Profound gender bias

Several months ago a woman was put to death as a convicted killer. The news around the execution dealt with the fact there are very few women on death row. Executions of women since colonial times has held at less than 2% of the total executions. Currently women comprise 1.8% of the U.S. death row population.

The basis of the motive for killing are: risk taking, aggressiveness, desiring power, fear of being caught, fear of humiliation, being perceived as intelligent, and sexual gratification. These are all traits usually associated with men. During trials for women accused of killing certain traits are emphasized to mitigate the crime and have the sentenced reduced. The typical traits used are: nurturers, seekers of  safety and stability, willing to share responsibility (power), not fully aware of consequences (ill informed rather than dumb), weak, and mild.

It makes sense. I am inclined to agree with it. The natural (God given) traits associated with the two genders means men are more likely to kill than women.

I submit these traits also explain why men are better in business than women. Successful businessmen are often said to have a 'killer' instinct. In negotiations they 'go for the throat.' In terms of risk, 'they put it all on the line.'

The same traits will also explain pay difference between genders. The genders make different choices based on their traits. The male wants to dominate. The female wants safety and stability. The male (aggressive) puts in extra hours. The female (nurturer) wants to care for her family.

Can a female be a successful business person? Sure. Two percent of death row is female. The percentage of successful business females is probably much higher since there is no criminal down side to consider.

The death row statistics indicate there is a profound difference in the genders.

Dead coral has sinking feeling

They have found dead coral in the Gulf within 25 miles of the BP spill. Naturally the cause must be the BP spill. The dead coral was found in water about 4,500 feet deep.

Coral is an animal. Coral formations are built by the off spring living on top of the carcasses of their ancestors. Interesting thing about coral is 80% grows in water less than 1,000 feet deep. The average deep sea coral which grows as thickets rather than reefs have been discovered as deep as 3,300 feet.  No documentation of coral below this depth. The deep water corals thrive off of hydrocarbons.

So how exactly did the oil spill kill coral thriving off hydrocarbons? Better yet how did this coral exist at that depth. Only in the minds of environmental extremist, wishing beyond hope that the BP spill can be labeled a disaster.

The most common method of killing coral is crushing by being struck. The most common cause of mass death is sinking. The coral bodies cannot stand the water pressure at a deeper depth and are crushed.  When the life fluids are crushed out, the skeletal calcium and limestone remain creating rock formations.

Many coral formations of The Great Barrier Reef in Australia die at the bottom as the weight above pushes it into the sea floor. The dead pieces break off and make many unique beaches on the surrounding islands. Airlie Island is famous for having course sand beaches consisting of large dead coral pieces.

It seems to me that if anyone bothered to check facts, the hyperbole surrounding this dead coral would have never existed. When they finally get around to doing some forensic investigation they will discover it was natural causes unrelated to the BP spill.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the real death cause to be published when discovered.

Sanctity of life

We often apply sanctity of life to all living organisms. Others will extend the term to cover systems (i.e. solar system) composed of inanimate objects. Based on the Bible, both are an improper use. Sanctity of life applies only to Mankind who was made in God's image.

God made the systems of inanimate objects as well as living organisms. His creation of them does not sanctify them. All of nature including the animals were made subordinate to Mankind.  In the Old Testament objects were sanctified by Mankind in ritual procedure directed by God. Most of those ritual sanctifications required the blood sacrifice of animals.

The Commankinddment "Thou shalt not kill" applies to the murder of a fellow humankind being. It does not apply to animals. Within the Law the death of an animal was treated as a property issue. However, under the Law given to Moses the unborn in a womankind's womb was protected with severe penalties.

It is clear that abortion is a sanctity of life issue. It is not a matter to be taken lightly. A strong Biblically based case can be made that abortion is murder. If not murder, the present case would be clear it is not condoned in God's given Law.

The New Testament has several references to providing for the aged especially older widows. These references are clear that dignified care is expected. The Old Testament  frequently conveys that long life and prosperity are blessings bestowed by God for living in obedience to Him.

Sanctity of life deals with respecting God.  Mankind made in God's image indicates the significance God has for Mankind. It behooves Mankind to acknowledge the implication and give life including the unborn the utmost consideration.

