Intolerance on Its Head

A judge says to a New York couple, “Open up your home to provide a gay wedding or face $10,000 in fines plus $3,000 in damages.” Not kidding. 

There must be more to the story. Yes, a bit. But this is the basic truth of it. (Read more here and here.)

Photo originally screen capture from website,
found in this story

The New York couple, Robert and Cynthia Gifford, own a family farm. As you might imagine, making a living from a family farm is tenuous. But the location is rustically scenic. So they do additional business by allowing events there. These include various kinds of events: business parties, school events, birthday parties, and sometimes weddings and receptions.

The main covered venue is a large barn, above which is the couple’s living space, where they are raising their two children. When the Giffords consent to do a wedding, they do the decorating, the food, the setup…. Some events they are less involved in, including receptions elsewhere on the property. But a wedding, in their home—their rustic barn home—is something they take on as a partnership with the couple being married.

You can imagine they can’t take on that kind of event every day. They have to want to celebrate with the couple. After all, this is in their home, and it’s taking up their life and livelihood for some significant amount of time.

So, along comes a lesbian couple who want their wedding in the barn/home. The Giffords are religious Christians. They are not comfortable putting their heart and soul into something that goes against their belief in traditional marriage. So they suggest lesser services, such as a reception on the grounds. Not good enough. The lesbians insist they want the whole shebang or nothing. So the farm owners shrug their shoulders and say they’re sorry they can’t help.

What would a tolerant engaged couple do? Respect the kindly and respectfully offered decision, and go find another venue. Not this couple. They insist it is their right to force this farm family to open their home and give them the full-service wedding. Or else! And the or else was a lawsuit. With a liberal judge, who thinks it’s OK to enslave someone into servitude, not just in their own business but, in this case, in their own home. He gets away with this travesty by claiming the lesbian couple is “suffering” intolerance from the farm owners.

The entire exchange happened in a “recorded” three-minute phonecall.

I have handled wedding events for all three of my children, with receptions in Texas and out of state. These required a lot of phonecalls, plus some in-person visits. I never once considered recording a phonecall. Why would I? If service couldn’t (or wouldn’t) be rendered by a particular vendor, I’d simply go elsewhere. And if there were details that needed to be remembered, I wrote notes, followed up with emails, or called again to clarify. I think that’s normal.

There was a business that turned us away, with prejudice. This was some months before daughter Social Sphere’s wedding. Just a couple of weeks afterward was the wedding of my daughter-in-law’s sister, who has long been a friend of Social Sphere. So the girls all got together, over Christmas break, to do some wedding exploration. Between our houses (about 40 miles apart) there’s a business we see from the freeway that does wedding-related business. We hadn’t ever been inside, so I wasn’t sure if they did dresses, had a reception venue, provided decorations for your venue, or a variety of other services. So I suggested the girls stop in and find out what they offered. They had granddaughter Little Political Sphere with them, at age 2 ½. She can be a handful, but at the time was clean and fed and under control. I think an older sister, with babe in arms, was also helping. The proprietor came up to these girls—two of them wearing engagement rings and ready to explore all kinds of wedding spending—and sent them out of the place because they had children with them. Talk about prejudice. We think that the proprietor didn’t believe the girls were seriously shopping. But the message was clear: people like you (people who have the nerve to bring a child with them) are not welcome here.

So, Weddings by Debbie, in Katy, Texas, gets no recommendation or business from us. Ever. In fact, after knowing how strongly they preferred not to do business with us, I wouldn’t want their services. The idea of forcing them to do something for us, through the courts, never came up.

The fact that it came up for Jenny McCarthy and Melissa Erwin, after a brief—recorded—phonecall, leads me to believe they were seeking a chance for a lawsuit more than then were seeking a lovely, rustic wedding venue.

What we don’t know is how many venues they contacted before they could find one that would offend them suitably for a lawsuit.

The fines might not put the Giffords out of business, but that is a risk. And in their case, losing the business could mean losing their home. Their options are to appeal to the state Supreme Court, or to countersue for violation of their religious freedoms. Either of those options requires money, which they may not have access to. Another consideration is hiring an event planner to separate them from participating in any event they might not want to be involved in. This would also cost them.

