Thursday, October 28th, 2021
Bookmark and Share

Because I Said So!

A Weekly Blog From John Rosemond

Sign-up here to receive Because I Said So! each week in your inbox.

    

    

  

**As of October 1, 2021, Because I Said So! is going on a brief hiatus during John's busy speaking season.

Commonsense Is in Short Supply These Days

Has the same old, same old seasonal flu disappeared as a consequence of vaccines? No, it has not. It’s still with us and probably will be until the end of times. Its mortality rate has simply been reduced.

Does any individual capable of logical thinking believe that the COVID virus will stop doing its occasionally nefarious thing as a consequence of vaccines, even if it could be proven that the vaccines in question do more good than harm? COVID is going to be with us forever. Given that its mortality rate is lower than that of the seasonal flu, I fail to see reason for uproar or even more than commonsensical precautions. A friend contracts COVID? Don’t go around your friend until he or she has recovered. Wow! What brilliance that Rosemond guy exudes!

My wife and I went to a local (New Bern, North Carolina) restaurant for lunch today. Of six visible employees, five were mask-less, one was wearing a mask that a virus can pass through as easily as a mosquito can pass through a chain-link fence. Easier, in fact, by much. Surely, he voted for Biden, the candidate of those who do not or will not take the time to “follow the science,” a libel usually directed at Republicans, but without merit. When I asked him why he was the only employee wearing a mask, he began mumbling incoherently.

This evening’s performance of “Clue” by the New Bern Community Theater was cancelled because of “issues with COVID.” Huh? What is an “issue with COVID.” One would think that if a cast member developed a symptomatic case, the announcement would have read, “because a cast member, most unfortunately, has developed a symptomatic case of COVID.” My next-door neighbor, a very intelligent attorney, and I speculated that a cast member may have tested positive. If so, so what? The tests are notoriously unreliable, in both the positive and negative direction, and most cases, especially among young people, are asymptomatic. I ask, “So what?” because at any given performance, surely at least one person in the audience would test positive. More likely, given the popularity and entertainment value of our Community Theater, at least ten. Calling off the play and rescheduling it for next week, by which time COVID will no longer be a threat to mankind (JOKE!), is a demonstration of the sort of thing that happens when liberals run things.

Commonsense is in short supply these days. It has been for quite some time, in fact. The fundamental characteristic of a person with commonsense is the ability to not panic in the face of crisis. Panic helps no one, ever, regardless of its context. Panic is stupid. Once upon a time, long, long, ago, I was prone to panic. Thankfully, I can’t think of any situation that would provoke panic in me today. Hello, I am John, and I am a recovering panicky person. What does it take to stop panicking? It takes the realization that if you feel panic rising, you (a) are in a problem situation that demands fast problem-solving and (b) your ability to solve problems is seriously impaired by panic. That’s all. Commonsense. It’s in short supply these days. I already said that, but it merits repeating.

   

   

Harsh Words That Need To Be Spoken

Today’s parents need to learn to treat their children with a certain nonchalance. Incorporating the following sort of language into one’s parenting vocabulary will go a long, long way toward accomplishing that:

  • “Really? You’re actually wasting my time with complaints of this sort? Tell me something important for a change.”
  • “Tell you what? I’ll sit down in this comfortable chair and while I’m relaxing I want you to stand in front of me and try to get me to change my mind. I won’t, but you go right ahead and give it your best shot.”
  • "This is a problem YOU created, child of mine whom I love with all my heart, and I would suggest that you figure out how you created it and how you’re going to un-create it.”
  • “We’re not talking about this anymore. I’ve said all I have to say about monsters under your bed when the lights in your room go out and I’m not going to treat you like you’re stupid and keep repeating myself. Go to bed. Scream as loud as you can. It keeps the monsters away.”
  • “Why do you insist on hearing me say the words you hate the most? Can you tell me? It makes no sense. What are they? C’mon! Okay, here. Because I said so. Because I said so. Got that? It’s always, until you’re outa here, going to be the answer to ‘But why, Mommy?’ Because I said so. Now, go find something to do while you cook in your own juices. I don’t want to watch it.”
  • “Oh, really? Well, young person whom I cherish, you can hate me all you want. If I was your age and I was standing in your shoes right now, I’d hate me too I suppose. No problem.”

“Oh, but John, those sound so heartless!” someone who’s much too in touch with their feelings protests.

For the purpose of argument, I’ll accept that over-the-top characterization for the moment. “Heartless” is exactly why childrearing language of the above sort accomplishes putting the child in his proper place, getting him to stop thinking of you as a talking vending machine and respect you even though there are times when he hates the ground you walk on. Finally—in his or her early adulthood, maybe—he just might come to realize that you knew he sometimes hated you but you were perfectly okay with that and allowed it because you love him with all your heart.

Like God loves us.

   

   

On Climate Change

More and more evidence is accumulating to the effect that man is not the primary driver of climate change. First, however, the fundamental question: Is climate change truly happening? I happen to think so, but then the climate has been changing in cycles since Earth was created, thousands but most probably several billions of years ago.

The primary driver is our sun, which also has a climate that cycles. Every heavenly body has a climate, and all climates are equal in the sense that they all cycle. Cold gets colder and then it begins getting warmer, and so on.

As do all her planets, our sun warms and cools as it emits more and then less solar rays. Hold that thought.

So, it appears that all the planets in our solar system are heating up, and equally so when one factors in and compensates for size and distance from the sun, their primary source of HEAT. Ain’t that Something? If all of the planets in our solar system are heating up, and equally so, then a common denominator is acting on them. In our case, the common denominator is our sun, which, in effect, is constantly “breathing” into the solar system, sometimes more, sometimes less. Truly, it’s a breath of life.

The FACTS are that (a) while modern man’s activities may account for a small amount of climate change, the primary variable is the sun, and (b) nothing we do is going to change the sun’s climate, and right now in the history of the universe, our sun is getting hotter, which is known as “hotter ‘n blazes!”

The question then becomes: What, then is the primary driver of climate change propaganda? It’s obviously propaganda because the facts don’t support it … never have, never will. The primary drivers of said disingenuous puffery are money and control. In a word, power. It is certainly significant in that regard that the puffery emanates from the Democrat Party and its minions, and – I’ve said this in this blog many times but it bears emphasizing – the Dems are desperate and will therefore go to desperate lengths to accomplish their aim, which is to concentrate power—including power over every nuance of our lives—in a centralized elite that then manipulates us for their nefarious purposes through their PR department: the mainstream media, which now includes Facebook and other social media. The mainstream media has developed a mutually codependent relationship with the Democrat Party. It’s what The Donald was calling out when he talked about fake news.

How brilliant of them, really. They create, out of whole cloth, a fake crisis and then tell us that the only way we’re going to survive is to do what they tell us to do. And the sheep bow down.

It occurs to me that the cultural dysfunction now called “parenting” mirrors this codependency. In that case, the child intuits, right around the start of toddlerhood—eighteen months, give or take—that control over his parents can be obtained by creating fake crises of one sort or another. His parents, in order to tamp down any given crisis the child manufactures to a barely tolerable level, begin doing what their little tyrant tells them to do. Irony of ironies, the ubiquity of that family dysfunction is why I have a job. The child’s crises are like climate cycles in that they range from hot (e.g., psychotic tantrums) to cold (e.g., episodes of depression) in a child who lacks nothing but is obsessively driven to occupy at all times the center of attention and concern in his family.

“Why would a child pay the price of depression in order to get attention?”

Because human beings are the one and only species that is self-destructive. (The suicidal lemming story has been deemed patently false.) Our self-destructive bent is built in, furthermore. The “trick” is to identify it within ourselves and understand that our only salvation is Christ Jesus. No human being has ever solved this problem autonomously and no human being ever will.

I realized about 23 years ago that I could not stop acting against my best interests, which is the root of all other problems, on my own. I needed God and I needed His Son. I needed their unflagging love and their blameless discipline. All of God’s children need Him and His Son.

Parents often ask my advice on how to most lastingly lead their children to Christ. My answer, “Be His disciple. Serve Him by giving your children unconditional love and unequivocal authority. Reflect Him in how you deal with your kids. You are their first understanding of God. Make it authentic.”

And all God’s children said…

  

  

Old Fashioned Child Rearing Is Where It’s At

A thirty-something homeschooling Mom decides to take an advanced college course in child development, thinking it would advance her understanding of children. Turns out, the class did nothing to advance her understanding of children, but she did come away with a better understanding of why so many of her friends and acquaintances are having such horrible discipline problems with their kids.

“The professor, a psychologist, began the class by telling us that the way I was raised was wrong, even abusive,” she told me, “and that I had to toss all the wonderful lessons of my wonderful upbringing in the trash and learn the new way.”

She quickly figured out that the only way she was going to make a decent grade in the course was to pretend that she agreed with the professor and hope he wasn’t a very good judge of people. She made a decent grade, in part because psychologists aren’t very good judges of people, generally. I can say that with authority because I am a psychologist and I was people-stupid until I came to grips with what my education had done to me and set about to recover.

They, psychologists and mental health professionals by other titles, don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to children, parenting, families, and people in general. And they refuse to admit it. Who else in my profession is saying what I say? Far as I can tell, no one. Even James Dobson and I disagree on most things. He believes in psychology and the myth of its healing powers. I do not. Furthermore, I fail to comprehend how a person with a solid biblical foundation can believe in psychology, especially if, like me, he is a psychologist and should understand it. Is Jim Dobson so enamored of his degree that he can’t see the evil that lurks behind the sheepskin?

About human beings, the Bible tells us one thing, psychology tells us something else entirely. The Bible says, for example, that high esteem for oneself is bad mojo. Psychology says bad mojo is good mojo. The Bible says that the gospel is sufficient to heal whatever ails you, mental or physical. Psychology says psychology is not just sufficient but absolutely necessary, along with drugs that have never reliably outperformed placebos in clinical trials (NONE OF THEM!) to heal whatever ails your mental state. How can a biblical worldview be reconciled with psychology when they obviously exist in a state of philosophical incompatibility? In a word: Can’t.

Do today’s parents raise children the way parents in the 1950s raised children? No. Today’s parents raise children according to bogus psychological theory. Their grandparents raised children according to biblical principle, tradition, and commonsense. Has child mental health improved since the 1950s? No, it is at least ten times worse. Does 1 and 1 make 2? Yes, unless one is a victim of public-school math, in which case 1 and 1 make whatever you need it to make to continue feeling special.

Psychology has not improved the lot of any group of American citizens except psychologists, who have successfully convinced most American citizens that they know what they’re doing when it comes to kids, parents, families, and humans in general. Because of their success at promoting the myth of psychology, psychologists generally make a lot of money. It is relevant to note that most of them are atheists and most of them vote a straight Democrat Party ticket. I want Jim Dobson to someday tell me exactly what he finds so wonderful about psychology.

Psychologists are con artists. A parent goes to a psychologist seeking advice concerning a child who is disobedient and unmotivated in school. The con artist, I mean, psychologist tells the parent that their child’s biochemistry is out of balance and that the imbalance is causing attention deficit disorder and oppositional defiant disorder and that the child requires a daily dose of medication that throws the chemistry of the human nervous system out of balance. The parent, thinking that people with capital letters after their names must know what they’re talking about and goes along with the con. Did the psychologist analyze a blood or serum sample from the child? No. Then how does he know the kid has a biochemical imbalance? Ponder that for a while. Why does the child’s “therapy” consist primarily of a prescription? Ah, so that when the kids behavior fails to improve, the psychologist can dodge responsibility by simply claiming that the medication must need adjusting. Does the child’s behavior and willingness to accept responsibility improve? Only during the five or so hours following a dose of the drug, at which point the drug wears off and the misbehaviors resurface. The drug creates an illusion, and an ephemeral one at that.

Most people who seek counsel from mental health professionals later testify that the counsel was of no help or made matters worse. Studies find that when people don’t know the educational level of their “therapists,” they rate people with only high school educations as highly, on average, as they rate people with Ph.Ds. in psychology. Ponder those two facts for a while.

If one sees ten medical docs about a certain physical problem, he is very likely to receive the same diagnosis ten times and the same recommendations for treatment ten times. If one sees ten psychologists about a certain personal problem, he is very likely to receive at least five different diagnoses and at least seven different treatment plans. In light of that, how in the world can one conclude anything other than “These people are clowns”?

And so my new friend tells me her college professor says that new parenting is a whole lot better than old fashioned child rearing. Like I said, they don’t know what they’re talking about. Don’t trust them as far as you can throw them. Practice distancing yourself from mental health professionals. Six feet? No, sixty yards. Don’t go near their offices unless your physician’s office is in the same complex. Psychologists are a pandemic. You don’t want to catch what they got.

   

   

Fear Is Not Going To Run My Life

Why, oh why, tell me why – and please follow the science as well as nothing more complicated than common sense – you’re wearing a mask? You know who you are. Some folks – this is really head-scratching – are even wearing masks as they drive down the boulevard in their own vehicles by themselves or walk down virtually empty residential sidewalks like the occasional neurotic who walks by my house. Why?

YouTube banned a video by Senator Rand Paul, a physician, mind you, in which he unequivocally says that masks do no good outside of a surgery. They might help, says the science, if you’re a COVID carrier and concerned about infecting your fellow citizens, but they don’t help ward off the virus, which is no more lethal to begin with than the common seasonal flu, and unlike COVID, the seasonal flu kills children, for Pete’s sake! I get it now. If it’s banned from YouTube, it must be true. Same for Facebook and Twitter and Instagram. It’s like we’re living in some Alice in Wonderland universe.

Early on in the pandemic, the death statistics of which are grossly inflated by folks who died of other factors but tested positive for COVID an hour before they died because they were in hospitals where COVID is everywhere, My wife and I adopted a personal policy of not wearing masks. Because of that, I hold the distinction of being kicked out of a Staples!

“Sir, sir, excuse me, sir, do you have a mask?” asked the guy by the door as I walked in, my entire face showing.

“I don’t wear them.”

“Uh, uh, well, uh, we require them.”

“You want my business?”

“Uh, well, uh, yes sir, but we require masks.”

“I told you, I don’t wear them.”

“Well, then, uh, I have to ask you to leave.”

“You don’t have to ask. I’m on my way out, thank you very much.”

I mean, whenever I tried to wear a mask, I could tell that the area between my mouth and the fabric was an ideal breeding ground for all manner of little nasties. It’s moist. It’s hot. There’s no ventilation. Worst of all, my sunglasses fog up when I wear a mask and my upper lips sweats. A person wearing a mask is breathing in what he just exhaled. And that is supposed to protect you from disease? The voice in my head that I call Mr. Common Sense told me, long before the science confirmed it, that masks were worthless and probably counterproductive. Like I said, if you’re sick, wear a mask, but if you’re not sick, it’s not a good idea to wear a mask. And if you’re sick, just stay home. Then you won’t have to wear a mask. Even if you went to public school, you should be able to follow that line of reasoning.

A sign on a restaurant in Okracoke, North Carolina, said “Masks Required.” I opened the door and asked the hostess, “I have to wear a mask while I eat?” She said, “No, just until you’re seated.” So, I’m a health risk while I’m standing, but not when I’m sitting. Made no sense, but okay, I’m with a group of people who want to eat in this restaurant run by completely illogical people so I wear a mask from the door to the table. I’m hoping they cook better than they think. When we’re done and have paid the bill, I ask the waitress if we have to wear masks while we’re leaving. “No,” she says. “Only when you’re coming in.” Someone help me make sense of that, please! I implore you!

Fear is not going to run my life. Nor is the United States Government. The Constitution does not give the Government the power to run my life. In fact, just the opposite. The Constitution prevents the Government from running my life! The Constitution doesn’t say the Government CAN do this and that…it says it CAN’T do this and it CAN’T do that. Does anyone even read it anymore? I honestly think I could tell the average twenty-something that the Constitution says, “Spare the rod, spoil the child” and he would believe me. By the way, that’s not even in the Bible, as many people think. And even if it were, the biblical “rod” is not a spanking, for Pete’s sake! I’ll explain that in a future BLOG. Maybe the next one. Are you on pins and needles now? I bet you are. Don’t wear a mask. Breathe freely! The Constitution says, “The government cannot pass a law or enact a restriction that would prevent the free flow of air into and out of the nose and mouth.” No, it’s true! Check it out!

   

   

The Great Unraveling

I am rapidly closing on my 74th birthday. I praise God every day for my continued mental and physical health. Best of all things in my life, Willie and I have been married for fifty-three years and counting. She and I met in college—she introduced herself to me in the student union at Western Illinois University the day after she heard my band play to a crowd of about 1000 in the same building—and were married ten months later. She was 19, I was 20. The success of our relationship is the greatest accomplishment of my life, and I know I speak for her as well.

