"Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife." (New Testament, 1 Corinthians, Chapter 7:3-4)
The impetus for this post comes from a thread on another forum asking for relationship advice. I don't respond to these threads but the thread got me thinking on this subject.
In this post I talk about relationship needs. However, on the continuum of wants to needs, the human need for intimacy and companionship are not absolute like nourishment or shelter. I also recognize the wonderful human capacity for self-restraint, self-mastery, and self-control.
I'm not sure where this first came from, but it seems to me that there is a very prevalent but likely harmful misunderstanding when it comes to relationships. I am not talking about "men are from mars". The book by Dr John Gray is useful in talking about the genders keeping different scores and having differing communication styles, etc.
What I am talking about is the almost unspoken misbelief in marriage that men may put more importance in the physical relationship and women in the emotional relationship. Subconsciously, it seems many couples are believing that "all men think about is the physical and all women think about is the emotional."
The result of this kind of thinking is that it leads to certain expectations in the relationship. Those relationship expectations, soon turn into patterns of behavior where the wife may expect emotional expectations be satisfied before any physical expectations can be addressed.
I am NOT saying a husband can treat his wife poorly and still "get what he wants". I am NOT saying all "women should submit to their husbands". What I am saying is that this "all men want is physical and women emotional" is not correct and believing can have and has had damaging effects on marriage relationships.
The truth is that both men and women have both physical and emotional needs. These needs can be different at different times. But women clearly have physical needs that shouldn't be ignored and men definitely have important emotional needs that shouldn't be neglected.
Both men and women have egos. We both have the need to feel valued and important to the other person. Our expectations and ways we satisfy this may be different but both genders have them. Women need to feel important, and appreciated by their spouse. When men satisfy their wife's needs to feel important and appreciated, it is called "romance". But men also need to feel important and appreciated in the relationship. We could probably use a word for this as well.
The consequence of neglecting either spouses emotional needs for appreciation is that they will likely emotionally withdrawal in the relationship. It is probably true that when strained, women will most likely withdraw physically and men emotionally. This tends to reinforce the myth that all men want is physical and women emotional.
The harm in the myth comes when couples take this myth to its logical conclusion and begin expecting and exchanging emotional needs for physical. Exchanging emotional for physical is likely a no-win situation.
Why is the expectation of emotional for physical a no-win. First, the problem is that no one is always happy all the time. If a women expects to always feel happy before she considers her husbands or her own physical needs, then there is likely to be a lot of unhappiness on both sides.
Second, both men and women's physical needs are biological. When your dealing with biology, you have to appreciate it as biological. Before marriage the secret for success it to keep the biological turned off completely. With no way to efficiently or safely satisfy these needs if turned on, the best policy is to keep things in hibernation. Waking up physical needs and seeking to satisfy them before marriage just leads to frustration and misery.
Accordingly, spouses must never go outside the marriage relationship for physical purposes. If a spouse is to "have power" over the physical nature of their companion, than artificially increasing or satisfying the physical outside of the relationship immediately becomes an out-of-control situation.
When I say physical needs are biological, I mean physiological. When a person looks at food, their mouth may water and stomach may churn. The key before marriage is to never "watch people eat". If there is a physiological comparison to the male experience in the female, I would have to say it can be somewhat like when a nursing mother's milk lets down. Except in the case of the female she can't just take a cold shower or go for a run.
On the other hand, while spouses have a sacred duty to exclusively care for their partners physical needs, a spouse can never be expected to meet all of their spouses emotional needs. Men and women need male and female companionship, friends and family. Many husbands say the best way to keep their wife happy is to make sure she lives buy her family and has a social network through your church. "Happy wife, happy life."
I'm not trying to make conclusions in how to apply this to anyone's relationship. I am not making excuses for bad, selfish, insensitive behavior. But generally speaking, I am saying, both men and women have both physical and emotional needs that both need attention and need to be a priority. Physical needs are biological and need to be understood and appreciated as biological (e.g. yes, unfortunately sometimes biology isn't affected by how the other person is feeling). The other thing is that kinda like what "Men are from Mars" is saying, it doesn't help to keep score. Keeping score in a contract marriage makes some sense, but in Covenant Marriage, God is repaying.
