Who and What is the Happy Warrior
This blog is a representation, in conversational form, of my voyage to wrap my arms around the world in which Mr. Worsdworth's warrior finds happiness.
(Standing disclaimer: Luckily tests of spelling accuracy ended in 4th grade otherwise I would still be in Elementary School. Be forewarned, spelling errors ahead. I subscribe to the wisdom of a great man who said, "I have utmost disdain for a man who can only spell a word one way." -Benjamin Franklin)
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
You may also think that I drifted away in a discouraged fog after the presidential elections of this past November. I will not lie: I was extremely disappointed. But it is not in my nature to get discouraged. If I am able to squeze a few minutes out of the coming days I will have more to say on the post-election reality. For now, suffice it to say that all my previous postings are yet valid and I have significant trepedation for the direction of this country. As a teaser, let me say that I am composing my predictions of events that will transpire during the next four years -let's call it "predicting the United States of Obama".
For now, however, I want to share a thought provoking account of recent research. As I've done in the past, I present this with a STRONG caution. This summary is taken from a media write-up of the research and not from the published article itself. The media has a tendency to sensationalize (did I say "tendency"? No, the media by its nature and constitution -inherant in its being and operation- exaggerates and therefor mischaracterizes to a small or a large degree). Hence this report most likely does not capture in complete fidelity the important details of this study. Hopefully it sufficiently captures the core message.
Research show men with children are happier than those without
"New research in the journal "Psychological Science" find that overall, "parents (and especially fathers) report relatively higher levels of happiness, positive emotion, and meaning in life than do non-parents."
Of the three studies, the largest sample comes from 6,906 individuals collected between 1982 and 1999. It found that fathers and parents between ages 26 and 62 were happier, but not mothers, young parents and single parents. There were no differences in happiness between moms and women without children, but young parents and single parents were significantly less happy than childless peers,"
Of course the article continues with the usual caveates: "The effect is small, but real," "Others disagree," "Psychologists are perhaps finding different things". So take what you want. Here are the points I find interesting:
1. men with children are happier than men without children (at least at some minimal level of statistical significance).
Reaction: good for men! Look at that, we are not as idiotic and hopeless as we may appear.
2. your meaning in life increases with children.
Reaction: Yes, because life is not about "you". Jesus was right when he said if you want to find your life (i.e. purpose in life) you need to lose it (spend it in the service of others). This is an invaluable lesson to a "me" centered society.
3. young parents and single moms were less happy than childless peers.
Reaction: Is anyone who has small children surprised? No need for a study here. Clearly children are one of the most profound examples of putting in work and sacrificing now for greater rewards later.
4. moms (especially moms without a father in the home to help out) are the hardest working, most underappreciated and therefor exhausted and sapped of all life beings on the planet.
Reactions: thank God (literally) for moms! The perform the most heroic and underappreciated job in the world... and they are exhausted. Difficult to be happy when you are exhausted. But when the children grow up and a child honors their mother by becoming a honorable and contributing member of society there is nothing to rival the satisfaction and happiness of a mother.
What do you take from this study?
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Upond consultation with the dictionary (not quoted but accurate nonetheless):
Leadership- to lead, as in to be out in front. To show the way...
Following- to follow behind someone...
Leading from beind sounds a lot like following to me. Line up a hundred First Graders and present them with a simple scenario where several people are taking a walk in the woods. Then ask them what do you call the person in front and what do you call the person in back... Hmmmm. Not too difficult. I'm betting my money that all hundred students would get it right.
Mr. Obama the post-modern wordsmith can't yet convince me that the emporer is wearing clothes. America is a leader in this world. Like it or not. Being a leader is sometimes very lonely. Sometimes there are people that do not like the leader. Let me ask you this, which countries or groups are making a play to take over leadership if the United States abdicates its position? How would the world look if they became the leaders? That is a very scarey hypothetical...
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
1. I will never allow a law to become effective until every elected representative of the House and Senate (as well as myself) reads every single word of that law. That is why we are called "law makers". It is not too difficult. If a leader of the House or Senate suggests something absurd like "we have to pass it to find out what is in it" I will immediately call for his/her resignation.
2. I will refuse to sign a law, policy or executive action when I fail to get at least one vote from a member of the other party (Senator or Representative) even and especially if I am the author or chief advocate of that law. I recognize that if I were to sign such a statute without any support from "the other side of the aisle" I am going against the wishes of nearly one half of the population of this country. I admit that to do so is the very definition of partisan and devisive. I will not be the author of such divisiveness in the country where I claim to be president of all the people.