Willie and I grew up in the 1950s and early 1960s. We went to public schools in the Chicago suburbs where we learned, as we had in our respective homes, that America was the greatest country in the world; the greatest the world had ever seen, in fact. We had fought for our independence, fought to end slavery and preserve the Union, and fought to maintain freedom and democracy in the world. We were taught to be grateful for the fact that we lived in a country that despite its internal differences concerning one thing or another came together as one nation whenever the chips were down.

And then, with the debacle in Vietnam, we began to see all of that begin to unravel. That Great Unraveling has culminated, fifty years later, in the greatest political and military catastrophe the citizens of this country have ever witnessed.

Last night, Willie and I were part of a small group of people—some conservatives like us, some very liberal—who got together rather spontaneously to simply get to know one another. In the course of the evening, the conversation turned, as was inevitable, to the catastrophe we’ve seen playing out on our televisions for the past week. We all agreed that any one of us could have figured out how to exit Afghanistan without catastrophe. Any one with a functional brain, presented with the same scenario, would have known to first secure the safety of American citizens in Afghanistan; second, secure the permanent well-being of those Afghanis who had given their service to our military; third, secure and then destroy Bagram AFB; and fourth, make sure mega-billions of dollars of military equipment did not fall into the hands of the Taliban. Then, get out, but not before.

We all agreed, liberals and conservatives all, that the problem is Joe Biden. The most important presidential responsibility involves the job of Commander-in-Chief, and over the past week, Joe Biden has conclusively demonstrated that he is completely, unequivocally incompetent to perform responsibly in that job. Not only that, but in the mere seven months he has held office, he has overseen what amounts to a domestic debacle as well. Illegals are overrunning our border, making a mockery of our sovereignty. Inflation is on the brink of being out of control. Our military is more concerned with gender (including transgender) inclusivity than with protecting our national interests on the world stage. That’s the short list.

Think what you will of Donald Trump, but none of this would have happened if he had prevailed despite the fraud. Donald Trump is not a politician. His first, second, and third thoughts in any given situation are not how to advance the interests of the Republican Party, which is why so many in the GOP hate him. He is, first and foremost, a patriotic American who realizes that a strong America not only advances the interests of every free country in the world along with the interests of every people group who yearns to be free, but also the interests of every American, no matter their political bent.

Biden is not, first and foremost, a patriot. He is a Bidenite. His primary interest is and always been that of enriching himself and members of his family, a personal interest that requires that he advance the interests of the Democrat Party, no matter how anti everything America stands for those interests may be.

Seven months ago, I couldn’t stand the guy. Today, I’m sick of him; more than I was of Nixon in ’74, which I thought at the time was as sick of anyone besides my malevolent stepfather that I could ever get. Having brought about the greatest national humiliation in the history of this country, Biden has simply got to go, and his ilk—Pelosi, Schumer, and the rest of the moral degenerates, Democrat and Republican, who would sell this country down the river in a heartbeat to protect their personal fiefdoms—have got to go with him. At all costs. I may be “elderly,” but I am primed and ready to pay the cost to myself, whatever it turns out to look like. America is worth it and the whole world depends upon it. 

   

    

On My Mind

“Afghan President Fled with Helicopter Full of Cash!” blared the AOL news headline. Yes, AOL. I’m a techno-throwback, a dinosaur. AOL’s been good to me. But about President Whomever fleeing his country with a haul of cash, so what? If I were in his silk slippers, and I had to flee my country, once royalty, now a beggar, I’d grab as much cash as I could before I got out of Dodge forever. He’s got to find a country that won’t extradite him or sell him to the highest bidder. That requires one ruled over by a dictator. You can’t trust democracies. The present government might agree to protect you, but who knows what an election might bring. I hope he took enough cash to ensure he had enough for an attractive bribe and still live comfortably and securely for the rest of his life, despite the nagging and barely suppressible fear of being assassinated at any minute by the bodyguards the dictator personally selected. And let’s face it, if said cash reverts to the Taliban, no one in possession of a functional brain thinks they would distribute it amongst the people of Afghanistan, do they?

Ersatz President-in-Name-Only Joe “The Schmo” Biden has irreparably, very possibly, damaged the reputation of the United States in the world community. Power is admired, fecklessness is not. Think what you will of the guy, but Trump was admired, if in secret, while Biden is the subject of snickers. We may not be able to dig ourselves out of this hole for several generations to come, assuming we are able to get rid of the teachers’ unions in the meantime.

The Democrat Party has two tentacles that reach deeply into the heart of America: the mainstream media and the teachers’ unions. In both cases, the purpose is to indoctrinate as many sheep as possible into the blessings of being sheep. The Republican Party, meanwhile, whines about us sliding slowly into soft totalitarianism but are too cowardly to do anything that might stymie the octopus.

According to a good friend who is anything but a sycophant, my latest book, The Bible Parenting Code, is the “best book you’ve ever written.” In it, I take forty scripture, all but maybe five of which make no overt mention of children or parental responsibilities (e.g., “and the second is like it; love your neighbor as yourself”), and illustrate how they pertain to childrearing, and significantly so. Over the last twenty years or so, the Bible has become my favorite book, hands down, ever. I can’t get enough of it. I’m no hungry for its knowledge and wisdom that I’m taking a couple of stabs at theology. I have an idea for a book that critiques the narrative that has developed over the centuries in the Christian world concerning the account of the Fall in Genesis 3. The narrative is simply wrong. Especially mistaken is the notion that “and their eyes were opened” refers to feelings of shame which Adam and Eve attempted to cover by fashioning garments for themselves. That exegesis is indefensible – a hypothesis I am defending in what may be my next book. Writing is sport for me and venturing into new subject matter is exciting.

   

   

“Let There Be Light” (Part 2)

NOTE: It is important, at the outset, for the reader to know that this blog post from yours truly, John Rosemond, is an extension of my previous blog post (Aug. 5, 2021). Part two, if you will. Whether you have read that post or not, I highly recommend that you read or re-read it before plunging herein.

Among others, Ken Hamm, Founder and CEO of Answers in Genesis, insists that the word “day” used six times in Genesis 1 as “And there was evening, and there was morning, the (numerical adjective) day” refers to a 24-hour period. I mention Hamm in particular because he (a) is arguably the most well-known 24-hour day advocate and (b) seems to be one of those fellows who is challenged by the mere fleeting thought that he might be mistaken about something. To be sure, Hamm is correct about many things, but he is wrong on this issue.

First, when the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) was written by Moses, God’s scribe, Hebrew was a relatively young language. It did not consist, relatively speaking, of a large number of root words. It was also highly metaphorical. For those reasons primarily, many words had multiple meanings. “Day” is one such example. As is the case with “day” in English (e.g. “in Ben Frankin’s day…), a yom in Hebrew could/can mean, in addition to a 24-hour period, a longer, even much longer, period of time.

Take a gander at Genesis 1, verses 4 and 5: “God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light ‘day,’ and the darkness he called ‘night.’ And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.”
Could it be reasonably asserted that the two uses of “day” mean the same thing? Did God call the light a 24-hour something. No, it could not and He did not. The first use does not refer to a passage of time while the second use obviously does.

So, we have thus far established that the word “day” in Genesis 1 does not always mean the same thing from one usage to the next. Context is everything. Now, we must establish that when “day” is used to mean a passage of time, the passage in question is not 24-hours in length.

The first observation to be made in that regard is that God did not create the sun—the heavenly body by which a solar day (24 hours, approx.) is defined—until “day” four. Said another way, a 24-hour day did not exist on “days” one, two, and three.
But the most compelling reason to reject the 24-hour day hypothesis has nothing to do with the meaning of the word yom but with the meanings of two Hebrew words even more important to a correct understanding of the Bible’s creation account—erev and boker.

Each of the Bible’s six creation days ends with “And there was evening, and there was morning—the [numeric adjective] day.” Why is evening named first? After all, the space between dusk (evening) and dawn (morning) is night, not day. Furthermore, the sun and moon—by which time on earth is and has always been ascertained—were not created until day four, so the question becomes: On days one, two, and three (specifically), what is meant by evening and morning if evening and morning (as we understand the terms) did not yet exist?

Old Testament scholars point out that the Hebrew words for evening and morning—erev and boker—can also mean, respectively, chaos and order. If those were the meanings intended, or one of the meanings intended, then what is described is precisely what happened as God formed the universe: He took the boiling chaos of the Big Bang and brought order to it, organizing it into its fundamental components, beginning with the elements, according to set laws of physics and chemistry. Furthermore, He did so in stages, the way a cabinet maker would build an armoire, an artist would execute a portrait, or a contractor would build a house. God began with a concept, a blueprint of sorts, and went about executing it in a precisely intentional manner, making sense out of non-sense. If true (and I believe it is), then this means that “day” (yom) in the Genesis account does not refer to a twenty-four-hour cycle, but to the period of time between chaos and order in each of six phases of creation, that the lengths of said periods may well differ, and that the actual length of any interval is irrelevant to the purpose of this essay.

   

   

“Let There Be Light”

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (Genesis 1:3 – 5, ESV)

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. (Genesis 1:14 – 19, ESV)

Is that not fascinating? On the first “day,” God separates light from darkness, calling the light Day and the darkness Night. On the fourth “day,” God creates the sun and moon to separate the day from the night, the light from the darkness. On both “days,” the same language is used; nonetheless, it should be obvious that these two separations refer to very different creation events.

Let’s begin at the beginning: God says, “Let there be light,” and there was light (Genesis 1:3). That describes what astrophysicists call the Big Bang—creation ex nihilo or out of nothing. Why some Christian pundits deny the reality of the Bang is beyond me. It probably has to do with the fact that the original formulators of the Bang were atheists. If that is the reason, it is an outstanding example of Christian narrow-mindedness.

The very next creation event, according to astrophysicists, was the separation of light matter from dark matter—that which can be seen (objectively verified) from that which is unseen (only inferred), as attested to by both the author of Hebrews (11:3) and Paul (2 Corinthians 4:18). In other words, the words day and night in verse 5 do not refer to the phenomenon of night and day created by the sun and the rotation of the earth; rather, they refer to the creation of dark matter, which can only be inferred (is unseen). Without getting into the specifics of dark matter physics, the 5 to 1 ratio of dark to light matter is what holds the universe together, a principle attributed by Paul to Christ Jesus, Son of God (Colossians 1:17).

Moses, Paul, and the unknown author of Hebrews make reference to creation events and principles of astrophysics that they could have known only supernaturally! To propose that the harmony of biblical testimony and recent findings in the field of astrophysics is coincidence is beyond absurd. But what is truly mind-blowing is that Paul attributes to Christ Jesus—"He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together” (Col. 1:17)—what astrophysicists attribute to dark matter, which is unseen and, therefore, can only be inferred! The distinct possibility exists that astrophysicists have discovered evidence of the Word that brought the universe into being! If that’s true (and I think it is), it is mind-blowing!

The astute reader will notice that I put the word day in quotes in paragraph 3, above. That is because, contrary to what many Christian pundits insist—some rather dogmatically, I feel obligated to point out—the Hebrew word yom as used in Genesis 1, simply does not, cannot, refer to a 24-hour period. In my next blog post, to appear next Thursday, August 11, 2021, I will prove precisely that. You can’t wait!

  

   

The Spread of "Misinformation"

I get it.

One hears a lot these days about “misinformation,” especially “misinformation” about COVID, the vaccines, rising crime rates, the effects of Biden administration policies on small business owners and poor people, the effect of inflation (the inevitable consequence of Biden administration economic policies) on the middle class and the poor, and racism, which is the left’s default explanation for why anything bad happens to anyone who isn’t white and self-supporting.

Guarding the citizenry against “misinformation” seems to be the primary objective of the Biden administration and its sycophants in the mainstream media. On the surface of things, that appears to be a good thing, and indeed, it would be a good thing if the “misinformation” (in quotes) in question is truly misinformation, but it isn’t.

My steel-trap mind has figured out, just in time to meet the deadline for this blog post, that “misinformation” is anything the Biden administration doesn’t want you to know. So, for example, according to the Biden administration/mainstream media definition of the word misinformation, this blog is full of “misinformation” and because I am a spreader of “misinformation,” I should be silenced (which they may do one of these days).

Examples of “misinformation” include:

  • The rise in crime is not caused by guns. It is caused by people who lack a functional moral guidance system, most often the result of growing up in a fatherless home.
  • Biden administration giveaways have caused inflation, and inflation harms the poor more than it harms any other demographic. In other words, the fact that the poor, who are disproportionately black, are getting poorer is not due to racism.
  • The Biden administration knows full well that its economic policies are hurting the poor more than they are hurting any other demographic. Note that the Biden administration is not changing its economic policies; rather, they are ramping them up.
  • The vaccines are not a reliable safeguard against COVID and probably would not have passed FDA standards had said standards been applied dispassionately.
  • Tony Fauci may well bear significant responsibility for the pandemic.
  • Critical Race Theory is further dividing us, which suits the left’s purposes just fine.

There’s more, but that should suffice for now.

A fellow wrote me the other day, complaining about the political content of many of my blog entries. “How about sticking to parenting, John?” he wrote. “After all, you’re not an expert on political matters, which is why when you venture into politics, you’re always wrong.”

The fellow means that I spread “misinformation.” He is correct, sort of. To someone who quaffs the progressive Kool-Aid, I don’t know what I’m talking about when I “venture into politics.” He reasons thus: John Rosemond is a conservative in the truest sense of the term; furthermore, John Rosemond is a parenting expert; therefore, John Rosemond’s view of political matters is wrong.

The truth is,

I am an American citizen and have as much right to express my political views as does one of CNN’s talking heads, who are only saying what they have been told to say.
Being a so-called “parenting expert” does not mean that my political views are not valid.
Progressives are attempting to influence the thinking and values of America’s children in ways contrary to their parents’ thinking and values and I view it as my right and even obligation to support said parents, which I do by publishing “misinformation.”

Concerning Point 3, above, a fellow who lives in one of the most rural counties of North Carolina recently sent me the outline of a course his son is being required to take in middle school. The course teaches that (a) all white people are racist or benefit from the racism that was rampant in previous generations (i.e., mine), and (b) need to confront, ‘fess up to, and atone for their innate racism, which has been passed down to them like a gene. In other words, they can’t help being racists, but they need to feel really guilty about it anyway.

The course in question is teaching Critical Race Theory, which was first articulated in 1996 by an avowed Marxist and is based on Marxist dialectical theory which proposes that everyone is either a member of the oppressor class or the oppressed class. In a Marxian world, the solution to unequal outcomes (which is not the same as unfairness, mind you) is income redistribution, which boils down to requiring the guilty (who can be identified by their tax returns) to give what they have earned to people who did not earn it.

Why is this course being required of children in a middle school in rural North Carolina? Because they are trying to divide us, “they” being America’s progressive elites. Why would America’s progressive elites be trying to divide us, the people? Because they are fixated not on the best interests of the people, but on their own best interests, and they advance their obsessive desire for power by manipulating certain people into believing that they are the solution to a problem that really doesn’t exist. Albeit racism was indeed a sordid aspect of our history, America is no longer a racist nation. We are a great people whose greatness is exemplified by the fact that we have thrown off the shackles of racism, shackles that did great harm to both the racists and their victims. Are there people in the USA who are still racist? Yes, but they no longer represent a threat to the freedoms guaranteed to all in the Bill of Rights.

Who, today, represents the greatest threat to the freedoms guaranteed to all in the Bill of Rights? That is the pressing question. The answer is found in the difference between misinformation and “misinformation.”

   

   

Why I Do What I Do

Why has the raising of children over the past fifty years become so much more stressful, confusing, perplexing, anxiety-ridden, guilt-ridden, and fraught with difficulty of every imaginable sort than it ever was before? Fifty-plus years ago, parents experienced their share of difficulties – more with some kids, less with others – but childrearing itself was not generally regarded as it is generally regarded today, especially by mothers.

“Had I known in advance that raising a child would be so gut-wrenching,” a mother recently told me, “I’d have made sure I never had one.”

Tragically, she was speaking not just for herself. Women of my mother’s generation rarely agonized over their kids. My mother certainly didn’t. Although I gave her occasional grief, worrying about me was not a source of perennial insomnia. Fact is, I worried more about what she would do if she discovered my shenanigans than she worried about them.

The answer to the question posed in the first sentence of this essay: Psychology. My chosen profession. Psychological theory concerning children has informed the rearing of children in America since the 1960s, and every small iota of said theory is wrong. If said theory is correct, then the mental health of children should have improved by quantum leaps. Instead, the mental health of today’s kids is at least ten times worse per capita than it was in the glory days of my youth.