The prayers God listens to

My daughter sent me this E-Mail.

Funny how I get picked on for ALWAYS going to church.  Yet, a mutual friend's mom dies and I get asked if I am going to church tonight.  I replied no, there's nothing going on tonight.  And I am told, "Well, I need you to go today for her".  Really? Are prayers heard best when they are made from the church building? Why is it that they would think my prayers would be heard any louder than their own? So, does that mean that they do believe that there is a God? And that my worship of God isn't foolish?  It's just that they don't want to have God interfere with their life?  

Prayer Facts:

·         Location of the individual praying is not important.

·         The words used to start you're a prayer are not important.

·         The reason and content of the prayer is not important.

·         The only important fact is the prayer is intended to the one living God.

God doesn't listen to prayer in a language i.e. English, Spanish, French, etc. He listens to the heart and soul of the individual. When you pray he knows the concern.  He also knows the best outcome for that concern.

My daughter's friend was right to ask for others to pray. Personal bias in the situation is reduced as more people pray for the concern. As a group prays together for a concern , whether in physical contact or isolated from one another, God hears the problem.

Being in a Church building or holding hands with a long-time praying Christian allows the individual to focus on the concern, but it doesn't make it louder or impute greater worth on the concern.

Prayer is simply a conversation between a person and God.

Police do not stop crime

The function of the police is deterring crime. They cannot stop crime. Prisons stop crime. The best deterrent is: solving criminal activity and having the perpetrators punished.

Solving crimes means protecting evidence. The good police forces have become efficient in gathering data and meticulous in handling and assessing the evidence collected. The plethora of forensic based TV shows are indicative of the science involved in solving crime.

The men and women in uniform are the front line and are the face of our justice system. It is their job to stabilize a crime scene and protect it for the forensic specialist. This is what I honestly visualize when I hear the term 'protect and serve.'

The failure to deter crime is in the punishment phase. The police having done their job hand off the case to our justice system. The police solve the crime. Then it is time for the punishment side of deterrence. Even when convictions are obtained the resultant punishment is rarely a deterrent.

When criminals are coddled it makes deterrence ineffective. The system is not geared for incarceration of miscreants, but to making useful citizens of convicted criminals. The general public is skeptical of criminal rehabilitation. An ex-con's usefulness is diminished by an inherent lack of trust.

Perversely, this lack of trust is actually put on the police. People aware of criminal activity are not forth coming with the information. They know the criminal even if convicted will be back in a relatively short time. They also know upon the criminal's return retribution will be extracted. The criminal knows that if caught for the retribution they will once again be back soon. It is their cost of doing business.

Those wishing to coddle criminals never understand when prisons are full and exceeding capacity, crime statistics are down.

 

Lost liberties

We have lost many liberties over the last half century.  They were lost to good intentions.  Chief among good intentions is the ability to unassociate or to discriminate. Some such as property rights (infringed by zoning) and self defense appear to be for overall community good. One of the first rights lost was education. Now health care is under attack.

Education is not a constitutional right. I see nothing wrong with free public school education. I see nothing wrong with mandatory education through age 14. Our rights are removed when the compulsory aspects (i.e. attendance) have no direct relation to actual learning. Our rights are infringed when non-public education has arbitrary compliance standards (curriculum specifications and number of instruction hours).

Initially zoning was used to keep health problems from impacting neighborhoods. Restrictions on the number by type of livestock particularly pigs and chickens were the first examples of zoning. Then zoning was imposed to "protect property values." Building requirements and square footage were imposed so a cardboard and tin shanty was erected next to a three story brick colonial home.  You don't want a shanty, buy the lot so they can't build.

The good intentions of anti-discrimination laws are insidious and caused the biggest loss of liberty. I have to justify terminating an employee based on more than we don't get along.  I can't refuse business to someone based solely on my personal biases. Let civil rights demonstrations of the 1960's change my actions not law and some "do gooder" judge.

These liberties were lost because of a law to make us all play nice. The laws were really unnecessary as there are viable market place remedies.

I am smarter than government. If I feel lost or bewildered I have friends who can make sense of a situation and plan a solution. Keep government out of my health care!