rather than report accurately.  There's simply no excuse for this failure; especially the colossal failures in those first few hours.  Is it no wonder that many Americans distrust the media nowadays?

For another, the predictable bunch of ideological opportunists seized  upon this tragedy to once again harp on their beliefs about gun control.  I will say here that yes, I do agree that there should be discussions about gun control and how easy or difficult it should be to obtain firearms.  However, there is the matter that the ones who speak loudest about the need for more gun control are curiously silent when it comes to our own government's failure of its own "gun control".  In order for these gun control supporters to have a decent level of credibility, they should be as outspoken about the failure of Fast and Furious as they are about the need for gun control in the private sector.

Then there's the matter of the NRA's silence once the shooting began.  The NRA often paints themselves as victims of aggressive propagandizing from their opponents, but then go silent during news events that involve mass killings.  The NRA could be adding to the discussion on gun control and how to keep firearms out of the hands of mass murderers such as what we saw last week, or at the Aurora, Colorado movie theater earlier in the year.  Their silence, as the saying goes, is deafening.  I'm not on either "side" of the gun control debate, and I won't get into my personal views on the issue right now.

Another ugly side that was exposed last week was our country's failure to locate, contain, and aid the mentally ill.  While there are different reasons as to why this occurs, there are at least two main ones: a lack of funding, and because certain people on the left are more concerned about the "rights" of the mentally ill than the safety of the society that must accommodate them if they're not institutionalized.  I know people on the left that are influenced by the reports of very real abuses inflicted upon the patients in mental institutions, but the solution isn't to set these people free, it's to reform the kind of aid and assistance that they're given.  Leftists must understand that the mental institution portrayed in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is not representative of how all mental institutions are run.

But the main thing that I think is exposed in tragedies like this is when people bring up questions such as "Where was God?"  Both believers and deniers of God ask this question, but they're asking the wrong question.  First, let's ask why these people ask this question in the first place.

For believers of God, they'll ask "Where was God?" because their faith has been shaken by these kinds of tragedies.  This indicates a lack of understanding of the nature of God, and what he can and can't do.  God is not a genie, granting wishes left and right.  I use the example of a parent giving a child every single thing he or she wants to explain why God sometimes doesn't answer our prayers (or as it is sometimes said, "God answers all our prayers, but sometimes, the answer is 'no'").  If a parent gives their child everything they want, and when they want it, will that child grow up to be a mature and well-adjusted adult?  I hope you said "no". 

So if a human parent telling their child "no" once in awhile helps in their growth and maturity down the road, how much more does that apply to God, the "ultimate" parent? The point here is that a mature understanding of God will be that believing in God isn't going to shield us from the ugliness and evil that exists in our world.

If anything, believing in God will make you more aware of just how much ugliness and evil there is in the world.  But a mature understanding of the nature of God will help you to recognize the ugliness and evil in yourself, and from that, gain a strength in fighting our dark sides, because you can't fix what's broken in your soul if you aren't aware in the first place that it's broken.  So believers in God who ask "Where was God?" during such times demonstrate their lack of strength and faith.

For those who don't believe in God, when they ask "Where was God?", they aren't looking for an answer, because in their minds, they know the answer: He wasn't anywhere, because he doesn't exist.  So why then, would they ask "Where was God?"  In their case, it's a rhetorical question; they ask because it's a validation that he doesn't exist, for if God did exist and he's supposed to be kindly and wish us well, then why didn't he save those children from that murderer last week?  In a sense, it's a form of mockery - why otherwise bring up a deity that they don't believe exists?  It's basically an opportunistic seizing of the moment to promote their own views - which doesn't reflect very nicely of them.

Accepting that a loving God would allow tragedies like Sandy Hook Elementary was probably the toughest part of believing in God that I had to overcome. Why does God allow such evils to happen?  Indeed, why does he allow wars, such as WW1 and WW2?  Why does he allow pestilences such as the Black Plague, or the smallpox epidemic that decimated a great majority of the Native American population when the Spaniards came to the Western Hemisphere?  Those other questions will be for another discussion; for now, let's stick to Sandy Hook Elementary.