Psychological parenting theory has caused a historically unique paradigm shift. In the 1950s and before, children were afraid of their parents. Today, parents are afraid of their kids. It pretty much boils down to that. We were afraid of our parents because they properly occupied their authority, meaning they properly communicated that we were underlings, properly communicated their expectations, and properly enforced them. Having done this “parenting expert” thing since 1976, I can tell you that today’s parents, with relatively rare exception, do none of that. As a result, their kids don’t learn to pay attention to authority figures, obey authority figures, and control their emotions, any portion of which often takes them into the offices of mental health professionals who diagnose them with attention deficit disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, depression, anxiety disorders, and bipolar disorder. Then said professionals, when asked by the parents to explain how these problems came about, lie through their cosmetically-enhanced teeth because if they told the truth – “You did” – the parents wouldn’t pay them any more money.

If you, dear reader, are one of the parents in question, you may be having inappropriate feelings toward me right now, but let me assure you that until YOU accept that YOU caused the problems in question, YOU won’t be able to solve them. You cannot deny responsibility for a problem and then solve it.

When my wife and I finally, after ten gut-wrenching years, accepted that our first child’s behavior – behavior that caused his third-grade teacher to tell us that he was the most undisciplined child she had seen in twenty years of teaching – was, despite good intentions, our doing, we were able to turn things around. Three months later, the same teacher reported that she had witnessed a “miracle” (her word). He was now a “model student.” And he stayed that way through the rest of his academic career.

Eric is why I do what I do. Eric is how I absolutely know that everything I was taught in graduate school was worthless. Eric is the means by which I recovered from that experience and why I am surely the most controversial psychologist in America, knowledge of which gives me great pleasure. I love driving them up a wall, them being my ersatz colleagues. Quite simply, they don’t know what they are doing, which is surely more harm than good.

I tell the story of Eric not to promote myself but to give people hope. Willie and I did not solve the “Eric Problem” because I am a psychologist. We solved it DESPITE my being a psychologist. That means you can solve your Eric Problem too. As the late, great Sam Cooke said, “Ain’t that good news!”

   

   

Beaujolais Beaucoup

Bear with me for a moment. Prior to saying what I have to say, I need to make perfectly clear that unless the person in question is one of my children or grandchildren, I do not care one iota if someone with both X and Y chromosomes claims to be a person with two XX chromosomes, or vice versa. Thus, I am not transgender phobic, by any definition of phobic, no matter how loosey-goosey. Thinking someone is either stupid, self-dramatic, deranged, or a new breed of sociopath is not synonymous with fear and trepidation.

Now, what I have to say, or, more accurately, ask: Why is there such general caution in the media when it comes to talking about a group of people who represent less than one percent of the population? The question arose when I read an article about one CeCe Telfer, a man who says he is a woman. Telfer has been allowed to compete in and win NCAA women’s track and field events, by the way. In said article, Telfer is identified as an “openly transgender woman.” But Telfer is not a woman. He is a man, and no claim of his to the contrary can override that immutable fact. No force on the face of the earth can change the fact that his cell nuclei, from birth, contain both X and Y chromosomes. He should be identified as a man who is attempting to convince people he has a valid claim to being a woman. If Telfer actually believes he is a woman, which has not been determined, then there is something sadly wrong in his thinking. The same can be said for people who believe that Telfer’s claim is truthful.

In my politically incorrect estimation, Telfer is an openly messed-up dude. Let’s face it, folks, either Telfer is openly messed up or I am. Those are the only two options available. Actually, there is a third option: Telfer is putting everyone on and having the grandest time doing so. If that’s the case (which I doubt), I applaud his sense of satire.

Talking with a like-minded person (politically conservative with certain libertarian tendencies, Christian, great sense of humor, especially regarding the absurd, fairly intelligent, techno-challenged) the other day, the subject of a white human being claiming to be a black human being came up. Oh, no! That won’t be allowed, now, will it? No, no, no. That is “cultural appropriation” and, as such, not permissible, even racist. Even though changing one’s skin color would require fewer genetic alterations than changing one’s sex/gender, woke will never be that woke. If I claim to be a woman and begin wearing women’s clothes and makeup, I’ll be hailed on CNN and “The View” as “courageous.” But if I claim to be a black bluesman, a non-binary mob carrying pitchforks and torches will promptly assemble outside my house, demanding that I publicly repent my racist ways or suffer tortures and punishments too gruesome to be described in a blog that might be read by cisgendered children.

(And by the way, I do a better imitation of a black bluesman than Telfer does of a woman. CLICK HERE and I’ll prove it to you. Yes, that’s me, in the guise of my alter-ego, black Mississippi Delta bluesman Beaujolais Beaucoup, singing his signature theme song, “Because I Said So,” written by Beaujolais himself.)

Maybe actress Shirley MacLaine has the lowdown on this transgender thing. MacLaine claims that she enjoyed a past life during Earth’s Lemurian Period (also, her dog was an Egyptian god, but that’s another story). Lemuria existed before Atlantis, for you ignoramuses out there. During said past life, MacLaine was both male and female, as was everyone else. Duh! Then someone came up with the idea of separating the male force from the female force and that’s what they did and that’s how we Earthians went from one all-inclusive gender to two distinct genders. THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE! MacLaine and Telfer should get together because MacLaine is right about this—and I have no good reason to doubt her, do you?—Telfer is simply on a mission to try and lead us back to the way things should have been all along! He’s not transgender, he’s a messenger who’s come to us from the original paradise of Lemuria, where everyone was everyone else!

Boy, am I glad I finally figured that out. Aren’t you?

   

   

The Road to Nutsville

Not all people who identify as progressives are crazy, but progressivism is going rapidly down the road to Nutsville and threatens to take lots of people down with it. Another way of saying the same thing: If you are progressive, but not yet certifiably insane, it’s only a matter of time. Save yourself!

In ersatz president Joe Biden’s Fiscal Year 2022 Budget proposal, in the section on maternal health, human beings who give birth to other human beings are referred to as “birthing people.” I did not make that up.

During Senate hearings on the proposed budget, Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget Shalanda Young defended the use of the term “birthing people”:

“There are certain people who do not have gender identities that apply to female and male, so we think our language needs to be more inclusive on how we deal with complex issues,” Young explained. “Our official policy is to make sure that when people get service from their government that they feel included, and we’re trying to use inclusive language.”

So, the scientific fact that only female human beings – individuals with two X chromosomes in their cell nuclei – are capable of becoming pregnant and giving birth to a human child is a “complex issue”? What, pray tell, is complex about it? Indeed, some male human beings – individuals with both X and Y chromosomes in their cell nuclei – are claiming of late that they can become pregnant and give birth, but their delusions do not change the scientific facts. Nor do the scientific facts change to accommodate women who “identify” as men and subsequently give birth. Notwithstanding their psychosis, they are mothers.

The purpose of language is to be exclusive, to differentiate between categories, quantities, and qualities of things. When language fails to facilitate those differentiations, it becomes meaningless, and when language becomes meaningless, humanity is over and done with and the serpent wins. We were created imago Dei, but sustaining that unique relationship necessitates that we fulfill certain responsibilities, one of which is to use our God-given capacity for language to accurately distinguish between truth and falsehood.

The truth is God’s intellectual property. It is not dependent upon man’s fickle understandings (see Proverbs 3:5). Arguing against the notion of immutable standards, Protagoras (490 – 420 BC), the Father of Progressivism, maintained that “man is the measure of all things.” That belief, the quintessence of “wokeness,” paves the road to hell.

To assert, per Protagoras, that man is autonomously qualified to define truth and falsehood is to say that every individual is so qualified, which is the operational definition of intellectual anarchy, the state into which we are rapidly descending.

A couple of years ago, I learned, courtesy of a very woke young woman – at least, she gave every appearance of being female – that I am “cisgendered.” I did not want to pursue conversation with her (she was making no sense, to be honest), so I thanked her for her concern or whatever it was and moved on. I later discovered that a “cisgendered” person is one who accepts that he or she is, in fact, “the gender to which he or she was assigned at birth.”

Assigned? The word implies some random process, as if the attending physician, upon assisting me through the birth canal, said, “We need more males, don’t we? Yes? Okay then. We’ll assign this one to male!”

No, male was not “assigned” to me by my birthing person or her birthing facilitator. It is a fact. I am biologically and therefore immutably male and any claim on my part to the contrary would identify me not as another gender but as having a major screw loose. Furthermore, I did not have a “birthing person.” I had a mother. And I did not have an “inseminating person.” I had a father.

Going back to Shalanda Young, if one reads carefully, one will discover that she or it or whatever pronoun she/it claims is a bigot posing as a liberal. She clearly says that “people” who seek government services need, above all else, to “feel included.” Young obviously assumes that all organisms seeking government services are “people.” That’s not inclusive at all! C’mon, man! An organism that appears to be human might actually identify as a rabbit or even an extinct Dodo bird and assuming, on the basis of something as superficial as a human face, that the organism in question is human would surely hurt the organism’s feelings, which the government must, at all cost, protect from insult of any sort. That, after all, is the primary function of government! Protecting people from getting their feelings hurt! Surely we can all agree on that!

Squawk! Squawk!

   

   

I Was Ahead of the Times (Pun Intended)

I first experienced the “cancel culture” of the left in 1999, when The New York Times Magazine featured a lengthy article on me: “The Disciples of Discipline,” written by one Susan Bolotin. In preparation for the article, Bolotin had come to our home to interview me and Willie and our son Eric and then to a speaking engagement of mine in Wichita, Kansas, that attracted over one thousand “disciples,” as she called them. She also interviewed my mother, Emily. Not knowing that Mom’s marriage to my abusive stepfather had taken a heavy emotional toll, Bolotin seemed to revel in the fact that she was not speaking to me at the time. (As the result of my persistent efforts, Mom and I subsequently, after said stepfather’s passing, mended the fence.)
In the original text of the article, as it first appeared, Bolotin – self-described as liberal, feminist, and Jewish – engaged in amateur psychoanalysis and had the unmitigated gall to call me an anti-Semite. Mind you, my stepfather was Jewish, and my mother converted to Judaism after they married. I was raised in a household where Jewish religious and cultural traditions were honored and in which I participated willingly. I took a great deal of value from that childhood experience. I felt bigotry as a child, and I unequivocally reject bigotry of any sort.
The tone of Bolotin’s article was, in my estimation, sarcastic. She would say it was “balanced,” I’m sure. She did interview parents who agreed with and credited me for restoring confidence in their authority and peace to their families. Nonetheless, her overall tone was ascerbic, even mocking. But Bolotin’s kiss of death was her claim that I was anti-Semitic. My lawyer subsequently called the Times and told them we were going to sue if they did not retract, upon which they changed the wording of the article to read “angry at his parents’ religion” prior to sending it out to their subscriber newspapers. By then, the original wording had done its damage. The organizers of a speaking engagement in Connecticut cancelled because they did not want to be seen sponsoring a bigot. No telling how many other potential sponsors decided I was untouchable.
No big deal. I know who I am and am not. Furthermore, that experience with the NYTM was quite instructive. For one thing, I’ve not granted an interview to a liberal publication since. For another, it gave me an eye-opening glimpse into the mindset of the left. They are not, as Bolotin was not, interested in objectivity when it comes to a point of view other than their own. Rather, their objective is to deny validity, discredit, and cancel.
Case in point: A year or so ago, a fellow described himself to me as progressive. When I asked him to define progressive, he said he was “open-minded and tolerant.” The next day, in response to a question from him, I said that yes, I did believe that “a guy who died two thousand years ago then brought Himself back to life” (his words). His rejoinder: “Oh! That’s truly idiotic!” Tolerant and open minded? He no doubt continues to think of himself as such.
Historians looking back on these postmodern times will no doubt comment on the disintegration of rational, respectful discourse between the right and the left. I propose that said disintegration is primarily a function of the left’s intellectual dishonesty. Not to say that everyone on the left is intellectually dishonest (as in, unwilling to give objective consideration to an opposing point of view) or that everyone on the right is not, mind you. Nonetheless, if my experience since becoming a conservative in 1992 is valid, the indictment is generally accurate.
Challenge a liberal and they get shrill and begin calling you names. Challenge a conservative and they attempt to explain their position and change your mind. It’s fairly easy to tell when a person’s thought processes are open to change and vice versa. The former ask questions and listen to the answers. The latter become upset, dismissive, and deprecating.
There are some aspects of intelligence that IQ tests don’t measure.
   
   

The Fascists Among Us Are Not People Who Voted for Trump

Before the fake election of November 2020, a friend of mine was discussing politics with a group of people, all of whom he thought were capable of giving respectful consideration to differing opinion. At one point someone asked, “You’re not voting for Trump, are you?” to which he answered that yes, he proudly was, and fantasies of liberals actually being liberal blew up in front of his face.

“Oh my god!” she shrieked. “He’s a fascist!”

The person in question, by the way, is Jewish. That a sixty-something Jewish individual cannot correctly define fascism is a ten on an irony scale of one to ten.

Another friend of mine recently posted her take on the Black Lives Matter movement to her Facebook page. Said opinions were verified almost word for word on the BLM website. In other words, said opinions were not opinions at all; they were facts. Nonetheless, the California newspaper for which she wrote a weekly column on parenting issues cancelled her column for cause, that being she failed the left’s ideological purity test by factually pointing out that BLM wants to destroy the Constitution and the traditional family, among other things. BLM is a Marxist/fascist organization that embraces lawlessness if lawlessness is what it takes for them to accomplish their Marxist/fascist objectives.

My friend’s experience is why I send the sort of stuff you are currently reading only to subscribers. Yes, I have accounts with Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, but I have NEVER personally posted anything to them. My daughter, Amy, manages my social media, which means “John Rosemond” posts contain no obvious political content. I don’t have to tell people who subscribe to this weekly essay that I am prime fodder for the left’s fascist cancel culture machine. How they haven’t figured out how to get me yet is a mystery. Maybe they’re hoping I’ll develop a false sense of security and come out of hiding. Not.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines fascism as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime…that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”

Okay, did you get that? Exalts race above the individual? Why, that sounds an awful lot like the objective of the Critical Race Theory crowd. Merriam-Webster goes on to say that fascism is all about centralized autocratic government, economic and social regimentation, and suppression of opposition! In order: the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party, and the Democrat Party!

No, ladies and gentlemen, the fascists among us are not people who voted for Donald Trump. One must make exception, however, the few isolated idiots out there in militia-land, but there is no Republican or conservative equivalent to the group-think on America’s left. The left has decided that if you don’t agree with them, you should not be allowed to express your opinion, whereas we on the right believe that if you don’t agree with us, so what? You don’t need a re-education camp; you simply need to retake elementary school civics.

I’ve been a recovering liberal since 1992. All of my friends share my conservatism. None of them believe opposing points of view should be suppressed in any way. We believe that in a free marketplace of ideas, right ideas will eventually prevail. America’s left does not believe in a free marketplace of ideas for the very same reason: right ideas will eventually prevail. 

My next post, which will show up in your email box next week, concerns my close brush with the left’s cancel culture in 1991. It’s fascinating, if I do say so myself. Stay tuned!
   
   

Soldiers vs. Scouts

During my childhood, my parents would occasionally remark that I was developing “some very bad habits.” They were, in fact, spot on. Looking back, I did develop a handful or two of bad habits as a child, a habit being something a person does repetitively, without thinking. That is not to say that people are not responsible for the habits they develop and foist upon the world. That may be true concerning, say, a muscle tic, but that is not the sort of habit to which my parents referred and I am now referring. The habits under discussion are emotional, cognitive, and behavioral. And they are, as my parents defined them, bad. They serve no constructive purpose.

Psychologists assign diagnoses to the habits in question. They call them by such names as “bipolar disorder,” “schizophrenia,” “depression,” and “attention deficit disorder.” They explain these emotional, cognitive, and behavioral phenomena in terms of biological processes that have never been verified – biochemical imbalances, for example, or the equally bogus, all-purpose “brain differences.”

Since no biological explanation has been proven, the simplest explanation becomes “bad habits.” How do the habits in question get their start? Who knows? How does any bad habit get its start? The fact is that very few people can identify when and how a bad habit began. They simply begin and sometime later, they are noticed. By the time they’re noticed, they’ve strengthened to the point where getting rid of them is problematic.

The reason no psychiatric medication has ever reliably outperformed a placebo in clinical trials is because such medications are developed on the basis of theories that have no basis in proven fact. But, even though several psychiatrists have admitted that to me (quote: “We all know that nothing we tell people has ever been proven”), psychiatric medications continue to be prescribed because of the incredible profits they generate. Furthermore, as research has determined, placebos work. The problem is that the sanctioned placebos in question have bad side effects and cost lots of money.

The point of this treatise is to say that the process of disciplining a child is all about preventing him from developing bad habits and motivating him to replace bad habits he has already developed with good habits. It’s really that simple. When discipline fails, the ever-increasing likelihood is that the child in question will become the subject of a psychological evaluation, performed by a person who believes in things that just ain’t so.