Finally, the most important point is that both partners are devoted to fulfilling each others needs. And if one side feels they are not being treated the way they need and deserve, the key is to teach by example. Christ taught to treat others the way we want others to treat us (golden rule).
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Lessons from Chess and MineCraft
Former Chess Grandmaster, Emanuel Lasker, wrote that Chess didn't have any parallels with modern military strategy. I disagree. Maybe not in the way Lasker was meaning, but politically-speaking, there are numerous parallels between the game of Chess and a corrupt society, political and social order.
First, Chess teaches that some pieces on the board are more valuable than others. Pieces are given values. Pawns are worth (1), Bishops and Knights (3), Rooks (5), and the Queen (9). The King is invaluable. In the Chess system, the differing values creates a cast system with Royalty, Clergy, Military, Craftsman (Rooks), and Workers (Pawns). American Judeo-Christian values teach that all men are created equal.
According to Christianity, Christ taught that the greatest act was for a man to give his life for another. In the game of Chess, all the rest of the pieces are sacrificed to save the King from capture (kings are never killed).
Another interesting parallels are the light and dark square Bishops. Like clergy today, they can't really touch you unless you are a member of their religion. This is like a light-square bishop's inability to attack an opposing piece as long as it stays on the dark squares.
Despite Lasker's comments I also find a military parallel between the movement of the knights and modern military tactics. Knights are very mobile pieces and are the only piece that can jump over other pieces. Knights also are the only pieces that attack asymmetrically. The key to military victory has always been asymmetric attack. An army with any ambition to win a war never just wants to line up toe-to-toe against his adversary and start shooting. Winning armies always implement some asymmetry attack to tip the scales in their favor whether its a flanking maneuver, ambush, or technological advantage.
Additionally, modern military still makes use of the idea of the gambit. I think the most famous gambit in the history of war was the Australian Dardanelles/Gallipoli Campaign against the Ottoman Empire. The UK lost many outdated battleships and fooled the Turks into thinking they had a chance in the War. Pearl Harbor could also be considered another famous gambit.
Since we all live in a corrupt society; there is hope. While the Queen is considered the most powerful piece of the board. In reality, if the 2 Rooks play together, "Connected Rooks" at (10) points become the most powerful pieces on the board.
Royalty understand the ins and outs of Chess too well and know the educated and skilled middle class are their greatest threat. That is why despots and tyrants always attack the middle class. Monarchs prefer that everyone be mindless pawns. One day I hope to live in a society where there are no royalty, military or separate clergy or pawns. Christ wanted a people who all were a holy nation and a royal priesthood where every man was a king, a priest, and a master-caftsman.
My son has been playing a video game called mine-craft. This simple game involves a world made up of millions small cubes that represent dirt, sand, stone or various minerals. Friends can create a world and host friends and family via the internet and interact together in their virtual world. However, mine-craft servers communities tend not reflect the the best in society.
Invariably, whomever is hosting the server, is the Administrator and has more power, privileges and permissions than the other players. As the community grows, the "Admin" like a king will deal out permissions to his friends to help run the server. Inevitably, the "Admin" and his "Ops" will use their special permissions to "grief" the other players on the server. Griefing is done by destroying or stealing virtual property, harassing or otherwise cyberbullying others.
My children and I have had valuable conversations about the organization of minecraft servers and started our own server were we have tried to set up a more equitable and safe gaming experience for close family and friends. We talk about how many countries throughout history were set up with a king like corrupt minecraft servers. However, we also talk about what a miracle it was that the Founding Fathers of the United States got together and came to a consensus (not compromise), on the establishment of an equitable nation ruled by just laws and elected representatives chosen by the people.
First, Chess teaches that some pieces on the board are more valuable than others. Pieces are given values. Pawns are worth (1), Bishops and Knights (3), Rooks (5), and the Queen (9). The King is invaluable. In the Chess system, the differing values creates a cast system with Royalty, Clergy, Military, Craftsman (Rooks), and Workers (Pawns). American Judeo-Christian values teach that all men are created equal.
