A high school student in southern Ontario has a Super Bowl champion as her prom date.
Seattle Seahawks tight end Luke Willson stopped by his old high school, St. Thomas of Villanova, near Windsor, Ont., Thursday.
That’s where he hosted a lengthy question-and-answer period with a gym full of students.
Stephanie Dufour had the courage to ask Willson this question:
“I want to have a hotter prom date than all my friends, so I was wondering if you would go to prom with me,” Dufour said.
The gym erupted, and Willson answered.
“Usually we get weekends off, so if I can swing it, I’ll come back, and I’ll go to prom with you,” he said to even more applause.
She’s an airline pilot, a captain, but mere words got under her skin.
She posted that, and replied:
“I respectfully disagree with your opinion that the ‘cockpit,’ (we now call it the flight desk as no cocks are required), is no place for a lady. In fact, there are no places that are not for ladies anymore.”
Classy, eh? The term ‘cockpit‘ has nothing to do with penises.
Oh, and there still are places not for ladies, or even women for that matter: the pulpit in a decent church; wherever special forces are deployed; and still many other places, not least of which being the men’s room.
It is encouraging to find elements of Christian ‘Red Pill’ thinking from outside of the Christian manosphere, within the wider Christian community; recently I found such a blog post written a little over a year ago, here, by Stephen Altrogge, a Reformed writer, musician / songwriter and former pastor, in which he combats erroneous thinking encouraging relative disregard for physical attraction in relationship decision-making processes.
Recently Mike McKinley and Tim Challies both wrote articles which argued that young people, particularly men, should choose to be attracted primarily to a potential spouse’s spiritual beauty rather than physical beauty. I really respect both of these guys, love their gospel work, and usually agree with them, but as a pastor, both of these articles made me nervous. They made me nervous for two reasons.
First, the articles don’t fully appreciate the place of physical attraction in scripture. Yes, scripture is clear that in a marriage relationship, character is more important than physical attraction. But physical attraction matters.
The Song of Solomon devotes chapter upon chapter to describing the physical attraction between a man and woman.
Solomon clearly delights in the physical beauty of his bride. He doesn’t go on and on about her quiet spirit and devotion to God, as important as those things are. He is enraptured by her beauty. He is magnetically drawn to her appearance, and can’t stop thinking about her. Throughout scripture there is an underlying assumption that a man will be physically and spiritually attracted to a woman.
If a young man came to me, and said he was thinking about a particular girl, I would ask him two questions:
- Is she godly? If yes, proceed to question number two.
- Do you think she is attractive?
If he answered “no” to number two, I would counsel him to pause, and pray, and wait before pursuing the relationship. I wouldn’t want to press him into a relationship based solely on spiritual attraction, and then later have him feeling trapped in the relationship. Scripture is clear that spiritual character is most important when considering a potential spouse, but physical attraction also plays a significant part.
This leads me to a second, pastoral concern, regarding these articles. As a pastor, I’ve seen difficult marriages in which one spouse felt pressured into marriage, even though they weren’t particularly attracted to their spouse.
A husband and wife should be spiritually compatible AND physically attracted to each other. This doesn’t mean that the man or woman is a supermodel. Beauty is fleeting, and charm is deceitful, which is why we don’t make those things the primary factors in a relationship. But God created us as both spiritual and physical beings. We are not sexless, spiritual beings. God made us to have flesh and blood. He created us to be attracted to the opposite sex.
Following President Obama’s statement yesterday afternoon, which warned Russia that “there will be costs for any intervention in Ukraine,” Russian President Vladimir Putin responded with a shrug as he asked the upper house of the Russian parliament to authorize the deployment of troops in Ukraine. The request was passed unanimously.
Amusing. Putin may be an autocrat, and one who unites left and neo-cons against him (which is great, actually), but hey, when you compare him to Obama… There’s no comparison. And he’s a social conservative.
Go Putin! Just because.
From the BBC article:
Doctors say three-person IVF could eliminate debilitating and potentially fatal diseases that are passed from mother to child.
Opponents say it is unethical and could set the UK on a “slippery slope” to designer babies.
Using the parents’ sperm and eggs plus an additional egg from a donor woman should prevent mitochondrial disease.
Mitochondria are the tiny, biological “power stations” that provide energy to nearly every cell of the body.