     

     

I Am Currently Reading...

…The Return of the God Hypothesis: Compelling Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God by Stephen C. Meyer, in which he demonstrates – conclusively, in my opinion – that Judeo-Christian theism is the only explanation that fits the mathematical and astrophysical facts of the universe, especially the fact that the universe was fine-tuned for life (the anthropic principle) from the moment of the Big Bang. The book is more than six hundred pages in length (Kindle), not counting the bibliography, and it’s heavy on physics (which it must be for Meyer to make his case), but if you’re willing to read patiently and go back frequently to re-read, it’s well worth it, especially for those who occasionally find themselves in conversation with folks who think Stephen Hawking is unchallengeable.

Meyer’s credentials are impeccable. He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge and is a former geophysicist and college professor. Meyer currently directs Discovery Institute’s (Seattle) Center for Science and Culture. His previous books – which yours truly has read and highly recommends – include Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Case for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2009) and Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2013). The former was named a 2009 Book of the Year by the Times (of London) Literary Supplement.

Briefly, Meyer proves beyond a shadow of doubt that atheistic hypotheses concerning the origin of the universe, the origin of life on Earth, the so-called Cambrian Explosion, and the fine-tuning of the universe simply don’t cut the proverbial mustard. As one reviewer has elegantly put it: “Leaving no materialist, reductionist or determinist stone unturned and unrefuted, Return of the God Hypothesis exposes atheistic materialism as a modern superstition. Meyer reveals atheism as a feckless faith that resorts to ever more preposterous hypotheses — from an infinitude of multiple parallel universes, infinite expanses of missing matter, imaginary time, and other far-fetched canards — all to conceal the academic emperor’s intellectual nudity, vanity, and obesity ....”

I fail to understand why many prominent Christian pundits refuse to give dispassionate consideration to the facts that support both Big Bang theory and the old-earth hypothesis. The folks in question – sincere, all – seem to think that these evidence-based propositions contradict the Genesis 1 creation account, when they do not. Genesis 1:3 – “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” – describes the Big Bang, and the next verse – “God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness” – describes the separation of dark matter/energy from light matter/energy, which science confirms as occurring in the first second of the Bang. (Given that the sun and moon were not created until “day” 4, the words “night” and “day” in verse 5 simply cannot be referring to nighttime and daytime as we use the terms.)

The Bible tells us that God spoke the universe into existence. To speak is to convey information, and as Meyer points out, information is the essence of all creation. The math and physics of the universe consist of information and DNA, the basis of life, is information. The long and short of it is that science and the Bible do not contradict one another – quite the opposite. The more scientists discover, the more absurd their atheistic theories become, and the more the Bible’s absolute truth is revealed.

I do not read many books twice, but Return of the God Hypothesis will definitely receive the distinction.

   

   

Why I Am a Racist

After much soul-searching, I have decided it is my moral responsibility to any and all who read this blog or whatever it is to inform you that I am a racist. Furthermore, I don’t know what to do about it, really, since any public act of penance might well get me hauled off in a stainless-steel straitjacket.

How am I a racist? Let me count the ways.

First, my mother’s family owned a rather prominent plantation in the Low Country of South Carolina. The land was given them by the king of England for the purpose of growing stuff they then sent back to the mother land. Mom spent part of her childhood there, in fact, and remembers the family being evicted for not paying – not being able to pay is more accurate – the property taxes. Anyway, I refuse to apologize or even feel the slightest twinge of guilt for something done by my ancestors. That makes me a racist, a white supremacist, even.

Second, a portrait of the ancestor who founded the plantation hangs above the mantel in our living room. It is a family heirloom, of course, and he was a rather handsome man. It is the perfect addition to the antique décor of our modest home. I like it, it’s a sure-fire conversation starter, and I have no intention of taking it down and burning it to signal my guilt and repentance. Once again, I have no guilt. That makes me a racist, a white supremacist, even.

Third, I am a constitutional conservative politically and a biblical conservative when it comes to my faith. I am informed by authoritative sources such as CNN and the Washington Post that being a Christian and a conservative in both senses makes me a racist. Since CNN and the Washington Post are completely objective sources of news and opinion, I believe them. I am a racist and wish to thank them for opening my eyes to my true and truly depraved condition.

Fourth, I love Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, and Greg Gutfeld, to name a few fellow racists. In my humble estimation, they are insightful, articulate, and often very funny. Gutfeld is beyond very funny, in fact. He qualifies as hilarious. Even though Ms. Owens is black, my fealty to her, Carlson, Shapiro, and Gutfeld qualifies me as a racist. Ms. Owens, by the way, is actually a white supremacist. I’ll let you figure that out.

Fifth, and I will leave it at five, I believe that the primary objective of the leaders of Black Lives Matter is to destroy the Constitution, foment anarchy, and secure absolute powers for themselves. They aren’t the slightest bit interested in improving anyone’s lives but their own, as evidenced by the four expensive homes now owned by the co-founder of BLM, the combined value of which is approximately six million dollars. She admits she bought the properties with money donated to BLM, mostly by guilty white people. Anyway, facts don’t matter. Right?

Wrong. If one thinks facts matter, and I do, one is a racist. Needless to say, well, you get my meaning, I’m sure.

In the last “election” – I put the word in quotes because I am a racist – one out of four black voters voted for Donald Trump. Black folks haven’t voted that strongly for a Republican presidential candidate since, well, a long time ago. Yet, CNN and other leftist propaganda organs claim that Trump is a racist along with anyone who voted for him. I voted for him and I think an honest count of legitimate votes would reveal that he won an electoral landslide. That makes me a gullible, racist, conspiracy theorist who, in AOC’s opinion, should be rounded up and sent to an “educational” facility. I must admit, all of this is very confusing to me.

It won’t be long before confusion becomes racist. Wait and see.

     

     

Who Is This Fao-Chee Guy Anyway?

The name Fao-Chee will go down in infamy, I predict. Who is this guy? Where did he come from? What qualifies him, above all other medical scientists, to tell us, the sovereign American people, what we can, cannot, should, and should not do? Before March of last year, had you ever heard of him? I had not, and I am reasonably well informed. These are the questions that flood my brain when I hear his name.

First, Fao-Chee tells us that masks aren’t going to be necessary as long as we practice social distancing. Then he tells us that we will have to wear the infernal devices for two weeks only. Then, he informs us that masks are mandatory. Most recently, he has informed us that we should be wearing two, even three masks. (Full disclosure: I do not and will not wear one and if told by some store employee that I cannot buy things from said store without wearing a mask, I simply say, “Thank you very much and have a nice day!” and leave. Furthermore, I walk into stores and right by signs saying MASKS REQUIRED! without a mask. Required by whom? In only two stores – Costco and Trader Joe’s – have employees told me I “must” wear a mask. In both stores, I have said, cheerily, “No, I don’t. I can leave, which I will. Have a nice day!”)

Anyway, back to Fao-Chee. Now he is telling us, the sovereign American people, that even if we are vaccinated – which I am with no lingering effects other than the entire right side of my body no longer works – we should not be in close quarters with other people, even if they, too, are vaccinated and cannot move the right sides of their bodies. Oh, and of course, he says we should still wear masks. Two or three of them at a time.

My wife and I live in downtown New Bern, North Carolina, just so you know. Come see us sometime! Anyway, we are in thrall to a fifteen-year-old Toy Schnauzer named Mazie, aka the Monkey of Love. Numerous times in the last month or so, as I am walking the Monkey, both of us mask-less, someone (a masked person) walking toward us has veered off the sidewalk and out into the street and then, once we have passed, back onto the sidewalk.

I simply look down at the Monkey of Love and say, “He voted for O’Biden, Mazur.” She simply nods her little Schauzer head.

What are these people thinking? Answer: They are thinking what Fao-Chee and the other left-wing scaremongers want them to think. They are thinking that everyone without a mask represents a threat and that the esteemed Covid Master Fao-Chee is akin to a king who must be obeyed. The fact is, no consistent body of research confirms the efficacy of either social distancing or mask-wearing and states which have eliminated both requirements have experienced significant drop in infections. Furthermore, Fao-Chee has no authority. He was not elected by the people to anything.

Nonetheless, he just keeps right on spewing his lies. Why? Because enough of us listen to him and obey. Not me.

   

   

Rosemond 2024?

I hereby announce that if Donald J. Trump or someone hand-picked by him does not run for president in 2024, I will.

I’m serious. I will be 76 years old in November 2024, and I guarantee that I will be of much sounder mind that Faux President O’Biden. My party affiliation will be NONE. My platform will consist of the following promises: I will…

  • work for an Amendment to the Constitution that limits the terms of Representatives, Senators, and POTUS to one term each – said terms being, respectively, four years, six years, and six years. NO MORE CAREER POLITICANS!
  • work to enact federal law prohibiting a sitting Representative, Senator, or POTUS from running for any other office – federal, state, or municipal. A sitting Senator wants to run for President? He must resign and do it on his own time and his own dime.
  • work for the establishment of federal and state laws that require the loser in a civil lawsuit to pay all legal and court costs. That guarantees I will not have the backing of the American Bar Association.
  • do whatever it takes to close our borders to illegal immigration and require anyone who snuck into the USA illegally to go home and start over.
  • strip federal funds from any municipality or state that declares itself to be a sanctuary for illegal immigrants.
  • restart the Keystone Pipeline.
  • eliminate the federal income tax, thus requiring the states to support the federal government. LET THE PEOPLE VOTE WITH THEIR FEET!
  • limit the powers of the federal government to those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.
  • strip federal funding from “public” education, including at the college level. Let the states fund their own education debacles.
  • rigorously enforce the Tenth Amendment.
  • refuse aid to any country that supports terrorism, subjects its people to totalitarian control, restricts freedom of speech or religion, or refuses to recognize the legitimacy of Israel.
  • make it a federal crime to interfere with free speech on the Internet.
  • cancel federal funding for colleges and universities who fail to demonstrate that their faculties are not at least 40 percent conservative.
  • end all entitlement programs and empower churches to take up their proper ministries. Social Security and Medicare, by the way, are not entitlements. My calculations, for example, reveal that I will never come close to being compensated for what I paid into SS.

That’s for starters.

I will not raise money to support my candidacy, nor will I accept contributions. That means if my name appears on a ballot, it will be because of the efforts of others. In other words, I will be a write-in candidate. If Lisa Murkowski did it, so can I.

   

   

I Will Not Bow Down

When the average Joe or Jolene hear the words “free market,” they are apt to think in terms of an economic principle – to wit, the ability to create and sell products without government regulation. The guiding principle of the free market is, “Let the market decide.” In that statement of principle, “the market” is synonymous with “the people.” Let the people, consumers, determine what is worthy and what is not; what survives and what does not.

The same principle applies to ideas. In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers recognized the importance of creating and preserving a free market of ideas. The USA was and still is the only country in the history of the world to create protection for people who want to speak their minds – to wit, the First Amendment. To cite my favorite example, I am able to express my thoughts – however unpopular, adversarial, outrageous, heretical, countercultural, offensive to some, and even dumb – in this BLOG because of the First Amendment.

With one party rule now ensconced in Washington, that freedom – the most precious freedom of all – is under assault. Under the pretense that “they” – the new gatekeepers of speech – are only trying to prevent speech that might rile members of certain entitled minorities, the Constitution is being dismantled. What we are watching is the modern equivalent of the Roman Catholic Inquisition – also being about regulating thoughts and speech.

As Lord Acton famously said, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” What is currently taking place within the Swamp is confirmation of the adage. The majority party fancies itself to be a monarchy of sorts. The Democrat monarchy is concerned with the acquisition of power and the acquisition of power only. Why have they opened the border? Only fools would believe that is a humanitarian gesture. It is a step toward creating a permanent Democrat majority. Why do Democrats pander to minorities of all sorts? Only fools would believe they truly care about the well-being of, say, black Americans. Consider that black Americans were doing better in every respect prior to Democrats deciding they needed to be taken care of. To cite one statistic, the two-parent black family was the norm prior to Democrat Party meddling, which destroyed the black family under the pretense of creating a “Great Society.”

Now, the Democrats are ripping apart the Constitution under the pretense of protecting people from hearing things that might set them on edge. What? Do we think for a moment that when the Founders guaranteed “freedom of speech” they actually meant “freedom of speech that doesn’t offend someone in an entitled minority group”? No. The First Amendment was written to guarantee OFFENSIVE speech. Now the emperors of the Internet have appointed themselves the final authorities on what speech will be allowed and what will not. Anyone who does not think there is a festering evil at the heart of “Cancel Culture” needs to stand up and wipe the sand off his face.

As for me, and as this BLOG illustrates, I will not bow down.

   

   

Were John Lennon and Paul McCartney Prophets?

This week’s blog asks, “Were John Lennon and Paul McCartney prophets?”

I’m thinking specifically of “Nowhere Man,” which appeared on one of my favorite Beatle’s albums, Magical Mystery Tour. The lyrics, it seems, are especially pertinent to the circumstances in which we find ourselves at the moment. My lawyer tells me I cannot reproduce them here without risking a lawsuit from Yoko, so I will merely point out that the Nowhere Man lives in an eponymous land making frivolous plans that no one understands. The Nowhere Man has no point of view that he can coherently articulate which is consistent with the fact that he knows not where he is going, which is nowhere.

Lennon and McCartney were obviously experiencing prophetic visions of year 2021. What other explanation can there be? Can you say Joey O’Biden? I mean, when his eyes are wide open, he’s asleep at the wheel! You can hear him snoring even when he’s talking! O’Biden puts himself to sleep, which is an accomplishment mastered by only one other person since the dawn of time: Jimmy Carter.

But seriously! What were people thinking when they voted for him? Can they explain it or do they simply answer the question, “What were you thinking when you voted for O’Biden?” by saying deeply profound things like “I just thought it was time for a change.”? Or, how about, “O’Biden is more concerned about the environment.”? Really? The guy is actually concerned about something and can articulate it?

I’ll tell you what I was thinking when I voted for Trump. I was thinking he makes me laugh. I was thinking how much I’d love to sit and chat with him about the purpose of us being here on planet Earth. I was thinking of what an interesting person he obviously is, not to mention very intelligent, which, apparently, only very intelligent people are able to grasp. That was a joke, but not really.

But I was also thinking that the guy did what no president has done in my lifetime, except maybe Truman and Eisenhower. He did or made a valiant attempt to do exactly what he said he was going to do! He started serious construction on the Wall. He reinvigorated American industry. He balanced our trade agreements. He brought about sentencing reform. He called out the fake news media. He rebuilt a shattered economy. He was the president of all the people! I love him!

What has Biden ever done but enrich himself and his family at the expense of the American taxpayer? Answer, nothing. Leopards do not change their spots, people, and the Nowhere Man is not going to suddenly find his way.

   

    

The World Needs To Know That Men Love, or Should, SAHMs

Question of the Week: What does it take to become a feminist spokesperson?

That mystery flooded my mind as I read that Jill Filipovic, who self-identifies as a “feminist,” says women who do not work outside the home – stay-at-home-moms, as they are known – are unambitious and set a bad example for their kids. I had never heard of Filipovic until my daughter sent me a article from the Daily Mail detailing her most recent feminist exploits.

To answer the QOTW, it is my impression that being a feminist requires only equal amounts of big mouth and narcissism. It certainly requires no objectivity, intellectual honesty, or even intellect. (By the way, several people have mentioned to me that I display all of the traits of an individual who is about to be cancelled. I don’t think so. Why? Because I don’t post my screeds on social media.) Apparently, to become a feminist spokesperson requires only that one memorize a narrative and a few soundbites and announce to the world, through social media (where anyone can be anyone they want to be), “I am a feminist spokesperson!”

I am hereby announcing, albeit not through social media, that I am a spokesperson for SAHMs, which is a new acronym I learned this week, courtesy of my daughter. It means stay-at-home-mom, but you probably already knew that. “How can a man be a spokesperson for moms?” you ask? Because the world needs to know that men love, or should, SAHMs. My wife Willie (nee Wilma), for example, was a SAHM for most of our childrearing years. According to feminist spokesperson Jill Filipovic, Willie was a bad role model for our two kids, both of whom are self-supporting. Our daughter, divorced, works two jobs and owns her own home, which she did not obtain through the settlement. Our son is a highly respected corporate pilot who has been the primary breadwinner in his family for going on thirty years. Obviously, Willie’s bad example failed to stick.