According to Christianity, Christ taught that the greatest act was for a man to give his life for another. In the game of Chess, all the rest of the pieces are sacrificed to save the King from capture (kings are never killed).
Another interesting parallels are the light and dark square Bishops. Like clergy today, they can't really touch you unless you are a member of their religion. This is like a light-square bishop's inability to attack an opposing piece as long as it stays on the dark squares.
Despite Lasker's comments I also find a military parallel between the movement of the knights and modern military tactics. Knights are very mobile pieces and are the only piece that can jump over other pieces. Knights also are the only pieces that attack asymmetrically. The key to military victory has always been asymmetric attack. An army with any ambition to win a war never just wants to line up toe-to-toe against his adversary and start shooting. Winning armies always implement some asymmetry attack to tip the scales in their favor whether its a flanking maneuver, ambush, or technological advantage.
Additionally, modern military still makes use of the idea of the gambit. I think the most famous gambit in the history of war was the Australian Dardanelles/Gallipoli Campaign against the Ottoman Empire. The UK lost many outdated battleships and fooled the Turks into thinking they had a chance in the War. Pearl Harbor could also be considered another famous gambit.
Since we all live in a corrupt society; there is hope. While the Queen is considered the most powerful piece of the board. In reality, if the 2 Rooks play together, "Connected Rooks" at (10) points become the most powerful pieces on the board.
Royalty understand the ins and outs of Chess too well and know the educated and skilled middle class are their greatest threat. That is why despots and tyrants always attack the middle class. Monarchs prefer that everyone be mindless pawns. One day I hope to live in a society where there are no royalty, military or separate clergy or pawns. Christ wanted a people who all were a holy nation and a royal priesthood where every man was a king, a priest, and a master-caftsman.
My son has been playing a video game called mine-craft. This simple game involves a world made up of millions small cubes that represent dirt, sand, stone or various minerals. Friends can create a world and host friends and family via the internet and interact together in their virtual world. However, mine-craft servers communities tend not reflect the the best in society.
Invariably, whomever is hosting the server, is the Administrator and has more power, privileges and permissions than the other players. As the community grows, the "Admin" like a king will deal out permissions to his friends to help run the server. Inevitably, the "Admin" and his "Ops" will use their special permissions to "grief" the other players on the server. Griefing is done by destroying or stealing virtual property, harassing or otherwise cyberbullying others.
My children and I have had valuable conversations about the organization of minecraft servers and started our own server were we have tried to set up a more equitable and safe gaming experience for close family and friends. We talk about how many countries throughout history were set up with a king like corrupt minecraft servers. However, we also talk about what a miracle it was that the Founding Fathers of the United States got together and came to a consensus (not compromise), on the establishment of an equitable nation ruled by just laws and elected representatives chosen by the people.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Economic Answer for America and Third-World
Issues with MPE:
1. If you dont retire money out of the economy fast enough, it circulates and causes inflation. This is caused by the VELOCITY of money.
2. If everyone is paying off their house at the rate of deflation, people don't own anything. Everything is leased and comes with lease-use regulations just like leasing a car.
3. Freedom problem. The system requires centralized deciderers.
The answer to this is the Safety Society System:
1. US Constitution says Congress shall "coin" or create money and regulate its value.
2. Money is created at loan approval based on real value of labor and materials.
3. Loan approval administered on the local level by local Safety Society Bank based on income/debt.
4. Money is lent with no interest and a fee only.
5. Loan-origination fees and service fees cover local bank overhead as they do now.
6. Federal Government also charges fee/tax at origination which can regulate borrowing, value of money.
7. Loan is paid back monthly, and equity is earned immediately
8. Late payments are deducted from equity. Loan can become reverse motgage and protect borrower from default until equity is exhausted.
9. Repaid money is returned to Congress/Treasury and retired.
10. Potentially limitless new money is availible on-damand when borrower is credit worthy to purchase real asset with intrinsic/repossessible value.
11. Local Bank protected by loan defaults by instant reverse mortgage mechanism, and repossessed item has intrinsic value and can be re-sold.
