Test New b2evolution Upgrade

I just upgraded my b2evolution installation. This is a test to make sure everything is working.

The Hate-Blamers and the Modern Meaninglessness of "Hate"

The word "hate" gets bandied about, today, with barely a thought as to its actual meaning or applicability. Every fringe group with an axe to grind against society's moral standards accuses those who disapprove of "hatred." Every minority seems to be stepping onto the wagon of blaming every social disadvantage on "hatred."

You don't approve of homosexual marriage? You "hate" gays. You don't approve of homosexuality at all? You really "hate" gays. You don't approve of abortion? You "hate" women who would seek an abortion. (And, by extension, you "hate" all women, because in the logic of hate-blamers, it's just not possible that a woman would not, when the chips are down, support abortion as an option.) You don't approve of the government deciding you must support same-sex socalled weddings within the context of your private-sector business transactions? You "hate" gays. You don't want to be forced to pay for women to have sex without getting pregnant? You "hate" women.

Remember that "hate the sin; love the sinner" dictum? Forget that; it's meaningless, today. Among the hate-blamers, there's no such distinction. If you disapprove of (fill-in-the-blank) sin, it means you "hate" those who are attracted to that sin. To not "hate," in the mind of hate-blamers, can only mean that you specifically approve of and support whatever activity someone wants to engage in. To even call out an activity as a sin is to be "hateful" towards those who have a desire for that sin, whatever it is. But the distortion of this word goes even beyond that. To even suggest that you should not be forced to pay for someone else's activity on the basis that you consider the activity sinful is to "hate" them.

This is not accidental. Hate-blamers are very successfully and very deliberately applying the language techniques identified by George Orwell. Specifically, by dominating language through repetition, and slowly contorting it, they're gaining cultural ground for their causes. These hate-blamers, loosely bound together by a love for all things modern liberal (abortion, homosexuality, government oversight of private transations, the expanded welfare state, etc.) are managing to pull more and more people into their overall worldview through manipulation and distortion of the word "hate." By blaming every hurdle to their agenda on "hate," they are succesfully creating an emotianal bond with their own agenda points—or, rather, creating an emotional resistance to the opposition to their agenda—in large segments of Americans.

This works because, as George Orwell knew, most people don't bother to think. Most people are sheep. It's much easier to simply feel, and then go with those feelings, than it is to puzzle things out based on principles. This is especially true when those feelings are shared by others in one's social group. Keep the herd moving together (emotionally) and they'll make themselves very controllable. It doesn't matter what the word "hate" actually means. What matters is that it's a word that's distasteful. It's a word that evokes an emotional reaction. It's a "control" word. As such, it's being put to very successful use by the hate-blamers.

Some Thoughts on the Evil of an Entire Industry

There seems to be a lot of discussion, these days, about the particulars of various policies implemented under "Obamacare," as well as about "Obamacare" in general. As there should be. "Obamacare" was a tour de force against the poor in the United States. But what isn't being discussed—and what really should have been discussed for much longer—is the evil of the medical insurance industry itself.

By comparison, consider auto insurance. Medical and auto insurance basically work the same way. You pay a premium. In exchange you get an insurance policy. The policy details how much and under what circumstances you can get the insurance company to pay out for certain things, such as the damage to your fender as a result of someone running into it.

When it comes to auto work, there are often both parts costs and labor costs to any given bit of work to be done. Sometimes, there's only labor, depending on the approach taken. For example, a fender can be repaired with some bondo and paint or it could be replaced. If the fender is repaired, there aren't any parts cost unless the repair shop decides to charge something for the bondo and paint used.

Suppose that the owner of a repair shop decided, because a particular customer was having a hard time of things, that he would do the work at a deep discount—maybe even free—to allow the customer to avoid entanglement with insurance altogether. Maybe the customer is a friend of the owner or maybe they just got to talking and the customer shared a hard luck story. Whatever the reason, the owner of the repair shop, as an act of charity, gave away his labor and charged no markup on parts.

Here's the thing: There's not an auto insurance company out there that's going to try to lay a claim that the owner of that repair shop perpetrated an act of insurance fraud through his act of charity. And we're talking about cars, here, not people. Yes, it's people who have to pay for it, but the thing being reparied is a car.

Turn, then, back to the practice of medicine. Here, the thing being repaired is a person. Medicine is much more personal, much more necessary, and, as it happens, much more suggestive of personal charity. Yet, the medical insurance industry somehow managed to turn charity—personal charity towards select individuals based on their personal circumstances—into a crime. This alone is enough to recognize that something very unholy is at work within that industry.