Filipovic claims that “girls with working moms do better in school, men with stay-at-home wives are less likely to promote and support women in their workplace, and sons of working mothers do more housework and childcare when they grow up.” Let’s take those one at a time:

  • Single, unemployed moms are skewing that statistic. It’s invalid because no one would argue that girls whose moms are single and unemployed probably don’t do as well in school as girls with moms who are married and employed. In fact, the single best predictor of school success in boy and girls is not parent employment, but two parents in the home.
  • Men married to SAHMs are less likely to support women in the workplace? No, they are simply more likely to say that they don’t think women with kids should work outside the home, which is a valid opinion.
  • Sons of working moms are more willing to help with housework when they grow up? In all likelihood, this “statistic” has nothing to do with working moms versus SAHMs and everything to do with kids having chores, whether their moms work or not.

Our feminist spokesperson needs to re-take some of the “Feminist Studies” – rigorous curriculum, that – classes she took at whatever Marxist college she attended. On the one hand, she says mothers who don’t work outside the home are setting bad examples for their kids. On the other, she says, and I quote, “Care work should be valued much more than it is.” Huh? Maybe she could begin upping the value of “care work” by applauding the energy many women devote to it.

Filipovic then reveals the clarity of her thinking: “The reality — in our capitalist society — is that if you are at home full time, your husband is your boss and there is no HR department. Should care work be valued much more? Yes! In the reality we live in, are women who stay home taking on significant risks? Also yes.”

So, our capitalist society is a problem but Filipovic wants women to become cogs in its impersonal war-making machine. Makes no sense. And yes, there are men out there who believe themselves to be their wives’ bosses, but who is the spokesperson for the longsuffering men whose wives micromanage them to the grave? It’s hard to tell what point Filipovic is making sometimes, but that is true of leftist ideologues in general. Pray tell, what risks are women running if they choose “care work” over allowing themselves to be exploited by the capitalist warmongers? Are vacuum cleaner injuries on the rise? Yes, cooking involves more risk than operating a computer, but I don’t think that’s the sort of risk to which feminist spokesperson Filipovic refers. Oh, I should mention that later in her stream of consciousness social media posts, Filipovic says lots of SAHRs are very ambitious. At some point, she begins to sound diagnosable.

Okay, so here’s what I think: I think a family works better when the husband/father is the breadwinner and the wife/mother is a SAHM. That’s the way God planned it, obviously, and I think we put ourselves at risk when we ignore His design and go our own merry ways. Drum roll, cymbal crash, that’s all, folks!

     

     

Special Edition: The Trial of Derek Chauvin

Full Disclosure: I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT acting alone in the assassination of President Kennedy. I believe there had to have been at least one other shooter.

While I would not characterize myself as a conspiracy theorist, I do believe in conspiracies in general and certain conspiracies in particular. Anyone who does not believe that history is replete with conspiracies does not possess a functional knowledge of history.

That said, I believe we are watching a conspiracy unfold concerning the trial of Derek Chauvin, the ex-Minneapolis police officer charged with murdering George Floyd.

First, I do not believe that anyone who examines the evidence dispassionately would conclude anything other than:

Chauvin was utilizing an approved technique to subdue a suspect
George Floyd was out of control, and that the use of said technique was justified by his behavior
George Floyd’s death was not the direct result of Chauvin’s actions but due, primarily, to a combination of heart disease and a fatal amount of drugs in his bloodstream

Second, I believe that those who stand poised to create havoc in Minneapolis and other urban areas are aware that evidence to convict Chauvin on a murder charge is slim at best.

Third, I suspect that the agitators do not really want Chauvin to be found guilty. A guilty verdict would end the whole affair and they do not want this to go away. A guilty verdict will take wind from their sails. The agitators want a verdict of not guilty because that will allow them to advance their claim that America is inherently racist and needs, therefore, to be dismantled and put back together again in Marx’s image (according to their demands).

If Chauvin is found guilty, they’ll have to pack up and go home. If he is found not guilty, they will have all the excuse they need to begin creating mayhem, to begin the dismantling.

Fourth, if they create mayhem, Biden will act as did college administrators when leftists, including yours truly, created mayhem on college campuses across the USA in the late 1960s and early 1970s: to wit, he will appease and enable them.

Fifth, appeasing and enabling them will “require” abridgements of our collective civil liberties. Gun confiscation? Suppression of free speech (selectively enforced)? Forced reparations? Suppression of freedom of assembly (selectively enforced)? Suspension of the Fourth Amendment? At that point, my crystal ball becomes opaque. All it tells me is “Things are going to get bad, so be prepared.”

Sixth, we will wish we could revisit November 3, 2020.

   

   

On Rock 'n' Roll

Surprisingly enough, the blog post that has generated the most positive feedback thus far is the recent one in which I said that new rock ‘n’ roll – and by “new” I mean just about everything post-1975 except stuff pre-1975 bands and artists have continued to do – doesn’t hold a candle to the stuff that began bursting on the scene in the mid-1950s and continued through the British Invasion, Hendrix, The Eagles, and Costello…early Costello, that is.

People have asked questions like “Who is your favorite rocker of all time?” and “What’s your favorite rock album/song?” So, answers to those questions change from day to day, but I’ll share some current thoughts:

One of my favorite rock songwriters is Ray Davies. His post-Kinks solo albums “The Storyteller” and “Working Man’s Café” are absolutely brilliant. Like Van Morrison, Davies is a wordsmith. He doesn’t just throw random stuff into a rhythm like, say, Robert Plant; rather, Davies creates works of rock art that are coherent. My favorite Kinks albums are “Muswell Hillbillies” and “Misfits” but I could listen to any of them and grin. The song “20th Century Man” is one of the best rock songs ever written.

Van Morrison caught my ear when I was in high school when he was fronting his first band, Them. I went over to a friend’s house when I was a senior and his single mom put on “Gloria” for us. It blew me away. Then she flipped it over and played the B-side, “Baby, Please Don’t Go.” I went out and bought Them’s first album, “Here Comes the Night,” the very next day. Van began to lose me in the 1980s, but he’s one of the superstars, for sure.

Graham Parker, especially his albums with the Rumour, is also one of the superstars. “Heat Treatment” and “Howlin’ Wind” are two of the finest examples of raw rock ‘n’ roll ever. A good friend of mine who also played on my 1992 opus, “Breakaway Face,” was Parker’s lead guitarist for a time. The GP song inspired by Smokey Robinson, “Wake Up (Next to You)” is worth everyone’s time.

I mentioned Robert Plant earlier and don’t want to leave anyone with the impression I don’t like his songwriting. I like it a lot – “29 Palms” being my all-time favorite – but a lot of his lyrics, especially with Zeppelin, were just word salads. Check out, for example, the lyrics to “Stairway to Heaven,” which I can’t hear too often: What do they mean? Nothing, I guess, which is okay, but it’s why I prefer Ray Davies.

One of my favorite songs of all time is “Kind of a Drag” by the Buckinghams. I re-arranged it once, making it a slow, dirgy sort of blues number. I’d still like to flesh that out in the studio, complete with a harmonica solo in the middle. Another couple of one-offs that run through my head a lot are “Walk Away Renee” and “Jenny (867-5309).”

Covers? There is no better cover, ever, than Hendrix’s version of “All Along the Watchtower” and there may not be a better album, ever, than “Are You Experienced.”

What continues to fascinate me is that most people who love Fleetwood Mac have no idea that they existed before Lindsay Buckingham and Stevie Nicks joined the band. The Mac actually began in the late 1960s as a British blues band, and one of the all-time best, at that. Peter Green was their original lead guitarist – one of three, actually – and lead vocalist. Green wrote and recorded “Black Magic Woman” with the Mac. That’s right, it is not a Carlos Santana composition as many folks think. Green’s last album with FM was “Then Play On,” which is brilliant as a whole and includes one of the most wonderful blues-rocks songs ever written, “Rattlesnake Shake.” Green faded into obscurity after he left the Mac, but if you are interested in delving into his catalog, I recommend you begin with Gary Moore’s tribute album, “Blues for Greeny.”

Speaking of which, Gary Moore, whom most people have never heard of, is in my immaculate estimation the best blues-rock guitarist ever. Well, maybe he’s in a tie with Rory Gallagher. Check out some of their stuff. You’ll never worship Eric Clapton again.

Are there any new groups/artists that are keeping the flame of rock ‘n’ roll alive? Yes. Greta van Fleet comes immediately to mind. If you are of a mind, I recommend YouTube videos of live performances. They remind me of Rush, Zeppelin, and Mother Love Bone – the band that “birthed” Pearl Jam, only much, much better – all wrapped into one package.

On my new website, which will launch when it launches, I’m going to put up some stuff I’ve recorded over the years. Original compositions like “Name Brand Blues” and “UFOria.” As Van Morrison cries out in the first live version of “Into the Mystic,” “It’s too late to stop now!”

    

    

"Hello? 911?"

March 4, 2021

“Hello? 911? Listen, I’m feeling threatened by leftist ideologues! Could you please send a therapist over here, like, right away?”

Amy Cooper, the pinkish-manilla-skinned woman who was arrested last spring for calling 911 claiming she was being threatened by an “African-American man,” has had her charges dismissed. The fellow in question, it turned out, was a birdwatcher. He confronted Cooper for walking her dog off its leash in New York City’s Central Park. He is obviously a dog hater, which will be allowed until, that is, people begin claiming to be dogs or dogs begin acting like humans, either of which seems imminently possible.

Cooper was subsequently arrested for filing a false police report. False? Said man confronted Cooper. She felt threatened. Her feelings are false? Wait a minute, a person with male biology who “feels” like a woman is telling the truth, right? These days, if it walks like a man and talks like a man, it’s possibly – especially in New York and California – a woman. So, in the alternate universe occupied by the left, if a person’s feelings define reality, then how was Cooper’s report false? Since the incident occurred in New York state, I want Andrew “Coverup” Cuomo to explain that to me, very slowly.

At the prosecutor’s recommendation, the judge dismissed the case after Cooper attended a counseling program described by said prosecutor as an “alternative restorative justice solution.” After five restorative justice sessions, the therapist called the experience “moving” and said Cooper had “learned a lot.” Okay then! Cooper is once again thinking straight! (At this point, I should mention that “thinking straight” is about to become illegal speech.)

Sending people to therapists is what the Soviets used to do to comrades who were, in their estimation, not behaving or speaking according to rigid Soviet orthodoxy. The Soviet tyrants would send these hapless folks to psychiatrists for “rehabilitation.” Unfortunately for said “patients,” the psychiatrists in question operated out of long-term psychiatric inpatient institutions and their “therapy” consisted mostly of mind-cancelling electroshock sessions. So, said “patients” would go for “therapy” and in many cases, never be seen again.

Since its inception, psychology/psychiatry has been used as a tool by authoritarian governments to enforce political correctness. It is currently being used for that purpose in North Korea, China, Venezuela, Cuba, New York, and, according to rumor, Delaware. Yep, my chosen profession is being used to enforce political correctness right here in the USA, where citizens once enjoyed freedom of speech.

To be clear, when freedom of speech was written into the Bill of Rights, it was not meant to protect “nice” speech like, “Gosh, I love your new haircut!” It was written into the Bill of Rights to protect speech that offended certain other people, an example being “I’m being confronted in Central Park by an African-American man and I no longer feel safe!” That’s racist? Sounds to me like Cooper was (a) providing 911 with pertinent identifying information and (b) describing her emotional state accurately. I’m feeling the need for Andrew Cuomo again.

I grew up in Chicago and went to school with lots of guys whose last names ended in vowels. About half of those names indicated Polish ancestry. For the most part, those guys were safe. But as for the other half, all bets were off. The prevailing rumor had it that if you crossed one of the guys in question – a guy with a name like Primo LaRocco – you might end up taking a dip in the Chicago River wearing a concrete overcoat. So, when I saw one of said guys walking toward me in the hallway, I stepped politely to the side because he wasn’t going to. Did I need a therapist?

And what does it mean that Amy Cooper, after seeing an alternative restorative justice therapist, has “learned a lot”? A reasonable conclusion to draw after examining research into the efficacy of therapy – ANY form of therapy – is that therapy is a farce. According to peer-reviewed studies, talking about a personal problem to your barber is as effective as talking to someone with a PhD in clinical psychology. What has Amy Cooper learned other than she needs to be more careful in her choice of words in certain situations? Hey! Her lawyer cut a deal with the D.A., who really didn’t want to be bothered with taking Amy Cooper to trial. The therapist, in turn, realized that if she didn’t exonerate Amy Cooper, her reputation would be tarnished. That’s what this whole thing boils down to.

What’s next? We’re already over the line of bizarre, and if you are interested in where we go from there, Google “French Revolution.” In the meantime, try this on: If someone, walking their dog at night, conspicuously avoids going through a public housing project occupied exclusively by dark-skinned folks and where everyone knows illegal drugs are readily available, is that racist? And if the dog-walker in question is in fact a bona fide racist, so what? He or she is doing no harm to anyone, right? And what business is it of the government’s what thoughts occupy the person’s brain as he walks his dog? Does the government have a right to compel said dog-walker to walk through the projects as part of a restorative therapy program?

Come to think of it, is there anything more racist than a nine-square-block government funded ghetto?

    

    

Sorry, but Nirvana Just Doesn’t Move Me

February 25, 2021

A 30-something asked me the other day if I liked the music of Nirvana, the short-lived band that released the much-fawned-over “Nevermind” album shortly before their front man killed himself. When I admitted to not knowing much about the band, he played me a couple of cuts. I’m assuming he chose songs he thought were among their best.

Ugh. I mean, the songs were not awful, but they were forgettable. Grunge guitars and incoherent lyrics. Neil Young has done far better grunge. So did The Beatles, the Stones, and The Kinks. I must admit, I have hoped for at least twenty years to find a band that is as remarkably fresh as the stuff I listened to from age nine – when I first began to understand the meaning of the term rock ‘n’ roll – on through the first few years of the ‘70s, when popular music began its ongoing decline.

I mean, Green Day is okay, but I’ve never heard them do anything original. Nirvana, Green Day, Bruno Mars, all they do is recycle ideas from bands that, for the most part, began making music in the ‘50s and ‘60s. No, not the snoremeisters of the Dead. I’m talking about Elvis, Buddy Holly, The Four Seasons, The Fab Four, the Stones, Kinks, Airplane, Hendrix, and Zeppelin. Oh my gosh! Zeppelin! No one has ever done anything more creative than Zeppelin! Robert Plant is simply the greatest rock singer of all time. He’s even better than Elvis because Elvis did a nose-dive when he came back from his stint in the army, albeit “Suspicious Minds” did harken back to his prime. For evidence of the truth of what I’m saying, consider that the best album The Black Crowes ever did was “Live at the Greek,” where they worked with Jimmy Page to recreate Zeppelin’s greatest hits.

My wife of fifty-two years, Willie, and I often remark on how fortunate we were to grow up with the music that was being made back then. What band today is better than Creedence? None. Even a one-hit wonder like Tommy TuTone was far better than anything going today. Listen to “Jenny, Jenny” if you don’t believe me. Listen to the guitar break! Listen to the Paul Butterfield Blues Band’s “The Resurrection of Pigboy Crabshaw.”

The only people still making fine music are the old guys. Buddy Guy, for example. He just keeps on putting out great Chi-Town blues. How old is Buddy? Eighty? At least. He still smokes the axe.

“How about ‘80s and ‘90s bands like Fleetwood Mac, Johnny boy?”

See what I mean? Fleetwood Mac began as a British blues band in the ‘60s, featuring Peter Green on guitar. Greeny wrote “Black Magic Woman” for Pete’s sake! He wrote “Rattlesnake Shake”! The Fleetwood Mac of the post-1960s is a pale imitation of the original. If you can find it, listen to Christine Perfect’s (later, Christine McVie, keyboardist for the second incarnation of Fleetwood) version of “I’d Rather Go Blind.” THAT is soul music! And speaking of which, who, today, is rivaling Smokey and the Miracles or Wilson Pickett or Otis or Al Green or Marvin? No one!

Willie and I grew up in an absolutely amazing musical climate, which is why, when I’m working out, I listen to nothing but the music of our yute. I mean, just try listening to “Rag Doll” without moving your body. Try listening to “Tracks of My Tears” or “Don’t Worry Baby” without thinking “genius.”

Come to think of it, I’ve failed to mention that Brian Wilson and The Beach Boys are one of the most underappreciated bands of all time. Check out “Sail On, Sailor” or “’Til I Die.” I sat five feet from Carl at the Beach Boy’s concert in Quincy, Illinois, in 1972. They played in front of maybe fifteen musicians, including several from South Africa. Oh…my…gosh! The rhythms!

Sorry, but after that concert, Nirvana just doesn’t move me.

   

   

Heroes Work Here!

February 18, 2021

Plain to see, out in front of the main post office in my hometown of New Bern, North Carolina, stands a sign that reads, in big letters, HEROES WORK HERE!