The murderer was able to take advantage of a perfect storm of failures on the part of 1.) how he obtained the guns, 2.) that he wasn't institutionalized much, much sooner, 3.) that the school's system of defense was insufficient, and so on.  Before I go on, let me say here that the blame for this mass murder belongs solely to the murderer himself.  You will notice that I haven't said his name yet - and I won't do so now.  He wanted his name out there, I will deny him that.

Getting back to my discussion, the question of "Where was God?" is not the right question.  The correct question is, "Where were we?"  Where were we, when we had the chance to spot him, and then to stop him?  Granted, even with better methods of spotting and stopping mass murderers, some will still slip through the cracks.  No system of stopping mass murderers is ever going to be perfect, but that should not stop us from trying, and we as sure as heck can do a lot better than we're doing now.  But first, we have to come to accept the following:

When we ask "Where was God?", it's to keep from asking, "Where were we?".  It's blame transference, in other words; God is a scapegoat for our failures.

But if we really, truly, want to do a much better job of stopping mass murderers, then we need to put the focus on where it belongs:  On us.  We owe it to future generations to have the courage to ask the right questions so that we put ourselves on the road to find the right answers.

Time for Madonna to rebel again - by aging gracefully

I came across this Before and After pic of Madonna yesterday, and to me, it demonstrates that it's time for a change for Madonna.

Ignore the piss-poor Photoshop disaster on the right, because it's very fake, and you can see how fake it is by comparing it to the pic to the left.  Had you dudes not seen the unretouched pic to the right, you wouldn't know that you were lusting after a woman who looks old enough to be your grandmother (and for some of you, she probably is old enough to be your grandmother!).

No, instead I'm going to concentrate on the picture on the left; of Madonna in all her wrinkled glory.  Now, when I say "wrinkled glory", I don't mean that in an insulting way, regardless of how I make that sound.  Instead, it's a compliment, as I'm about to explain below.

First, let me say that Madonna is said to take excellent care of herself.  Eats right and exercises intensely to keep herself in the shape that she is for her performances.  Mega kudos to her, and I mean that sincerely.  As women age, it gets harder and harder to maintain their body's shape and tone, and Madonna is one of the better examples of celebrities who don't let their "party" lifestyles consume them.

However, even the best lifestyle habits can't prevent the onset of aging, and it shows on the pic above.  While Madonna does what she can to help maintain herself in top physical form, the kind of lifestyle she leads takes its toll.  In other words, partying wears on a body!

On top of that, consider over the years, all the chemicals that she's put in her hair to changes its color back and forth.  There is also all the chemicals from the make-up she's put on over that same time span, and other chemicals that are used to take the make-up off.  Add to this the exposure to sun, smoke, and other unhealthy pollutants in the air that's she's been exposed to all these decades during her concerts, and you have the skin to reflect 3+ decades of wear and tear.

During her long career, Madonna has sought to be a trend-setter, a risk taker, and to challenge the ideas and impressions of womanhood in our society.  In that, she deserves credit for the kinds of good changes in beliefs and attitudes about women that she's helped bring about.

However, there's an annoying personality flaw of hers that she hasn't been able to shake in all this time: she knows of no other way to be "daring" than to dress provocatively.  Dressing provocatively and striking poses that would make little old ladies faint is one thing when she did this while in her 20's; still doing these same things while in her 50's - and looking all of her 50+ years - is another matter entirely.  There is such a thing as aging gracefully!

Take the picture above.  In one respect, I can admire the picture because it shows how her skin reflects the years.  I've discussed before on my blog about women and body image issues, and how they can often be paralyzing for some women.  Guys don't understand how much body image is tied to a woman's sense of self-worth.  Yes, to you guys, it sounds like women are too vain for their own good, and I could go on and on about the origins of these body image issues, but that would take another blog post just to cover some of the basics! 

Instead, I want to bring up body image issues as it applies to Madonna, and the potential good that she could do for society.  As I said, Madonna has made a career out of challenging the norm and dressing provocatively.  Now, however, the dressing provocatively needs to stop, because the woman is in her mid-50's!