And nobody seems to blink at this.

Now, that same industry has taken the most heinous of modern evils, abortion, the direct murder of the most helpless and most innocent, under its wing. Now, "Obamacare," by forcing every single American to purchase the product of that evil industry, has ensured that it will continue to feed on the American economy like a leech, sucking far more out of the economy than is necessary.

The most shameful part of the debate leading up to passing "Obamacare" is that nobody—not even the Catholic shepherds, who should recognize and call out evil where it exists in the world—brought up this basic reality, of the evil of the very industry that "Obamacare" was designed to uplift and benefit.

The Unreality of Modern TV Show Writers

The most recent episode of CSI: Cyber features a serial killer who works for a social media site as a cleaner--someone who monitors the content to remove posts, pictures, and videos that violate the site's content rules. The killer is killing people who violate the "five deadly sins" of social media. The first one is "hate speech" and the second is sex/nudity.

The "hate speech," in this particular case, involves the sermons of a preacher who encourages people to protest abortion mills and is working to overturn the recent laws allowing same-sex "marriage."

Ignoring, for now, the problematic "message" that the show itself is clearly selling, that the preacher's message is somehow wrong, and that everybody knows it, and it's only wrong-headed people like him who actually agree with it, there's a major flaw in the character definition behind the story: There are plenty of people who really don't care about either issue, so we'll ignore them. Among those who are passionate about these issues, however, it's rare that the person who opposes purveying nudity and sexual indecency on the Internet also opposes speaking out against other violations of decency, such as abortion and same-sex "marriage." It's far more common for the person who labels protests of abortion and same-sex "marriage" as "hate speech" to be a staunch defender of pornography and every other kind of indecency on the Internet as "free speech."

The Institution Formerly Known as Marriage

The Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, finding that same-sex so called marriage is the right of every American citizen, is another example of the kind of confused reasoning, false analogies and equivocation that has seemed to plague the courts since the late 20th century. Because its reasoning and conclusions are now part of the official doctrine of the Supreme Court, it will effect a transformation of marriage for future generations. The fundamental trajectory of the argument in Obergefell will, over time (perhaps a very short time), result in marriage in the United States being virtually unrecognizable as the marriage instutution on which Western civilization was built.

The decision's reasoning radically modifies the meaning of marriage from its traditional understanding. It proposes a continued modification of our societal understanding of marriage, and completely fails to deliniate the limits or parameters of that modification. Indeed, the decision completely fails to define marriage, even for purposes of its own argument.

But this would seem to be the point. The argument highlights a number of features of marriage, asserting for each one, without any supporting reasoning, that the application of those benefits must attend to same-sex couples, as well. The only argument actually made, for extending marriage to same-sex couples, boils down to a claim that, as a society, we are continuing to evolve in our understanding of both freedom and marriage, and that as our understanding changes, the protections of the Constitution as applicable to the legal institution of marriage need to evolve with it.

Those who take the time to read the opinion will note that there is nothing in the opinion that limits this evolution. For example, even though the opinion refers to "two persons" several times in the context of its argument, there is nothing in any part of the argument itself that would limit its applicability to two-person unions. Every part of the argument would apply equally to unions of more than two people.

Furthermore, while playing to emotions about the human context of marriage and its source of meaning and connection for the married individuals, the opinion in Obergefell doesn't establish any boundaries for the exercise of the civil privileges that marriage entails. For example, there is no appeal to an expectation of permanence, raising children, etc. The marriage depicted in Obergefell is nothing more than a legal recognition of two people's determination to be together for whatever purposes each seeks within his or her own autonomy.

There is not even a tacit recognition that marriage has anything to do with sexual relations. Even though the opinion recognizes that marriage, among its other benefits, can provide a situation of stability for the rearing of children, this is presented as an outgrowth of the legal protections afforded marriage and is not offered, in any way, as part of the essential nature of marriage. Nothing is established or acknowledged about marriage, which would prevent the Constitutional protections claimed for same-sex couples from being claimed also for couples that are closely releated, even siblings or biological parent-child.

Once this understanding of marriage is extended to more than two parties (which it will), a whole new era of marriage as a legal "tool" will emerge. One example that seems rather obvious is use by crime families. They will marry each other in order to be able to invoke spousal privilege in court, as well as to allow the transfer of assets, on the death of one to the other, without going through testate in states where this would apply. It gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "married to the mob."

The sacred institution once known as "marriage" will need a new term, to distinguish it from the mess that is being opened up for marriage in the United States. Say "goodbye" to marriage; say "hello" to marriage.