12. SSS is full reserve lending. Deposited money never used for loans. Depositors protected from risk-taking of lenders.
13. SSS is immune from failure.
14. Homes are paid off quickly and repaid money is retired so as to not cause inflation due to velocity (circulating money).
15. Economy is inflation and deflation proof because new money is availible at the immediate time it is needed and qualified for, and old money is retired out of circulation quickly.
16. Any country, rich or poor, can institute this economic system and have immediate credit and monetary freedom based on the value of labor and natural resources/materials.
17. The backing for the currency is the item being purchased (so the item has to be real and not a piece of paper)
18. Mitt Romney and other "venture investors" still have their place independent and apart of SSS
If it takes 50 years to retire $100,000 and the bank issues 10 x $100,000 loans per month. The bank is creating $12,000,000/yr and only retiring $240,000/yr (1/50th) out of circulation. That is a net creation of cash into the economy of $588,000,000 excess cash over 50 years. And this is for only 10 modest house loans per month at one bank. That is runaway inflation. That isnt even talking about velocity. This is just money creation vs money retirement.
The deal with SSS is for people to pay off their their loans and retire money out of circulation as fast as possible.
retiring money quickly is good because if new money is needed, it can be created instantly based on the credit worthiness of the borrower(s). In SSS money also is backed by the item it purchases 1:1:1.
MPE does not retire money out of circulation fast enough. In an account is still in circulation
1. If you dont retire money out of the economy fast enough, it circulates and causes inflation. This is caused by the VELOCITY of money.
2. If everyone is paying off their house at the rate of deflation, people don't own anything. Everything is leased and comes with lease-use regulations just like leasing a car.
3. Freedom problem. The system requires centralized deciderers.
The answer to this is the Safety Society System:
1. US Constitution says Congress shall "coin" or create money and regulate its value.
2. Money is created at loan approval based on real value of labor and materials.
3. Loan approval administered on the local level by local Safety Society Bank based on income/debt.
4. Money is lent with no interest and a fee only.
5. Loan-origination fees and service fees cover local bank overhead as they do now.
6. Federal Government also charges fee/tax at origination which can regulate borrowing, value of money.
7. Loan is paid back monthly, and equity is earned immediately
8. Late payments are deducted from equity. Loan can become reverse motgage and protect borrower from default until equity is exhausted.
9. Repaid money is returned to Congress/Treasury and retired.
10. Potentially limitless new money is availible on-damand when borrower is credit worthy to purchase real asset with intrinsic/repossessible value.
11. Local Bank protected by loan defaults by instant reverse mortgage mechanism, and repossessed item has intrinsic value and can be re-sold.
12. SSS is full reserve lending. Deposited money never used for loans. Depositors protected from risk-taking of lenders.
13. SSS is immune from failure.
14. Homes are paid off quickly and repaid money is retired so as to not cause inflation due to velocity (circulating money).
15. Economy is inflation and deflation proof because new money is availible at the immediate time it is needed and qualified for, and old money is retired out of circulation quickly.
16. Any country, rich or poor, can institute this economic system and have immediate credit and monetary freedom based on the value of labor and natural resources/materials.
17. The backing for the currency is the item being purchased (so the item has to be real and not a piece of paper)
18. Mitt Romney and other "venture investors" still have their place independent and apart of SSS
If it takes 50 years to retire $100,000 and the bank issues 10 x $100,000 loans per month. The bank is creating $12,000,000/yr and only retiring $240,000/yr (1/50th) out of circulation. That is a net creation of cash into the economy of $588,000,000 excess cash over 50 years. And this is for only 10 modest house loans per month at one bank. That is runaway inflation. That isnt even talking about velocity. This is just money creation vs money retirement.
The deal with SSS is for people to pay off their their loans and retire money out of circulation as fast as possible.
retiring money quickly is good because if new money is needed, it can be created instantly based on the credit worthiness of the borrower(s). In SSS money also is backed by the item it purchases 1:1:1.
MPE does not retire money out of circulation fast enough. In an account is still in circulation
Monday, January 21, 2013
Benghazi Exposed
http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-scandal-that-will-bring-obama-down/
[The Washington Examiner, quoting retired Four-Star Admiral James Lyons, writes: "the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi... was the result of a bungled abduction attempt.... the first stage of an international prisoner exchange... that would have ensured the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, the 'Blind Sheik'..."