Look again at the pic above, and you see that the shot is with her legs spread apart!  You can bet that the pic was heavily Photoshopped because otherwise, men weren't going to be turned on by a wrinkled woman spreading her legs.  They even Photoshopped out the wrinkles in her legs!  And while older women of the past might have been shocked by the young Madonna because she was posing in "unladylike" poses, now older women are shocked because she's an old woman herself carrying on like she's still in her 20s.

While I think the dressing provocatively needs to stop, there is something else Madonna could do to still be the trend-setter and risk-taker that she so desperately wants to recapture:  She could challenge the norm, but in a different way.  Like my post title says above, she needs to age gracefully.  She wants to be daring?  Then go with a new look that will challenge the way women look at themselves.

For instance, let her hair get back to its natural color.  If it's going gray, then let it.  And ease up a lot on the make-up.  Or even better, stop using it altogether.  Right there that will be a challenge and a risk.  The real challenge here, though, will be for her to learn how to dress in such a way that will be flattering for her new look.  She could help society - and women in particular - by accepting aging as a natural process that we all will eventually go through.

But the main thing is, she can dress in a style that flattering for her new look, but who said that it still can't be sexy?  Can one be middle-aged and still sexy?  That's my challenge to Madonna to find out.

Madonna, stop spreading your legs like you're 20 years old.  Stop looking like you still need to "put out" to get people's attention.  You already have it!  Instead, show the wear and tear that your body has gone through, and be proud of them as your battle scars of life.  Wear those wrinkles with pride.  Show that you no longer have to justify your existence by looking hot - you've done all that. 

Show that you're now at a stage in your life that you've fought life's battles, and have come out having not just survived, but thrived.  Women already put themselves through enough misery over their looks while they're young - why extend that into their middle age?

Be old and proud, Madonna.  Show the world that it's okay to age, as only you can.

Who would win? Sylvanas vs. Elf on the Shelf

Unlike the previous time in which I just could not come up with an answer to the question of who would win in a fight between the Star Trek red shirts vs Star Wars stormtroopers, this "Who would win?" is easy!

In a fight between Lady Sylvanas Windrunner, the leader of the Forsaken and the Banshee Queen, versus Elf on the Shelf, who is Mr Dandy Fancypants, this would be a short fight - if it could be called that!

I mean, technically they're both elves, but that's the only similarity between them.  Look at them!  Sylvanas is ready for war, while EOTS is ready for - sitting!

Easy fight, fellas!  LOL 

The Question that stumped The Mighty Andromeda!

You all know me and how I like to dig into researching to find out the answers to all kinds of questions.  I take pride in doing the digging into the books and cyberspace to find answers to the greatest questions of our age.

Now, however, I have come across a question that has me stumped in a way that I've never been stumped before.  And that question is:

Friends, I have no idea!  Theoretically, there wouldn't be a winner, because we all know that the Star Trek red shirts always die - but the Star Wars stormtroopers can't shoot worth shit!  They're shooting and shooting and shooting...

...and shooting,

...and shooting,

...and shooting,

...but miss nearly every damn time!

So what would happen?  You'd have a bunch of red shirts running around not getting hit!  My guess - and it's completely a guess - is that the red shirts will eventually take a laser blast to the head from a random ricochet; either from the stormtroopers' guns, or more fittingly, they'd take an accidental shot to the head from a random ricochet of their own phasers.  Either way would fit entirely within their tendency to die without compromising the stormtroopers' lack of ability to aim their guns.  Or the red shirts could die of exhaustion or starvation waiting to be shot by the stormtroopers!

But again, this is entirely guesswork.  This is a reverse of the classical irresistible force meeting the immovable object.  What we have here is a completely resistible force not at all meeting up with a very movable object.

I'm stumped, guys!    :-\

Help me figure this poser out! 

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

I was going to post something this week, but I figured that you guys right now are too busy getting ready for Thanksgiving, and then after Turkey Day, you'll be busy shopping (like me!). 