Okay, so let me make myself perfectly clear, I like my postman, or postit, or whatever one is to call someone in these strange times who appears to be male and delivers the mail, but I seriously doubt that he qualifies as a hero. The people who work in said post office are friendly and helpful, but they don’t qualify as heroes either. My handyman isn’t a hero, and I dare say he puts forth more physical effort at his job than they do theirs. He also takes more risk.

What’s with postal workers being heroes, then? Their job exposes them to COVID? I have a sneaking feeling that’s it. If I’m right, they ain’t heroes. They’re just doing their jobs. Furthermore, if doing one’s job – one that involves the possibility of exposure to COVID – is heroic, then people who won’t go to work because their jobs expose them to COVID must be cowards. I’m thinking of the thousands of teachers across the USA. Who are the only people who have refused to go to work because of COVID? Teachers! Nurses have continued going to work. Doctors have continued going to work. EMTs, dentists, policepersonits, and firefighters have continued going to go to work. All of the aforementioned risk as much if not more exposure to COVID than teachers. Yet teachers, hiding behind their unions, have refused to go to work when their exposure is minimal, especially given that COVID seems to have decided that kids aren’t worth infecting.

Over the past fifty years or so, I’ve witnessed the ubiquitous dumbing down of language. Take the word bully. When I was a kid, bullies were kids who beat you up for no reason other than they seemed to like inducing fear into certain other kids. Today, a bully is someone who makes another child feel bad. Hello? What ever happened to “Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me!”? Today’s equivalent seems to be “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but calling me a name will ruin my life forever!”

Perhaps I have little to no sympathy for kids who collapse because other kids call them names because I used to enjoy the challenge of coming up with a name that was worse than what some other kid called me. He called me a sissy, so I told him his mother wore combat boots. I guess that one won’t work anymore, but you get the idea.

A principal once told me that the mother of a fifth-grader called him one afternoon to report that another kid had bullied her son. At lunch, he had poured about half a cup of Chex Mix down the back of her snowflake’s shirt. The snowflake in question needs a George in his life. George would chase me home from school and, being bigger and faster, I couldn’t outrun him. When he caught up with me, he would pin me to the ground and tickle me. So, being tickled is okay for about the first two seconds after which it is worse than being waterboarded.

Notwithstanding that George chased me home from school nearly ever day for a year, I have no lingering resentment. Besides, George was eventually sent off to reform school. Seems he was doing far worse stuff than tickling me to tears.

Another dumbed-down word is trauma. I sometimes think the only person in the world who’s never been traumatized is me. According to their parents, today’s kids are traumatized all the time. All it takes is something they don’t like, and they’re traumatized.

“Loud noises, like sirens, traumatize him,” a parent once told me concerning her eight-year-old.

Huh? What does he do when he hears a siren? Get in a fetal position in the corner of his bedroom, suck his thumb, mumble incoherencies, and rock back and forth catatonically? No, he just puts his hands over his ears and screams, “Make it stop!” His mother, otherwise intelligent, doesn’t seem to know that telling him to be quiet is an option. No, she drops what she’s doing, runs over to him, and holds him on her lap until the siren is out of range. SHE is the reason he’s “traumatized” by sirens. If it wasn’t sirens, it would be the sound of a fly buzzing nearby. His supposed trauma is her reason for existence. It gives her motherhood meaning! The problem, of course, is that her son’s ability to ever form a functional relationship with another woman is being slowly dismantled. His mother is doing him what might be irreparable harm. I guess that qualifies her as a bully. She needs a pair of combat boots, for sure.

     

     

We're About to Find Out What Tulsi's Made Of

February 11, 2021

The Democrat Party, having gained power, is rapidly revealing itself incapable of governing. Do they really think they can afford to demonize half the country? They obviously do. Since his inauguration as president ersatz, Biden has destroyed thousands of jobs, destroyed women’s athletics, weakened the military, and weakened Asian-American students chances of getting into top-flight universities.

I’m going to play psychologist here. Donald Trump came very close to uncovering the evil that has embedded itself in Washington. One more term would have been the clincher. The swamp denizens had to stop him at all cost, and they did. Or, they think they did. Or, they’re desperate to convince we, the people, that they are in their rightful place, doing rightful and necessary things. One thing is for certain: They are scared. The extreme speech they’re putting out there and the extreme things they’re threatening are the stuff of fear.

They spent four years trying to prove that Trump was a Russian agent. Dark humor is defined by the true believers in that bright red herring. Lenin coined a term that aptly describes them: useful idiots. I don’t think many on the right even begin to comprehend the depth of the depravities and abuses of office the New Left was trying to hide with that charade.

Notwithstanding a three-year sham investigation of a sham dossier supposedly unveiling a sham conspiracy, impeachment, and push-back from many on the Republican side of the swamp, Trump prevailed. He stayed the course, never wobbled, not once. What a guy! He had the swamp creatures quaking in their luxury lifestyles.

Every morning, my wife and I spend about an hour drinking coffee, cuddling with Mazie the Wonder Dog, catching up on the latest in the crash and burn, and doing the Wall Street Journal crossword (me). Willie pulls up video of Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, Maria Bartiromo, and other rational people. Tulsi Gabbard has been a frequent guest on their shows. I know her parents, met her briefly when she was a teenager. When Tulsi first ran for Congress, a conservative friend of mine in Hawaii told me she was “out there.” I took it that Tulsi was the consummate New Ager, a believer in crystal healing and dancing to Shiva on black sand beaches at midnight in the full moon.

Tulsi Gabbard is making more sense than any politician except maybe Rand Paul and I’m still unsure about him. Yes, Tulsi is no longer a congresswoman, but it sounds a lot to me as if she’s setting herself up for a run at something. I think she’s going for the brass ring. She’s got to be almost as if not more scary to her former colleagues on the left side of the aisle as The Donald. How are they going to demonize her? She’s a woman and ethnic. She appeals to millennials and boomers. She’s a surfer! But mostly, she’s highly intelligent, articulate, rational, logical, attractive to men and non-threatening to women. She is the package! How in the world are the creatures from the Black Lagoon going to demonize her? They’re going to try, for sure. And the more they try, the more repellant they’re going to appear.

I dig Tulsi. It’s going to be interesting to watch how she deals with the garbage Pelosi and AOC and CNN and The New York Times and The Washington Post and Whoopie (can’t forget one of the most perceptive political analysts going) begin tossing her way. I flunked Fortune Telling in grad school, but I predict, nonetheless, that Tulsi is going to come out on top without breaking a sweat.

   

   

Ted Cruz and I Fail Seth Rogen's Fascist Test

February 4, 2021

Friday, January 22, 2021, is a day that will live in infamy. It is the day actor and comedian Seth Rogen called Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) a “fascist” during a Twitter exchange. Rogen determined that Cruz was a fascist when Cruz openly opposed ersatz President Biden’s decision to rejoin the Paris Climate Accords.

Okay, so Cruz and I are in the same boat. Last summer, when I told an adult female (at least, she had physical characteristics of being adult and female, but one never knows these days) that I was voting for The Donald, she yelled, “Oh, no! He’s a fascist!” That makes me a fascist too, I guess, since I agree with The Donald about most things.

Rogen, age 38, is a millennial. He can be forgiven, therefore, for anything he says about anything. But! He’s Jewish, so it’s difficult to forgive him for mis-using the term fascist. He should be ashamed of himself and apologize to Cruz, in fact, but that’s a non-starter.

The authoritative Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines fascism as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime … that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”

Gosh and golly gee whiz! That sounds a like the 2021 version of a Democrat politician, to me. Parsing the definition:

  1. …exalts nation and race above the individual – True, The Donald wanted to, and almost did, make America great again, but up until B. H. Obama, every president, Democrat and Republican, tried to maintain America’s greatness in the world. So, exalting the nation is not exclusively Republican. But exalting race above the individual is what identity politics, exclusive to the Democrat Party, is all about. Strike one against Rogen.
  2. …stands for a centralized autocratic government – The Donald tried to restore the power of the 10th Amendment, the states’ rights amendment, so this doesn’t apply to him either. Today’s Democrat Party is for nullification of states’ rights and centralized government. Once a government becomes centralized, autocracy follows. Once again, Rogen is wrong. Strike two for the Sethmeister.
  3. …economic and social regimentation – Obama increased regulation; Donald decreased it. On day one of his ersatz presidency, Biden struck up the regulatory band. Strike three for the Rogendude.
  4. …forcible suppression of opposition – Since the “election,” quite a few Democrat bigwigs have spoken of wanting to silence Trump supporters, take away their rights, and even force them into re-education programs. No Republicans voiced similar ideas when Hillary lost in 2016. Strike four for the funny man.

I’m a psychologist. According to psychology, to accuse someone of an egregious fault that is true of the accuser is known as “projection.” Very insecure people project their own pathologies onto others because they can’t face the truth about themselves.

I’ll stop right there. I don’t need to say anything else because my readers are a very intelligent group of people.

   

    

"That's Not Fair!"

January 28, 2021

Beginning in the late 1960s, psychologists and other mental health professionals began demonizing traditional childrearing. Without a shred of evidence with which to support their contentions, they asserted that traditional childrearing was psychologically harmful to children. To save children from further harm, they came up with a new childrearing paradigm that stood in sharp contrast to the old. If the new paradigm had retained any aspect of the old paradigm, then the argument could have been made that the new paradigm was only less harmful, so the new paradigm was NEW in every sense of the term, and thoroughly so.

Traditional families were adult-centric, so the new, utopian family was child-centric. In the traditional family, parents ruled, so new families were to be democratic. Children were to have an equal voice – from early on, mind you – in family decisions. Traditional parents had not explained themselves to children, so parents who wanted to get with the new program were to explain themselves. If their children didn’t like their rules and boundaries, new parents were to negotiate with their children until a win-win outcome was obtained.

Okay, let’s stop right there. A win-win outcome requires agreement on the part of both parties that a satisfactory agreement has been reached. What is a satisfactory agreement from a child’s point of view? Right! From a child’s point of view, the only satisfactory “agreement” has the child getting what he wants!

EXAMPLE: Billy, age sixteen, has received three speeding tickets in his first month of driving. His parents, having paid close to two thousand dollars in fines, are inclined to take his driving privileges away until he turns seventeen. Billy thinks that’s unfair. He wants to continue driving, without any restriction. What is a win-win solution to that problem? There is none! But Billy’s parents, wanting Billy to view them as fair, propose to Billy that, okay, he can continue driving and okay, there will be no restrictions, but he has to promise to drive more carefully, which Billy thinks is just splendid and so promises.

My point: If the child in a parent-child negotiation doesn’t think a certain outcome is fair, then it is not win-win. To achieve win-win, the outcome must be pleasing to the child, which isn’t win-win. It’s win-lose. Quickly, the child learns that he can get his way in a “negotiation” by yelling “That’s not fair!” So, that’s what he does. In other words, in said “negotiations,” the child holds the trump card. He’s in control of the outcome. Are you getting this?

The above example illustrates how in many of today’s families, children are in complete control of the home. They control through emotional intimidation. They scream, yell, cut, threaten to kill themselves, and otherwise bully their parents into letting them have their way. And the more their parents cave, the more the children in question scream, yell, curse, cut, and threaten to kill themselves.

The paradox, however, is that while the kids in question are getting their way, they’re not really happy. That explains why, since American parents began taking their marching orders from psychologists and other mental health ninnies, the mental health of America’s children has gone down the proverbial toilet. And it will keep right on going down the sewer pipes until American parents wake up to the scam that has been run on them.

Scam? Yes, scam. Consider that the people who have profited financially from the mess of child mental health are the very people who made the mess. If it walks like a scam and quacks like a scam, then it is a scam.

    

    

Darwin Got It All Wrong

January 21, 2021

Apologists for Darwinian evolutionary theory tend toward being both infuriating and hilarious.

Full disclosure: Until my early 40s, I accepted Darwin’s theory of macro-evolution as the gospel. I thought only narrow-minded, uneducated, superstitious nincompoops believed in an invisible supernatural being who poofed the universe into being and created humans out of clay. Then, I began reading books written by scientists in various fields who were arguing against Darwin’s theory and, poof, just like that I became a creationist. Today, I think Darwin was a brilliant man who came up with a brilliant, but wrong, theory. His problem was simply that he didn’t possess the scientific knowledge of things like DNA that we possess today.

Anyway, back to the infuriating and hilarious people who are the public spokespersons for Darwinism. Take David Barash, for example. Barash is professor of psychology emeritus at the University of Washington and the author of Threats: Intimidation and Its Discontents. In the December 30, 2020 Wall Street Journal, Barash reviewed Donald Prothero’s book, The Story of Evolution in 25 Discoveries. How, one might ask, does a psychologist (of which I, too, am one) qualify to review a book on evolution? Because both psychology and evolution are leftist-atheist-postmodern ideologies that have no basis in good science. Barash and Prothero are blood brothers in the cause of destroying belief in God.

Barash begins his praiseful review by invoking the “evolutionary fact that complex multi-cellular creatures came along later than simple, unicellular ones.” Indeed, the fossil record is clear on that account. It is indeed a FACT that small things came before bigger things. But is it, as Barash claims, an EVOLUTIONARY fact? No, it is not. The FACT of the matter is that the fossil record – especially the record contained in the so-called Cambrian Explosion – supports the creationist view. In the CE, all major animal phyla appeared, fully formed, around the same time. No evidence of evolution there. The CE contains no transitional species, for example. It is paleontology’s Big Bang. There were bacteria, amoeba, and planaria, and then, BANG, there was nearly everything else. That’s called creation, as described in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis. The CE drives evolutionists up a wall. They have no choice, really, but to twist the facts to fit their ideology.

Barash goes on from there to homologies: the curious fact that the body parts of various species seem to be constructed on the same basic pattern, as in the bone structure of the human hand and porpoise flippers. Evolutionists employ homologies to “prove” common descent.

Barash: “The Darwinian story provides scientific insights into why homologies occur, whereas the theological story simply reiterates that they occur.”

Wrong again! The Darwinian story does no such thing! Darwinism explains homologies in terms that preserve a materialistic worldview. Darwinists begin their “scientific” explorations with a conclusion: God is a fiction. They then fit evidence into that conclusion. Thus, homologies “prove” evolution. But homologies can be easily explained theistically: to wit, God often created different species using similar designs. Why not? He is under no obligation to never replicate basic templates.

Barash then cites the FACT that the flora and fauna of islands often resemble those of nearby continents, “a phenomenon that wouldn’t necessarily be expected if each had been a separate, independent creation.” Huh? Barash sets up a straw man – to wit, if someone called God created thingies, each thingy He created would be found, at least initially, in only one spot – and then knocks the straw man down. But the Bible says no such thing. It says God covered the earth with His creation. And so, the fact that similar flora and fauna are found in separate places on the earth is consistent with the Biblical account.

Barash claims that an animal with both amphibian and fish-like features proves said animal is a “transitional species.” No, it doesn’t. It proves only that there was once an animal, now extinct, with both amphibian and fish-like features. A salamahi? newtagrouper?

According to Barash, Prothero “enumerates transitional species galore.” Trust me, transitional species are the Great Darwinian Myth. Take “Lucy,” for example. Lucy, as she was named, was a supposedly transitional hominid species found in Africa in 1974. For many years thereafter, evolutionists proudly pointed to Lucy’s bones as proof of their theory. Then it was determined that Lucy’s bones were not Lucy’s bones; rather, they were a collection of bones from several different animals. So much for Lucy. May she/he/it rest in peace.

Furthermore, the Bible does not say that Adam and Eve were the first hominids. It says, and this is very important, that Adam and Eve were the first hominids God created with souls – the first truly HUMAN beings. So-called “Old Earth Creationists,” of which yours truly is one, believe hominids existed prior to God creating Adam and Eve. So, even if fossil remains such as Lucy’s dubious collection of bones are dated prior to human beings, that does not prove evolution.

Barash then goes on to animal and human body parts that make no sense, like the giraffe’s laryngeal nerve, which begins in the upper neck, loops down to its heart and then back up again. Only a “thoroughly incompetent designer” would make such a contraption, says Barash. Okay, so the fact that some features of God’s designs don’t make sense to people like Barash and Prothero means God doesn’t exist. How about Barash and Prothero make very little sense; therefore, Barash and Prothero don’t exist? An equally “scientific” deduction, if I do say so myself.

Darwinists don’t bring up DNA because it is their stumbling block. DNA is essential to life. Said another way, to qualify as a living organism, a candidate must possess DNA. We’re talking about the most complex binary code ever discovered. We’re talking about an absolutely gorgeous arrangement of code that takes the form of a double helix – two snakes curling around each other with a regular arrangement of code between them. FACT: There is no way DNA could have been present in a one-celled organism that spontaneously appeared in otherwise inert primordial muck. FACT: There is no way DNA could have evolved. It is clear, irrefutable evidence of a Designer. FACT: Darwinism cannot get over that hurdle. Oh, they try. Do they ever try. Some of them propose, for example, that Earth was seeded with one-celled organisms from other planets in the universe by solar winds or comets, which only makes for another question Darwinists stumble around: “How did life arise on those planets?”