But something went horribly wrong with Obama's "October Surprise." Although the Obama Administration intentionally gutted security at the consulate prior to the staged kidnapping, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty disobeyed direct orders to stand down, saved American lives, single-handedly killed scores of attackers...and the attackers, believing that the Obama had betrayed them, tortured Ambassador Chris Stevens and dragged his body through the streets.]
This is the only thing that makes sense. When Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty responded to the call for help, they were successful in evacuating all the personel in the consulate except Ambassador Stevens. According to reports, noone could find the Ambassador? Why? The only reason I can see is that he was hiding, expecting to be captured.
There are many questions being asked about Benghazi, but not the correct questions. The questions that should be asked are:
1. What business was the American compound/consulate in Benghazi involved in?
2. Why was the American compound being guarded by locals and not being guarded by American Marines? (If it was too dangerous for Marines, it was probably too dangerous for civilians)
3. Why private civilian groups leaving Benghazi prior to the attack?
4. Why were the civilian US state department employees asking for more and better security? (probably because they were't being protected by Marines).
5. During the attack, why were "on-call" military assets with the specific purpose of responding to an embassy/consulate attack told to "stand down"? Why the obvious departure from protocol after the consulate hit the "panic button"?
6. Why when asked why help was not sent to Benghazi does the Administration answer, "you don't send more people into harms way until you know whats going on" yet you are watching everything live as it happens by predator drone? (why the departure from protocol? Is this the new protocol for state dept. defense?)
7. Why were navy seals Woods and Doherty who were in Benghazi told to "stand down" and not permitted to respond to the consulate?
8. After heroically disobeying orders, fighting off the attackers, helping all the Americans escape the consulate, why couldn't Woods and Doherty find Ambassador Stevens? The place wasn't that big and Stevens wasn't dead.
9. After returning to their safe-house, how did the attackers know the location of the safe-house so they could start attacking it.
10. Why did the US deny Woods and Doherty repeated requests for assistance, air support, evac, etc. Why did the US just watch by predator drone as the benghazi attackers shelled Woods and Doherty's position for hours until they were finally killed hours later.
11. Why did Pres. Obama, Sec. Clinton, and Susan Rice make up a story about YouTube videos, protests getting out-of-hand, etc and then waffle and blame everything on the intelligence community giving them bad information. Yet we have CIA director Gen. Petraeus deny that the YouTube story came from him or his people, then we see Petraeus and many generals in the military getting removed.
12. Why did the kidnappers not kill Ambassador Stevens but instead took him to the hospital where he died of smoke inhalation. Why the misinformation that his attackers raped him and drug his body through the street. Yet reports from the hospital say his body had no signs of obvious trauma?
13. Why are the media and US Congress not asking these questions and getting acceptable answeres?
[The Washington Examiner, quoting retired Four-Star Admiral James Lyons, writes: "the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi... was the result of a bungled abduction attempt.... the first stage of an international prisoner exchange... that would have ensured the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, the 'Blind Sheik'..."
But something went horribly wrong with Obama's "October Surprise." Although the Obama Administration intentionally gutted security at the consulate prior to the staged kidnapping, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty disobeyed direct orders to stand down, saved American lives, single-handedly killed scores of attackers...and the attackers, believing that the Obama had betrayed them, tortured Ambassador Chris Stevens and dragged his body through the streets.]
This is the only thing that makes sense. When Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty responded to the call for help, they were successful in evacuating all the personel in the consulate except Ambassador Stevens. According to reports, noone could find the Ambassador? Why? The only reason I can see is that he was hiding, expecting to be captured.
There are many questions being asked about Benghazi, but not the correct questions. The questions that should be asked are:
1. What business was the American compound/consulate in Benghazi involved in?
2. Why was the American compound being guarded by locals and not being guarded by American Marines? (If it was too dangerous for Marines, it was probably too dangerous for civilians)
3. Why private civilian groups leaving Benghazi prior to the attack?
4. Why were the civilian US state department employees asking for more and better security? (probably because they were't being protected by Marines).