So I'll refrain from posting anything this week - other than this post, of course! - and just wish you all a very Happy Thanksgiving!  

See you all next week!

God, "God's will", and the "problem of evil" Part 1

"Andromeda Perseus: I'll have to blog about this in more detail, but my thinking is this: God didn't vote for Obama, we did. Some may pray for Romney to win (and honestly, I did), *but others are also prays for Obama to win. So who is God going to please? Some of the people, anyway. However, I think these things happen for a reason. Let's say it was indeed God's will that Obama won. However, it could be said that it's not for the reason that Obama supporters think. It could be that God is saying "You think society's messed up? Then fix it. You learn nothing if I did everything for you. Look, you want motivation? Obama is president again, and if you think the damage he's done so far is bad, what do you think will happen now, now that he no longer has to worry about re-election? There's your motivation. Now go do something about it."

Again, I'll discuss this more on my blog, but the writer of the meme above does not understand God the way believers do. He's not our genie, granting wishes left and right. If the God-genie is his idea of God, then it's no wonder he doesn't believe in him. I wouldn't either."

*  This sentence should read: "but others prayed for Obama to win".  That's what I get for typing in a hurry!  LOL

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The meme above was posted on one of my FB friend's wall.  I had to respond to it, because I think I'm in a position to discuss the topic of God, "God's will", and the question of evil.  I say this because I'm a believer in God that was born to and raised by Marxist baby boomer parents, so as you can see, I've run the gamut on this issue. 

The important thing to mention here though, is that my parents didn't go out of their way to make sure that I didn't even know about God.  It was not at all their intent to indoctrinate me into their way of thinking, but to expose me to all points of view so that I would arrive at their thinking on my own.  They really believed that, after I examined all the facts (as they knew them) for myself, I would arrive at no other conclusion but what they themselves concluded: That a belief in God is for weak-minded people who need a crutch to get along in life, and that society is too stupid and corrupt to allow control to be dictated by "the people" (via democracy), so the masses have to be controlled by the government by specialized government workers via socialism.  

No, of course they didn't phrase it that way, but that's essentially what socialists believe.  Socialists (which includes Communists and Marxists) ultimately believe in totalitarianism, whether overt (such as in the old Soviet Russia) or benign (as it is being tried to be implemented in our country).  The reason I am setting this all up is to give you an idea of what I started out with, which is basically that I wasn't brought up to believe in God.  So to go from that starting point to being a God-believing Christian, I had to start from scratch.  My point here is that those who call themselves atheists probably started out much further ahead in their own upbringing about the belief in God than I ever did. 

What follows is my own take about the issue of God, his will, and the question of evil.  This is the result of many discussions with lots of people of various levels of a belief in God, from outright denial to total unquestioned belief in his existence.  I make no claims to being a theologian or expert on this topic, these are all my own musings and observations.  I also must be a bit insane to try to tackle in a few blog posts a topic that has vexed greater minds than mine for centuries.  But hey, I admit to being a bit insane, so ride with me the rest of the way at your own risk.  You have been warned.  ;-)

First, yes I do believe in God.  I do believe that there's a higher form of intelligence "out there" that most people refer to as God.  While I do believe in evolution, I don't think evolution explains how self-aware creatures like us came into existence.  What trips most people up is thinking of God existing only in physical space like we do.  That's why atheists often talk derisively of "the magic man in the sky." 

Here I had to mentally work this over as well.  If God is not someone physical, then what is he? Describing God as this being you can't see, touch, smell, etc but is somehow "out there" could also fit describing unicorns - as the more snide detractors of God that I've come across have said to me more than once.  But the vast majority of us don't go looking for unicorns for the bigger questions in life; questions such as "Why are we here?", and "What's it all about?", and the classic "What's the meaning of life?"