Intelligent design proponents (they avoid the word “creationist” but that is effectively what they are) – William Dembski, Michael Behe, Phillip Johnson, et. al. – make a much more logical case for creation than Barash makes for evolution. I highly recommend their books. If you’re interested, begin with Johnson. He introduced me to the truth when I was in my early 40s. He can do the same for you.

   

   

Special Edition: Are You Satisfied?

January 14, 2021

Are you satisfied? I’m addressing folks who voted for Biden simply because mainstream media convinced them that Trump is a mental defective whose rocking chair is missing a rocker.

But let’s pretend, for the moment, that Biden actually won, which is a truly laughable proposition.

As I write, the House of Representatives has impeached The Donald for the second time and McConnell is trying to figure out how to get out of that one. Meanwhile, food and gas prices are going up, AOC is calling for establishing controls over certain media so that they can no longer print “lies,” Iran is rapidly developing weapons-grade uranium and nuclear technology (in blatant violation of the agreement it signed), Biden has said he’s going to “war” with the NRA (in other words, he’s intent upon trashing the Second Amendment)…

It is now a known fact that the siege on the Capital on January 6 was a planned, coordinated affair that the FBI, CIA, and other security organizations had advance notice of and did nothing. Some credible media outlets are saying Pelosi and Schumer were briefed on the distinct possibility of an attack and did nothing. Right! The ensuing chaos fit right into their plans.

Did Trump incite the riot? No, he did not. Has any mainstream media outlet released an audiotape of his speech? No. Why? Because the audiotape refutes their narrative, that’s why. The question becomes: How did Trump incite a riot that was in progress before he finished his speech? I’ve heard plenty of first-person testimonies from folks who were there. Trump urged calm. He urged peaceful protest, which is our right under the Constitution.

It is a known fact that the FBI had been warned, in advance, that certain violence-prone extremists were planning to create a major disruption. What history is there of Trump supporters being violence prone? None. What history is there of radical leftists being violence prone? Plenty. Think the summer of 2020, when Democrat mayors were silent as their cities were torn apart by Antifa and BLM mobs.

We now have one-party rule, folks. Even the Chief Justice has shown himself to be a turncoat. If the Republican Party held all the cards, no one would need worry that our civil liberties, which have come at a great price, would be trashed. But the Democrat Party? Now, that’s a different story. The Dems have caved to the radical left-wing agenda of AOC and her crowd. We’re talking about people who hate the Constitution because it hampers their totalitarian objectives.

America is headed into darkness. Trust me. I know how these people think. I was one of their mob in the late 1960s and early ‘70s. They are dangerous and they will stop at nothing.

Are you satisfied?

   
   

Why Is Demi Lovato Such a Mess and Why Do I Have To Know?

January 14, 2021

Why is Demi Lovato such a mess and why do I have to know? In the last year, the media has informed me that she is bipolar, has suffered from depression, and once had an eating disorder. Ms. Lovato was famous in her teens and a multi-millionaire before she was twenty-one. She is now twenty-eight.

I love standing in the checkout line at grocery stores. Where else can one catch up on what’s really important? George and Amal are getting divorced for the twentieth time, Harry’s been unfaithful to Meghan, one of the Kardashians tried to kill herself last week, Brad is in a love triangle with his makeup artist and her boyfriend, who’s in prison for trying to poison his mother, who recently came out as a man who believes he’s actually a porpoise. The longer the wait, the better my mood.

I love every bit of it. I do, however, yearn for the days when Elvis sightings were commonplace; when he was able to be in Seattle, Little Rock, and Ranlo, North Carolina in one twenty-four-hour period. By the way, the license plate on my F-250 reads IMLVIS. I’m just trying to throw the paparazzi off his trail. It’s working. Ask yourself, “When is the last time I saw a current photo of Elvis on the cover of the National Enquirer?” See what I mean?

Once upon a time, celebrities had scandals but no soap operas. Today’s celebrities have soap operas but no scandals. Why is that? Nothing rises to the level of scandal these days because we’ve topped out on scandal. When a formerly male Olympic champion publicly claims to be a woman, is celebrated as “courageous” and awarded medals for giving five-year-old boys permission to be who they really are, what is a scandal?

Back to Ms. Lovato. My question: Who cares about her miserable life? Apparently, lots of people! Her miseries sell a gobsmacking number of tell-all magazines. Personally, I think the truly miserable people among us can be identified by their insatiable lust for said magazines. After all, what is more comforting than knowing that the rich and famous have more problems than you? Compared to Demi Lovato, who is a multi-millionairess, your problems are small potatoes. Stop whining and figure out how you’re going to feed your kids tonight. Demi could have an eating disorder relapse at any moment, for Pete’s sake!

Have you figured out that eating disorders are a luxury exclusive to people who have never had to worry about where their next meals are coming from? When is the last time you heard of a homeless person with an eating disorder? Ever stopped to think how many people in the Central African Republic, the poorest country on the planet, have eating disorders? Right! Poor people can’t afford eating disorders, which proves that eating disorders are caused by a surplus of money. Is it any wonder, then, that Demi Lovato’s net worth is estimated at $40 million?

   
   

Jimmy Buffett is a Big Yawn

January 7, 2021

First, my qualifications for writing this chapter of my world-renowned blog: I began playing in rock ‘n’ roll bands – lead singer, mostly, with occasional stints on rhythm guitar and blues harmonica – at seventeen and continued playing for seven years. In 1992, I recorded, with a backing band comprised of crack musicians (who auditioned me before they agreed to play on the album), a full-length album of songs I had written. Not parenting ballads, mind you…rhythm ‘n’ blues-based rock ‘n’ roll. The album received very good reviews. One reviewer said that one of the songs was the best he’d ever heard in its category (so-called “garage” rock). Truth be known, given the choice between I can be lead singer in a band or I can be a parenting expert…lead singer, hands down.

Okay, having established my bona fides in rock music, the blog that will make me lots of enemies. I’ll come straight to the point: I cannot abide Jimmy Buffett. See? Some of you are already screaming vile things at me. Let’s face it, the Margaritameister is not a good singer, he’s not a good songwriter (save maybe two that are passable), he’s not a good guitarist, his band is not that good (a friend of mine sang backup for him for a while and told me he picked her not for her talent but because she didn’t charge the going rate). He’s a crashing bore, to be honest.

But! He’s a good marketer, for sure, and I do believe in capitalism and the free market, so I honor him for making lots of moolah off of very mediocre talent.

You can generally judge a musician by his ability to take someone else’s song and make it better, like Hendrix did with “All Along the Watchtower” and the Stones did with “Time Is On My Side.” Just to mention two. So, on that basis, have you ever heard Buffett’s version of Van Morrison’s “Brown-Eyed Girl”? No? Don’t bother. It ranks with the worst covers ever done. His take reveals his utter lack of vocal chops. Someone needs to tell him, “Jimmy, my man, it’s not just about staying on key, which you manage to do, but what distinguishes a really great singer – Elvis, Sinatra, Dylan, Grace Slick, McCartney even – is their phrasing – their ability to create a new rhythm with their voice, and Jimmy, my man, you just ain’t got it. You got no soul, dude.”

Dylan? Yes, Dylan. He is one of the greatest singers of all time. People who say he can’t sing have never really listened to him. They don’t like his tone so they extrapolate from their bad ear that he can’t sing. Believe me, other lead singers are in awe of him. Dylan invents melodies that no one has ever thought of before and his phrasing is magical.

But back to the Parrotman. Okay, okay, he’s entertaining. On second thought, not really. He stands in one spot and sings and cracks jokes. Mick Jagger is entertaining. Steven Tyler is entertaining. Comparatively, Buffett is a big yawn.

But I still sing along to “Wastin’ Away in Margaritaville” every time it comes on my car radio.

   

   

Making Mountains Out of Molehills

December 31, 2020

As a child and through my high school years, I failed at things. I was bullied – truly, physically bullied – by more than a few sociopaths. My stepfather, who came into my life when I was six, was emotionally abusive to both me and my mother. Hell was created with people like him in mind. My mother eventually descended into serious emotional disturbance. By the time I was twelve, I knew I was on my own. My father, with whom I went to live when I was fifteen, turned out to be an irresponsible, commonsense-defective narcissist. I lived with him a year and went back to live with my mother and the ogre. I came three feet from driving my car, accidentally but stupidly, off a cliff at age sixteen. Three years later, I was supporting a family.

I was never traumatized. Hurt, stunned, cut down to size, humiliated, disappointed, emotionally abandoned, stressed to the max, but never traumatized. I just picked myself up and moved on. I learned to pick myself up and move on by picking myself up and moving on. It’s what my mother did and I figured it was the thing to do. Besides, she had no time for sob stories. She had enough of her own.

My childhood was not exactly a happy one, but I was never depressed. Early on, I figured out how to make the best of it. When people ask me what my childhood was like, I tell them it was “interesting.” I was blessed with more problems in eighteen years than a kid in a Dickens’ novel. Yes, blessed. I do not dwell on anything about my childhood. I am who I am today because of it. I am a happy man and I credit my less-than-happy childhood. The only thing I’d do differently is start learning to play the guitar earlier and devote myself to it. Rock ‘n’ roll music was my escape from reality then, and it’s been my passion ever since.

The point of the story: I don’t have much sympathy for people, even young people, especially young people, who claim to be suffering from the aftereffects of some “traumatic” experience. A few weeks ago, a guy in his early twenties complained to me that something I’d said during a radio interview had “triggered” him. I wanted to say, “You are in desperate need of a growing up pill,” but I’m not quite that impulsive anymore.

So many of today’s young people complain of having been traumatized by something that would have been a molehill to me. They have anxiety about stuff that I had to deal with all the time. They’re depressed. They’re bipolar. They’re ADHD. They’re test-phobic. Blah, blah, blah. To me, their carping is nothing but soap opera.

They seem to believe that a life without soap opera is a life without meaning. So, to infuse their lives with meaning, they create soap opera. They tell their soap opera to anyone who will listen. I just want to slap ‘em, but I’m not that impulsive anymore. In many if not most cases, these soap opera factories are seeing therapists who validate their soap operas, which explains why nearly every parent who tells me his child saw a therapist says the child’s problems got a whole lot worse during that descent into quicksand.

I have concluded that today’s kids are in dire need of problems. Real problems as opposed to the tsunamis they make out of ripples on the waters of life. The problem in that regard is that lots of today’s parents spend lots of energy filtering out any and all problems from their kids’ lives and solving the ones that get through the filter. Which is why their kids are so easily traumatized.

     

     

The Postmodern 'Liberal'

December 24, 2020

The liberals of today aren’t liberal at all. For one thing, the classic liberal – pre-1960s, that is – believes in the free market of ideas. He believes, as with competing products, in letting the consumer choose which idea “wins,” if any. Every idea is given rational consideration, a chance to be heard.

The classic liberal doesn’t allow his decisions to be driven by emotion. He knows that when emotions are controlled, everyone, including himself, benefits. (By the way, to control one’s emotions is not to repress them by any means, but rather to give them expression only in ways that are loving of one’s neighbor.)

The classic liberal believes that everyone should enjoy the equal right to attempt, struggle, fail, and succeed. No one’s right to participate fully in the life of the culture should be unnecessarily restricted, and when restrictions are necessary (on antisocial behavior), they are applied equally and according to rule of law. Nor should anyone be given a hand up by the government because government “assistance” ensures inequality. And by the way, when government steps aside in the field of social services, charity flourishes.

In my neighborhood, on the front lawns of a number of homes, signs have sprouted announcing that “Hate Has No Home Here,” printed in eight languages, usually alongside signs proclaiming support for a certain presidential candidate. The reek of moral superiority is palpable. I do not qualify for one of said signs because I harbor an equally palpable distaste for the reek of moral superiority. The individuals in question believe themselves to be a cut above in the morals department. They aren’t, of course. They hate people like me. I’m a classic liberal. The difference in our hate is that I hate their attitude; they hate me. I would attempt to persuade them to a more liberal point of view; they would celebrate any attempt to silence mine.

How in the world has their totalitarianism come to be called “liberalism” anyway? The answer is simple. In a free market of ideas, their ideas would be relegated to the bottom shelf. They compensate by changing the meaning of words, making appeals to emotion, and shouting down ideas that don’t conform to their narrow worldview. In this way, what is tyrannical becomes “liberal,” and what is genuinely liberal is fascist, racist, sexist, misogynist, and so on.
And suddenly, one is no longer deserving of being heard. You’re a pariah, holding back the species’ glorious evolutionary march toward a pseudo-utopian nightmare.

In the early years of the third millennium, paradox rules.

  

   

We Are One Bloomin' Mess

December 17, 2020

The new national motto is surely “We Are One Bloomin’ Mess!”

Anyone who thinks that everything is going to return to normal after Joe the Schmo is inaugurated should stop smoking whatever they’re putting in their hand-blown bong. And to anyone who thinks I’ve just disrespected the presidency, wake up. Joe the Schmo was not elected. He was “elected” by voting machines that were tampered with at the voting machine factory and mail-in ballots that were “mailed in” by people who were killed in the Battle of the Bulge.

As I write this episode of my blog – a word that fits our national circumstances to a “T” – there is still some likelihood that truth and Trump will prevail. Nonetheless, the fact that the election was a fraud should jolt everyone out of their Facebook addiction and into reality, if, that is, they have enough functioning neurons left to carry out the assignment.

Several years ago, I realized what was happening in the world. I saw it happening to friends and family members and determined that it would not happen to me. So, I hired someone to manage my social media. Confession time! I’ve never logged into Facebook, Twitter, or any other demonic manifestation found on the Internet. Thus, what I write, at age 73, still makes perfect sense. That’s right. You may not agree, but I make perfect sense. My mind functions as well as it did – much better, actually – than when I was in my twenties. The secret to my agelessness is quite simple: I read. In fact, for every page I write, I read at least twenty. I don’t watch television. I keep my brain alive and fit by reading and believe me, the brain is the most important muscle in your body. Furthermore, I don’t waste my time reading fiction. I read what other people have to say about important things as opposed to what’s going on in George Clooney’s life these days. But I digress.

Two thousand years ago, the apostle Paul said that our battle was with supernatural powers. A person who is not clear on that is incapable of dealing with it – properly engaging in the ongoing battle – at a personal level. Most of our politicians are not clear on that. Therefore, despite what might be good intentions, they are incapable of dealing with it or helping us deal with it. Most of the people who occupy America’s pulpits are not even clear on that. Therefore, they are equally incapable of dealing with it or helping us deal with it. So, we, the people, must deal with it on our own. And we must prepare our children to deal with it. America’s educators began gulping the Kool-Aid in college, so they cannot be trusted, even if they teach at so-called Christian schools. As the late, great Bo Diddley so profoundly said, “You can’t judge a book by lookin’ at the cover.”

Parents! Are you with me so far? You absolutely must see to it that your children become armored with a biblical worldview! In the post-Babel history of the world, that has never been so important as it is today. First, you must not allow your children’s worldview to be defined by what so many children are consuming on smart phone screens. If you have not noticed, let me help you. Those screens are a narcotic, perhaps the most powerful and seductive narcotic ever devised. Second, you must make whatever sacrifices you need to make to take control of your children’s educations. I’m talking about transforming your home into a school. Third, you must make the Bible their primary textbook. And you must make the Bible YOUR primary reference. You must build your family – beginning with your marriage – on a solid biblical foundation.

The attack on what is good and what is truth has never been so intense. The barbarians are at the gates and make no mistake, their intent is to destroy every semblance of good and every semblance of truth. They intend to substitute what is irrational for what is rational, and their primary targets are the most vulnerable and impressionable among us – to wit, America’s children.

And they are succeeding. One of my very own precious grandchildren recently told me that his generation “doesn’t really care if someone is transgender.” The problem? He’s right! The young people of his generation have stared at the electronic opium for so long that many of them are incapable of distinguishing truth from falsehood. They are incapable of knowing evil even if it’s right in their faces.

Two thousand years ago, Paul told his audience that dealing with the enemy required putting on the armor of God. Two weeks ago, someone told me that I should stick to parenting and leave theology to the theologians and politics to the politicians. How utterly naïve. It’s all one and the same.

   

   

Are You a Useful Idiot?

December 10, 2020

I recently told an ultra-liberal Democrat that I knew who my enemies were. I then asked, “Do you know who your enemies are?” He thought a moment, then told me that his enemy was the Republican party.

“Wrong,” I said. “Your enemies and my enemies are one and the same.”