5. During the attack, why were "on-call" military assets with the specific purpose of responding to an embassy/consulate attack told to "stand down"? Why the obvious departure from protocol after the consulate hit the "panic button"?
6. Why when asked why help was not sent to Benghazi does the Administration answer, "you don't send more people into harms way until you know whats going on" yet you are watching everything live as it happens by predator drone? (why the departure from protocol? Is this the new protocol for state dept. defense?)
7. Why were navy seals Woods and Doherty who were in Benghazi told to "stand down" and not permitted to respond to the consulate?
8. After heroically disobeying orders, fighting off the attackers, helping all the Americans escape the consulate, why couldn't Woods and Doherty find Ambassador Stevens? The place wasn't that big and Stevens wasn't dead.
9. After returning to their safe-house, how did the attackers know the location of the safe-house so they could start attacking it.
10. Why did the US deny Woods and Doherty repeated requests for assistance, air support, evac, etc. Why did the US just watch by predator drone as the benghazi attackers shelled Woods and Doherty's position for hours until they were finally killed hours later.
11. Why did Pres. Obama, Sec. Clinton, and Susan Rice make up a story about YouTube videos, protests getting out-of-hand, etc and then waffle and blame everything on the intelligence community giving them bad information. Yet we have CIA director Gen. Petraeus deny that the YouTube story came from him or his people, then we see Petraeus and many generals in the military getting removed.
12. Why did the kidnappers not kill Ambassador Stevens but instead took him to the hospital where he died of smoke inhalation. Why the misinformation that his attackers raped him and drug his body through the street. Yet reports from the hospital say his body had no signs of obvious trauma?
13. Why are the media and US Congress not asking these questions and getting acceptable answeres?
Repentance vs. Bailout
The choice between Romney and Obama was a spiritual one. Romney represented real repentant-type change. Think about what he does for a living. When there is a failing company, he comes in and cuts away the bad and keeps the good to return the company to profitability. Romney did the same thing with the olympics and Mass. Romney-style Restructuring and a return to profitability is exactly what America needed.
Instead of praise for Romney's success in saving many failing businesses, the media choose to only focus on the corrupt business these companies were engaged in. I am not surprised these failing businesses were engaged in sketchy stuff. Thats why they were bankrupt. The media also just focused on the few jobs lost during restructuring instead on focusing on the jobs saved and the return of the company to healthy productivity.
Obama's presidency has been all about the welfare-style bailout: individual, corporate, and economic. Just think about what welfare does to a person. When you bail someone out, you enable the bad unprofitable behavior that got them into the situation in the first place. Look at GM. Instead of restructuring, they are continuing to build $90,000 Volts in China and selling them for $35,000. The same thing is going on in banking as well as the federal government. We are just bailimg out these systems time and again without making any real fundamental changes that will lead to any type of return to profitability. Banks, GM, federal government, and individual citizens are continuimg to do the same unprofitable things that got them into trouble in the first place.
This issue is at the heart of LDS theology. I wonder how many people view the Atonement of Jesus Christ as an Obama-style bailout vs. a Romney-style restructuring?
Instead of praise for Romney's success in saving many failing businesses, the media choose to only focus on the corrupt business these companies were engaged in. I am not surprised these failing businesses were engaged in sketchy stuff. Thats why they were bankrupt. The media also just focused on the few jobs lost during restructuring instead on focusing on the jobs saved and the return of the company to healthy productivity.
Obama's presidency has been all about the welfare-style bailout: individual, corporate, and economic. Just think about what welfare does to a person. When you bail someone out, you enable the bad unprofitable behavior that got them into the situation in the first place. Look at GM. Instead of restructuring, they are continuing to build $90,000 Volts in China and selling them for $35,000. The same thing is going on in banking as well as the federal government. We are just bailimg out these systems time and again without making any real fundamental changes that will lead to any type of return to profitability. Banks, GM, federal government, and individual citizens are continuimg to do the same unprofitable things that got them into trouble in the first place.
This issue is at the heart of LDS theology. I wonder how many people view the Atonement of Jesus Christ as an Obama-style bailout vs. a Romney-style restructuring?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