On top of that is the question of evil.  There are many ways to define evil, but its most basic definition is that of selfishness.  It's not just coincidence that those who are evil are also very, very selfish people.  I know some of you are thinking, "Is she saying that babies are evil?"  :-)
There is a difference between a baby and someone like Adolf Hitler.  A baby is not intentionally selfish - that's just a survival mechanism.  "Selfish" in the way I'm describing it is the willful act of satisfying one's own needs at the expense of others, and by that I mean that one of the intents of the evil act IS to take from someone else (for selfish reasons) in such a way as to deprive them in a harmful and even fatal way. 

Having set the stage, here goes. 

As I just said, I believe God is a being; a higher intelligence that is the creator of all.  I believe this because the order of the universe suggests a beginning.  That is, everything came from something else (which is pretty much what evolution is about) - but there had to be a starting point.  The "Big Bang" would be what most people would call the starting point of it all, and the continued expansion of the universe is evidence of a cosmic-sized explosion indeed having occurred.  But why did this "big bang" occur?  Science has no answer for that; nor does evolution, for that matter. 

Back in my college days, I remember something called the "God-sized hole", which has two interpretations, depending on who is bringing up this phrase.  For atheists, this means basically that whenever there's gaps in knowledge or information, then "God" fills that gap.  It's meant to be a derisive term (atheists have no lack of ways to define and describe God and his believers in derisive ways, it seems) to suggest that those who believe in God use him as a substitute for actually learning the truth. 

For believers in God, the "God-sized hole" refers to the inner longing for something beyond ourselves - an undefined absence that ultimately only God can fill.  Being raised in an atheist Marxist family, I got to know both interpretations, and in all honesty, I can see both sides on this.  That is, I can see some people using God as an excuse to not learn more about the world, and I can see God as the final answer to the larger questions in life.

Scientists try to answer the "how" of existence.  That's their job.  They look at the evidence, make speculations (aka theories, but ultimately all theories are speculation, since there's no way we can totally know everything about anything), and adjust accordingly when facts seem to conflict with the current speculations.  What scientists don't do is to ask the "why" of existence.

That is, scientists can create their speculations as to how the universe came into existence (currently that would be the big bang) - but they can't answer "why".  To ask "why" would imply that there was an intelligence behind the sparking of the big bang, and such thinking belongs to the realm of philosophers and theologians.

Now, there's all kinds of thoughts and ideas that can be entertained out, but that would take much more space on this blog post than I think would be helpful for my discussion.  So for the sake of brevity, I'll take on only the issue of our existence as to how it relates to my discussion next time.

End Part 1

"Chins up. Stand tall. We'll fight again tomorrow"

My thanks to Michelle Malkin for her blog post about yesterday's election results.  She sums up my feelings quite well, and I posted the last line of that post as the header for my own post, because it's an important reminder to not give up. 

Yes, I'm disappointed that Romney lost, but it's one election.  There will be others.  And as Michelle noted at the end of that particular post:

"We'll fight again tomorrow".

Those of you who are regular readers to my blog know that I'm a passionate conservative.  I love this country.  I love its history and traditions.  Now this is not to say that liberals don't love this country, but what I think they love is not the kind of America that I love.  I won't go into the details about that now, because there will be plenty of time to get into that later.  And those of you who know my writing style know that I will get back to it. 

But not now. 

Now we need to work on picking ourselves up and dusting ourselves off, and start planning for next time.  Most importantly, we need to learn what went wrong and make adaptations to fix it.  But I hope that my fellow conservatives learned this:  We can't afford any more "moderates" along the lines of a John McCain.  Or Mitt Romney.  We need a conservative candidate that's capable of defending the conservative way. 

Starting today, I will go back to blogging, and go back to posting on Facebook.  I will not give up, nor will I go away.  The contest for 2016 begins as of this moment, and I will participate in it with all the strength, talent, and intellect that the Good Lord blesses me with.  So no, friends - it's not over.  It's only just begun.

See you all out there. 

We briefly interrupt this blog for a very imporant message: Go vote!

I briefly interrupt my blog for a very important message:  Go vote or I'll kick your ass!

I want everyone wearing one of these stickers by the end of the day! 

This blog will resume its normal programming by this time tomorrow.

Thanks!  ^.^