These are my two challenges and I think they are not only fair but I think fair minded liberals and conservatives would agree that these two challenges, if put into action, would be beneficial for the United States. So why do I have a preference for Gov. Romney when he hasn't made such a pledge and suggest that this is a reason why I would not vote for Pres. Obama? Because Pres. Obama has already SHOWN where he stands on these issues. He has already shown that he is willing to run rough-shod over the political decency and the unifying principles that underly both of these challenges. Am I confident that Gov. Romney would do differently? Not 100%, but with Pres. Obama I know the answer already.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Fast foward two and a half centuries and our secularized society is making a full court press to extinguish God from the public square, to debate him out of existence and to shame His moral foundations (i.e. traditional concept of marriage, the primacy of the family in the social order, individual responsibility, submission to authority, conception of the sacred, etc.) out of society. Does anyone need a more obvious illustration of this effort than the recent vote at the Democratic national convention?
Behind President Obamas political philosophy is the substitution of God by the government. We, as citizens should not rely upon God for our daily bread but upon government. We should not declare our allegiance to some untouchable, inmaterial Being (certainly not at some high school graduation ceremony or in a court room) but our allegiance should be declared to government. The most fundamental expression of allegiance is by the contribution of our money. God's tithe (10%) has been far eclipsed by government's requirement that we pay upwards of 50% to accomplish their "good" works. Government is by far the more oppressive overseer.
So sorry but I included two reasons (although interrelated) why I'm voting against President Obama in this post. I'll try to keep my discussions more focused.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Our "CEO" appeared on the David Letterman Show and could not (or would not) identify the current national debt figure. This is as fundamental and central a measure of national health as is a thermometer to a fevered infant... and Mr. Obama feigned as if he did not know what that figure is. Are you serious? No corporate executive would dare face the shareholders and proclaim such ignorance.... He would summarily be thrown out on his disgraced arse! It truely boarders on gross negligence. I expect my cheif executive to know that number and be so preoccupied with it that it keeps him up at night. In our current condition he should not be able to sleep; ever waking hour should be spend devising one solution after another to fix the current economic malady. Why? Because it represents our future! Are we so arrogant as to think we can escape the fate experienced by every once mighty nation in the history of the world? And yet this Chief Executive appears to trifle with our fiscal situation. We (the people... the United States) have not had an annual operating budget for four years -his entire tenure as sitting Chief Executive. His most recent budget proposal was so un-serious (if that is a word) that it was was rejected not only by every Republican but also by a host of Democrats as well. Members of his own party! This begs a serious question of effective leadership which will be a topic of a future blog... but back to the matter of fiscal recklessness: It is either gross ineptitude or wanton negligence. Economic laws are set and sure, not unlike the laws of gravity. Consequences must always follow... it may be artificially delayed but we will reap a whirlwind. Our present macro-economic course could kill this country and plunge the world into chaos.
What... we have an option of replacing our current CEO with a guy whose entire career has been a chain of unbroken fiscal successes, of turning around dying entities and making them solvent again... what? Is there even a debate about who is best equipped to fix our present condition...
Thursday, September 20, 2012
I believe President Obama when he expressed the central theme of his candidacy and his presidency: fundamental transformation of the United States of America. He has commenced exactly what he promised and if elected to a second term I fear he will nearly complete that transformation. I don't know what many people think he means by "fundamental transformation", but from the first time he overtly declared his objective, it scared me to death. So for the next several weeks until he elections in November I will be offering a very short (15 to 30 second) synopsis of why we cannot afford another term of a man who wants to fundamentally change what has been the most miraculous, most beneficient, most free, most charitable, most successful, most affluent and most benign country ever to exist on this planet. We've had blights on our history, we still have some challenges but these require fine tuning, not fundamental change.
Here is my first thought for your consideration:
A person, family, group or community that comes to depend (becomes dependent) on government is consequently less free to make their own choices, to exercise their autonomy, to exercise freedom and pursue their own wishes. Dependence and freedom are mutually exclusive. Now ask yourself, is the Obama led government encouraging policies that will make citizens more free or more dependent? Look up the statistics on the increase in the number of people who receive some sort of government assistance (and I don't just mean welfare or unemployment although that is a good place to start) over the last four years?
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Wishing everyone a happy, meaningful and promising Rosh Hashanah! Shalom to my cousins from Judah. In this time of introspection it is always appropriate to ask yourself: Am I everything I should be? Am I what God expects me to be?