The Soviet ruling elite referred to people like my friend as “useful idiots” – people who, albeit intelligent, lacked the ability to think critically. The useful idiot could be swayed by appeals to emotion, especially those that cast him either as a victim, the champion of the victim, a moral superior filled with patriotic zeal for the promised utopia, or all the foregoing. I am acutely aware of the worldview that inhabits the useful idiot because I have been there, done that.

The useful idiot allows his rational thought processes to be taken over by propaganda that feeds his pride. He subscribes because subscribing makes him feel like he belongs to a movement that represents all that is righteous. The movement embodies a glorious vision of human perfection in which peace and love rule the universe and the extraterrestrials finally leave us alone because they no longer need to save us from self-destruction.

The reality of this supposed utopia is that everyone is demoted to the lowest of common denominators and all resources are held by a chosen few to distribute as they, in their “wisdom,” see fit. Truth becomes falsehood, falsehood becomes “truth,” virtue becomes evil, evil becomes virtue, what is irrational becomes rational, and misery becomes the new normal.

The useful idiot is, first, useful because he can be manipulated by the puppet masters, caused to believe that when they come to power, they will favor him with privilege. Second, he is an idiot because he can be manipulated to help accomplish that which is opposite his self-interests, primary of which is liberty of thought and expression.

Accomplishing their perverse utopia requires that the cabal infiltrate education, media, the entertainment industry, the church, the Internet, and the bureaucracy. Take a look around you. If you are not alarmed, then you are, by definition, a useful idiot. In which case, but presently unbeknownst to you, you and I have a common enemy.

   

   

One Way, One Truth, One Life

December 3, 2020

I believe, in its entirety, the account of the life, execution, and resurrection of Christ Jesus, Lord and Savior of all who come to believe in him. To be clear, I believe His grace is freely offered to all, to embrace or reject as each sees fit.

I qualify as a paradoxical believer. If someone told me when I was, say, in my early twenties, that I would be a believer in Jesus and the truth of God’s Word, I would have immediately stopped inhaling what they were inhaling. I was raised by highly intelligent atheists who possessed three PhDs between them and taught to regard belief in God as superstition.

Then I began reading the Bible. That is the intellectually honest thing to do, if I do say so myself. I became especially captivated by the Bible’s account of creation, which I had been taught was a myth. No, it’s not. Myths conform to certain linguistic characteristics. The Bible does not even approximate the forms that defines myth.

The third verse of the creation account found in the first book of the Bible is a statement of scientific fact: the universe began in a mega-burst of light. By what means did Moses, the author of said book, know that? He possessed no scientific instruments and had not even attended kindergarten. The only sensible answer to the foregoing question: God told him.

In the account, God immediately separates light from darkness. That, also, is a scientific fact. In the first micro-seconds of the Big Bang, light matter and energy separated from dark matter and energy. How’d Moses know that?

We are then confronted by an earth that is covered in water. Tectonic and volcanic forces uplift the land, creating islands and continents. How’d Moses know that?

The Bible tells us that fish and other sea-dwelling creatures are the first life forms. How’d Moses know that?

Most important of all, biblical creation is true creation. God does not fashion what is already there, as is the case in creation myths. He creates out of nothing. He speaks the universe into existence and then fashions it into planets, suns, and solar systems, with a few black holes here and there. The universe is expanding. So says the Bible. So says the astrophysics community, as well.

One of the above “coincidences” might be written off as coincidence, but that many? Not a chance, as probability theorists will affirm. It’s as if God is saying, “Someday, you will discover that I am a giver of nothing but the truth. In fact, you will discover that I Am The Truth.” Yep, one will discover just that, whether by the easy way or the hard way.

Jesus identified Himself as THE way, THE truth, and THE life. I highly recommend that everyone consider the possibility. It will cost you nothing and just possibly gain you everything.

   

   

A Stranger in a Strange Land

November 19, 2020

These are strange time in which we live. To be more accurate, human beings have never stopped being strange; therefore, times have always been equally strange. But this time around, the strange seems stranger than ever before.

Moral relativism was what brought down Adam and Eve. The serpent told Eve that if she ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, she would become “like God, knowing good and evil.” The serpent was lying, of course. By eating of the tree, Adam and Eve only began to think they could define good and evil on their own terms, on the basis of their own tastes, without reference to the moral laws built into God’s design.

A prime example of moral relativism is the notion that women have a “right” to terminate the life of an unborn child for whatever reason including “I don’t want to be bothered.”

God says “Thou shalt not kill,” and man begins inventing caveats. Eventually, man pulls out of thin air the idea that killing is not killing if the thing destroyed is not alive and since fetuses are only blobs of flesh, it’s okay then to destroy them. Furthermore, since a fetus is akin to, say, a cyst, a woman has a “right” to have it cut from her body.

Those are the sorts of strange ideas man comes up with on his own, when his primary loyalty is to himself rather God.

Relativism is the notion that moral standards are fluid. Instead of being timeless, fixed, external to man, they are “living” and most importantly, they are internal to man. As Greek philosopher Protagoras put it a while back, “Man is the measure of all things.” Protagoras’ most famous maxim definitely has curb appeal. Fortunately, God created all things; therefore, He is the measure of all things.

But in a popularity contest between Protagoras and God, guess who wins? For the time being, at least.

The latest supposedly fluid standard is gender. Once upon a time not so long ago, one’s gender and one’s sex were one and the same. That is clearly the way God designed us. Male and female He created us. Today, even otherwise intelligent human beings have been persuaded to believe that a person occupying clearly male biology can nevertheless be a female.

Furthermore, using that example, if the individual in question is challenged on that account, his/her challenger is a narrow-minded, mean-spirited, even dangerous bigot. That’s how strange things have become: If I deny that a transgender person is suffering delusions, I become said nutcases’ persecutor. Even if I do not care what he thinks he is, if I disagree with his personal assessment, I am a bully, an oppressor, and Twitter is likely to silence me for being a threat to public safety or some such insanity.

The final arbiter in matters of speech used to be the Supreme Court. Presumably, they ruled consistent with the wording of the Constitution. Now, the final arbiters in such matters are Facebook and Twitter and they rule consistent with political correctness. Chief Justice Mark Zuckerberg? Jack Dorsey is the measure of all things?

Mark my words. The “strange curve” is accelerating and we’re all along for one wild ride. I console myself with knowing that God never fails to keep His promises.

   

   

It's Only Rock 'n' Roll

November 12, 2020

This blog will roam over the subjects of childrearing, psychology, postmodernity, the dangerous state of American politics, the Bible, the church, and rock ‘n’ roll music. That’s the short list. I reserve the right to add a topic as the whim overtakes me.

Today’s post is about rock ‘n’ roll music. My wife tells me I’m a repository of useless rock trivia. I once won a rock trivia contest by naming the conga player on Traffic’s “Welcome to the Canteen” album. I played in a working rock band for seven years. Early on in their career, we beat REO Speedwagon in a Battle of the Bands. It took place on our campus, so the outcome was foregone, but isn’t that impressive! Nonetheless, we rocked the house.

I can’t name my favorite rock ‘n’ roll band, song, album, lead singer, songwriter, guitarist, etc. Changes depending on my mood, I suppose. As for bands, Led Zeppelin is my answer on most days, but then there’s The Beatles. And then there’s that band I first saw in a 1000-seat theater in Chicago in 1966. Jagger was singing through the house PA. I couldn’t take my eyes off him. No one could. I appreciate a lot of bands, but my appreciation begins to run out in the mid-1970s and is gone by 2000. Dave Matthews? C’mon, man! He’s got zero soul. Listen to Eric Burdon during the early days of the Animals. Listen to The Allman Brothers Band. Jimi, Cream. Listen to “Bless Its Pointed Little Head” by the Airplane. Grace set the bar for female lead singers. Only Ann Wilson comes close.

Best concert for me was the Stones on November 16, 1969 in Chicago. Best band I ever heard live was The Paul Butterfield Blues Band, the version one encounters on “In My Own Dream.” Saw The Beach Boys in 1972 in Quincy, Illinois in a college gymnasium. Willie and I were sitting on the floor, right in front of Carl, who was clearly leading the band. Even without Brian, who was back in California trying to figure out where to go next, they were mind-blowing. They were a rock ‘n’ roll orchestra of sorts. They probably had twelve musicians, including themselves, on stage. Ricky Fataar on drums, for example. Blondie Chapin on background vocals with Dennis. They did the obligatory Top-40 medley and then got down into deep album cuts like “’Til I Die,” “Sail On Sailor,” and “Surf’s Up.” Absolutely magical evening. Occasionally, I meet someone and discover he was in that same audience and we always agree it was one of the best concerts we ever witnessed.

I had the sublime pleasure of seeing Willie DeVille in a club in San Francisco in the late 1990s. He just held the crowd spellbound for two hours. If you’re not familiar with Willie, I highly recommend that you check him out. Lots of musicians regard him as the single most underrated, unsung singer-songwriter of our time. Sort of like Roy Harper, whom Zeppelin immortalized on their third album with “Hats Off to Roy Harper.”

I discovered Van Morrison when I was a senior in high school. In 1965, he was fronting the great Irish band Them. The first time I heard Van was at a friend’s house. His mother put on the 45 with “Gloria” on Side A and “Baby Please Don’t Go” on Side B. What a cool mom! I even remember what she was wearing. I immediately fell in love with her and Van both.

My favorite Beatles’ song is just about anything they ever did, but “Paperback Writer” pops immediately to mind. Some folks say The Beatles weren’t really a rock ‘n’ roll band. If that’s what you think, you haven’t been listening closely enough. Listen to Paul’s bass lines, listen to Ringo’s drumming, listen to John’s rhythms, listen to George suddenly turn a bouncy pop ditty into a rockabilly rave. They were a rock ‘n’ roll band all right.

When I return to the subject of rock ‘n’ roll music, we’ll take up The Four Seasons. At the peak of their powers, The Beatles came along and that was that. Too bad. “Rag Doll” is right up there with “I Want to Hold Your Hand.”

   

   

Amy Hates Outback

November 5, 2020

When my social media boss, my daughter, told me to begin writing a blog, I knew she referred to weekly essays on whatever parenting topic was on the top of my head. I think she even told me not to write on politics or faith. She cannot tell me what to do! Who does she think she is! I am her superior in all things; therefore, I will write about whatever I feel like writing, whether it pleases her or not. So there!

Amy has only recently advanced beyond wanting to be the boss of everything. During much of her childhood, the family ate out probably once a week. One of us would announce that we were going out to eat.

Amy would ask, “Where?”

It did not matter what restaurant we had chosen, she wanted to go elsewhere.

“I want to go to Golden Palace!” she would yell.

“Yum! We all love Golden Palace, but we’re going to Outback.”

“I hate Outback!”

“We were there two weeks ago. You loved it.”

“I hate it now! I hate steaks!”

“They have chicken, too.”

“I hate their chicken!”

“You’ve never had their chicken.”

“I know I hate it!”

“Stay home then, ‘cause we’re going to Outback.”

And the histrionics would commence, and we’d leave, get in the car, back out of the drive, and turn the corner to the main road and Amy would come bursting out of the front door, run down the steps and across the yard and jump into the car. “Okay then!” Mind you, she never failed to enjoy our restaurant adventures.

From the get-go, my wife and I refused to let our kids dictate their meals. When Willie first introduced “solid” food to Amy – jars of Gerber purees – Amy would sometimes take a spoonful of something and then promptly push it out of her mouth with her tongue. Willie, undaunted, would simply scoop it up and put it back in her mouth, even if she had to gently pry Amy’s lips open. Repeat until completely consumed.

I think most kids become picky eaters before they’re six months old. Parents of pickers tell me their kids were “intolerant” to certain foods from the very beginning. Yeah, so was Amy. So are most kids, probably. Parents either persist in accustoming the child’s palate to what is initially repulsive or they switch to another Gerber pate’ and then another and pretty soon one has a food tyrant on their hands. Even a four-month-old human being is smart enough to know when her parents are dancing to her tune.

   

   

Who's on First

October 29, 2020

What can parents who possess and have modeled commonsense and rational thought processes do when children go off to college and promptly become convinced, courtesy of their professors – ideologues of the sort I marched with in the late 1960s – that the United States is not and has never been a great country, a beacon of freedom for the peoples of the world, but rather a systemically racist, sexist, homophobic cesspool in desperate need of riot therapy?

A question I am frequently asked, that. My answer is usually along the lines of “Why did you send them to said institution of anti-American learning in the first place?” The usual answer: “That’s where he/she wanted to go.”

“And just how did he/she come to want to go that particular leftist propaganda mill?”

“Well, we toured several college campuses and he/she liked that one the best.”

Ah, yes. The ubiquitous tour of college campuses, the result being that the youngster in question makes a life-altering decision on the basis of the “feel” of a certain campus as well as an artfully crafted sales pitch by a completely unbiased college employee. That was a joke.

Our kids told us what colleges they wanted to attend. In return, we informed them of the colleges we would pay for. It was a short list. One propaganda mill is as good as the next, after all. One child called me one day and told me he was voting for Michael “Tank Commander” Dukakis. He heard Dukakis speak and “liked” him.

“What did you like?” I asked.

Pause. “Um, I guess I just liked his stand on things.”

“Give me an example.”

He couldn’t. That’s the state of mind of the average young college student – easily swayed by stuff that sounds good but has no substance. And you’re going to let this person choose where to spend YOUR hard-earned money based largely on some visceral emotional reaction? The adage, “You get what you pay for,” is never so apt.

The second child, following graduation from the University of North Carolina, the People’s Republic of Chapel Hill, told me she did not tell me of the brainwashing that took place in her classes – was the major feature of most, in fact – for fear that I would promptly transfer her to a small Christian school where she would have no fun. Yes, that is precisely what I would have done, her misery notwithstanding.

The parents of a nineteen-year-old girl told me that at her college’s parent orientation, a faculty member, in his address to the people who funded his salary, said the college’s purpose was to “separate your children from you and your values and help them toward thinking for themselves.”

First, that is not the purpose of university. Second, it’s a lie. Excepting a handful, the goal of today’s American university is not to help young people think for themselves; it is to indoctrinate them in the most-failed, destructive ideology ever devised by the evil heart of man. I saw it coming when I was in college, I just didn’t know what I was seeing.

“Why did you let her go there?” I asked.

“It’s where she said she wanted to go,” they answered.

I am reminded of the title of a well-known Jim Carey movie.

    

    

The Simplest Explanation is Almost Always the Correct Explanation

October 22, 2020

During my childhood, my parents would occasionally remark that I was developing “some very bad habits.” They were, in fact, spot on. Looking back, I did develop a handful or two of bad habits as a child, a habit being something a person does repetitively, without thinking. That is not to say that people are not responsible for the habits they develop and foist upon the world. That may be true concerning, say, a muscle tic, but that is not the sort of habit to which my parents referred and I am now referring. The habits under discussion are emotional, cognitive, and behavioral. And they are, as my parents defined them, bad. They serve no constructive purpose.

Psychologists assign diagnoses to the habits in question. They call them by such names as “bipolar disorder,” “schizophrenia,” “depression,” and “attention deficit disorder.” They explain these emotional, cognitive, and behavioral phenomena in terms of biological processes that have never been verified – biochemical imbalances, for example, or the equally bogus, all-purpose “brain differences.”

Since no biological explanation has been proven, the simplest explanation becomes “bad habits.” How do the habits in question get their start? Who knows? How does any bad habit get its start? The fact is that very few people can identify when and how a bad habit began. They simply begin and sometime later, they are noticed. By the time they’re noticed, they’ve strengthened to the point where getting rid of them is problematic.

The reason no psychiatric medication has ever reliably outperformed a placebo in clinical trials is because such medications are developed on the basis of theories that have no basis in proven fact. But, even though several psychiatrists have admitted that to me (quote: “We all know that nothing we tell people has ever been proven”), psychiatric medications continue to be prescribed because of the incredible profits they generate. Furthermore, as research has determined, placebos work. The problem is that the sanctioned placebos in question have bad side effects and cost lots of money.

The point of this treatise is to say that the process of disciplining a child is all about preventing him from developing bad habits and motivating him to replace bad habits he has already developed with good habits. It’s really that simple. When discipline fails, the ever-increasing likelihood is that the child in question will become the subject of a psychological evaluation, performed by a person who believes in things that just ain’t so.

   

   

    

     

    

     

   

   

 

 

No PayPal Account Required
Homepage
About
Calendar
Parent Coaches
Retreats
Columns
Consultation
Book Store
Host an Event
Membership Site
FAQs
Contact Us
Tyndale Privacy Policy
 
The Leadership Parenting Institute
North Carolina, USA
Tel: 1.704.860.4711
Copyright © 2021 JohnRosemond.com

Powered by PD/GO Digital Marketing