One in every 6,500 babies has severe mitochondrial disease leaving them lacking energy, resulting in muscle weakness, blindness, heart failure and even death.
As mitochondria are passed down from mother to child, using an extra egg from a donor woman could give the child healthy mitochondria.
However, it would also result in babies having DNA from two parents and a tiny amount from the donor as mitochondria have their own DNA.
Scientists have devised two techniques that allow them to take the genetic information from the mother and place it into the egg of a donor with healthy mitochondria.
The Department of Health has already backed the technique and says this consultation is not about whether it should be allowed, but how it is implemented.
Method #1, I find particularly problematic, as it means creating two zygotes – i.e. fertilized eggs – which would each, in normal development, unarrested, become embryos, then fetuses, then babies. So, Method #1 means creating two potential human beings (because they would develop, in time, into two human beings), then destroying both, in order to combine the healthy parts of the two to create a third zygote, then let that develop.
At least with Method #2, however disturbing one may still find it, the tampering is only done with unfertilized eggs, which never will, on their own, without a sperm fertilizing them, become zygotes, and thus potential human beings (in due course of natural development, which is not the case with individual sperm or eggs on their own). Method #1, though, in my opinion, may rightly be viewed as equivalent to the usage of a birth control pill at the very least, in the same way that the birth control pill, while hindering ovulation, doesn’t always prevent it and therefore is also designed to make the uterine lining inhospitable to a fertilized egg – so any fertilized egg doesn’t attach properly, and then the uterine lining is shed and out washes the potential human being. If you find this problematic (and I’m not convinced that is significantly different from abortion), Method #1 is no different. Except worse, because whereas any ovulation that occurs while on the pill is accidental insofar as the pill is supposed to prevent it, and the other action merely a stopgap measure to try to deal with such imperfections of the working of the chemistry, but this IVF is a deliberate act of forming two zygotes then destroying both, to create a new one from the two destroyed ones.
And then there are all the other implications, regardless of method: children with three parents, impossible by natural means, but now possible thanks to scientific and technological advancement. Consider the possible legal ramifications alone…
These sorts of debates really shouldn’t be left solely up to the ‘experts’, which of course the ‘experts’ and the progressives would prefer; they should be discussed openly. But our managerial technocracies won’t allow that.
And so onward we march. Progress, doncha know. Only troglodytes like us would be disturbed by such, and who cares what we think, right?
From “Investing Lessons of Warren Buffett,” we investigate what the “Sage of Omaha” has to say about women.
Stockpicking isn’t a hobby.
Everyone should be an investor. But not everyone should choose their (sic) own investments. To be a successful investor requires thousands of hours of deliberate effortful study to master the necessary skills, and then thousands more (or in Buffett’s case, tens of thousands) to use those skills to find worthwhile investments. Buffett read every investing book in his local library, many of them multiple times… by the time he was eleven years old. If you aren’t willing to put in the time and effort that stockpicking requires, the person on the other side of your trades is likely to know more than you, which is a recipe for underperformance.
Now, if we used the word “Spousepicking” would we have to change a word of that? And is there any better explanation for why women were better off under an arranged marriage system, when they could take advantage of the “thousands of hours” of lifetime experience that their elders possessed?
It’s human nature to be emotional, and life is richer for it. But it reduces investment returns. Many people make systematic errors in their investment thinking, due to their emotions, egos and innate cognitive biases. They suffer from confirmation bias, tending to seek out and find evidence to support their position rather than evidence that might refute it. They think about risk more when things are already going badly and less when prices are already up. They resist admitting mistakes and hold their losers too long. They think about how they’ll spend the money they’re expecting to make from investing, and this can cloud their judgment and encourage excessive risk-taking. They’re overly optimistic and overly confident about their investment abilities, which is dangerous.
Perhaps we can substitute the word “court” where we see “invest,” and “courting” for investment. Excellent advice.
Invest in what you understand.
Buffett stresses the importance of having a circle of competence, a clearly defined industry, business model, asset class, investment style, or other area that you are an expert at, and investing only within that circle. You should continue to learn and thereby expand your circle of competence, but until you do, you shouldn’t invest where you aren’t yet skilled. Buffett has said that an investor needs to do very few things right as long as he or she avoids big mistakes, and staying within your circle of competence is one of them.
Ah, the masculine focus on self-improvement. “Don’t wish the game were easier; wish you were better.”
This is closely related to Buffett’s suggestion of investing only in what you understand. He has three mailboxes on his desk, labelled “In”, “Out”, and “Too Hard”. Every business has factors which are knowable, unknowable, important, and unimportant; he recommends investing in businesses for which the important factors are knowable. He wants understandable businesses because he intends to hold long-term and wants to be able to predict roughly what the business will look like in five or ten years. He puts most technology companies in the too-hard pile. Tech changes so fast that there are only a handful of people in the world with the expertise to tell which will be spectacular successes and which will be spectacular failures. If you aren’t in that elite group, it’s best to look elsewhere. Buffett has said that investing isn’t like Olympic diving, where you get more points for a difficult dive than a simple one. Or to use another sports analogy, he doesn’t try to jump over seven-foot bars, he looks around for one-foot bars he can step over.
Now this is marriage advice for every man! In the marriage market, women are either a buy, or a sell, or “too hard.” Dalrock has an early post on determining who is a buy. For “sell,” well, there are any number of indicators. We do not encourage divorce here, and we don’t mean for people to “sell” a “stock” they’ve already bought; Buffett’s ideal holding period for a buy is “forever.”
But it’s Buffett’s concept of “too hard” that really informs the problem for women who want to get married. As women pass the age of prime desireability as sexual and marriage partners, they accumulate increasing expectations that conflict with their declining sexual and marriage market value. Their SMV might in fact rise, leading them to undertake more “dates,” but this rise causes a plummet in MMV. They acquire what Roissy first called the “463 Bullet Point Checklist” for a mate; they ignore most men. As Jim once wrote: “My observation is once women stay on the carous(e)l past a certain age, they can’t get off until they are kicked off;” they become Alpha Widows, meaning they will pine forever for the highest-status man who had them.
Now, this does not mean that they cannot be made into decent wives by a man with the social dominance to be even more “alpha” than the man whose alpha widow they are. But here’s the problem: the man with the ability to do that also has the ability to pursue and capture the best of the women that Buffett might term a “buy.” Despite attractiveness, the woman has now become “too hard.” Like Trinity, she can expect a delivery soon, but it won’t be her husband’s child,and her future is grim.
The market is there to serve you, not to inform you.
Ben Graham had a thought experiment that Buffett frequently used. Imagine the stock market as a single person, Mr. Market, who’s willing and able to buy any stock from you or sell any stock to you. Mr. Market is often rational and the prices he sets are often reasonable, but occasionally he gets emotional or irrational and the prices swing wildly in one direction or the other. When he’s rational and offers no great deals, you are free to ignore him.
Now, if we only imagine the metaphor as “Mrs. Market” and “she,” we can take a lot away from this.
In the end, building long-term value can follow some simple, basic rules. Read the rest of Buffett’s ideas, and see what else is an obvious application.
It was predicted this would likely happen; establishment Republicans being the ‘moderates’ (gutless) they are.
And so it did.
And that useless ass John McCain supported Jan Brewer in this move, naturally. As did Mitt Romney.
Conservative, traditionalist Christians knew what was at stake:
The conservative advocacy organization the Center for Arizona Policy was behind the bill, along with the Christian-based legal group Alliance Defending Freedom.
Center for Arizona Policy President Cathi Herrod declined interviews but issued a statement on the veto.
“Today’s veto of SB 1062 marks a sad day for Arizonans who cherish and understand religious liberty,” Herrod said. “SB 1062 passed the legislature for one reason only: to guarantee that all Arizonans would be free to live and work according to their faith. Opponents were desperate to distort this bill rather than debate the merits. Essentially, they succeeded in getting a veto of a bill that does not even exist.”
She said the bill did nothing more than try to assure that laws could not force people to violate their faith unless there is a compelling governmental interest.
“It is truly a tragic day in our state and nation when lies and personal attacks can over shadow the truth,” she said.
Christians doing wedding photography, running bed-and-breakfasts, doing wedding cakes, etc. will not be free from reprisals if they refuse to take homosexuals’ business.
The progs in Tucson will likely be celebrating at Rocco’s.
And neo-con Republicans Jan Brewer, John McCain, and Mitt Romney will be with them, in spirit, no doubt, as will be President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and all the Democrats.
(And yet there are people who still think it makes sense for Christians to bother voting Republican. Incredible.)