None of their options—for living their lives according to valid religious beliefs, in their business and in their home—is easy or inexpensive.

But it’s better than being beheaded, right? Yes. ISIS is moving through the Middle East, summarily executing anyone who holds religious beliefs not meeting ISIS approval. They don’t tolerate dissent.

Neither do the lesbian couple and the New York Judge. If execution were an optional punishment for failure to agree with the homosexual agenda, would they seek it? I don’t know. I hope not. But enslaving someone into service in their own home—because of the pain and anguish you suffered from a three-minute phonecall in which they said they were willing to serve you in other ways—is pretty spiteful. It is not, by any stretch, tolerant.

In the Spherical Model world, honoring family and living according to the Ten Commandments are two components necessary for freedom, prosperity, and civilization, found in the northern hemisphere. Tolerance where there is disagreement, and respect toward all people is part of civilization. Forcing someone to violate their religion is southern hemisphere savagery. ISIS is clearly savage. The difference between their intolerance and that of the Giffords’ opponents is a matter of degree. The more savagery is tolerated, the more civilization deteriorates into more severe savagery. There is no civilization to be found going in that direction.

Preparing the Ground, Part II

The last post was a request not to “draft Romney” for President, even though he’s a great man, made for our times. The reason has to do with the culture—a culture that rejected him when the alternative was a known failure.

So what we need to talk about, rather than who should run, is how to improve the culture. Very quickly. Now.

Related to culture, on the Glenn Beck radio show last week, Pat and Stu were discussing “a new poll” about religion and beliefs. I tried, unsuccessfully, to track down exactly which poll—or perhaps a collection. My guess is that the info comes from the Pew Research Foundation, or possibly this Harris Poll (a Nielsen company),but they didn’t say. So I’ll just go with Pat and Stu’s numbers.

First they were talking about what American people believe:

·         62% of Americans believe in Satan and hell; 75% believe in heaven.

·         42% believe in evolution.

·         82% believe in God; 8% don’t believe in God; 10% are unsure.

·         79% believe in miracles; 74% believe in angels.

·         41% believe in ghosts; 35% believe in UFOs; 31% believe in witches.

·         74% believe Jesus is the Son of God; 72% believe Jesus was resurrected; 60% accept as truth the virgin birth.

·         25% generally attend church weekly.

So far it’s just interesting. We Americans still have a pretty strong belief in God, especially compared to other countries. But if you measure dedication to belief by attendance, one in four is not that good. That’s certainly down from my childhood. (My childhood home, Utah, still has the highest attendance of 74% attending weekly—the highest in the US.)

Then Pat and Stu started talking about a specific surprising shift in belief. I’ll let their transcript tell the story:

Stu: Right now adults now support "same-sex marriage" by 54-38%; a 16-point margin now support "gay marriage." For more than a decade only about a third of Americans supported the idea, ranging from 27% in 1996 to 35% in 2009. So in 2009 it was 35%, and today it’s 54%. A 19-point move in that type of topic is incredibly fast. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen anything like it, to be perfectly honest with you. In 2011 it was the first time it crossed over the plurality level, and 2013 was the majority. Now we’re at 54%.

Listen to these numbers, though, broken down by age category. Those 60 and older oppose "gay marriage" 50-39%. They’re the only group now that opposes it.

Pat: Sixty and older.

Stu: Sixty and older, uh huh. [Age group] 45-59 favor "gay marriage" by a percentage of 49-40%. Between the ages of 30 and 44, they favor it 55-38%. So that’s a 17-point margin. But this is where you find—and this is, you know, where democrats are going, you know, because they try the same arguments over and over again. But these are the numbers they’re basing these arguments on: Those aged 18-29 favor "same-sex marriage" 75-18%. Seventy-five to eighteen!

Remember, this is a topic that Karl Rove is known as the architect because of—the idea that he organized a bunch of constitutional amendments on "gay marriage" to get conservatives out to vote, and they voted George W. Bush in for a second term in 2004. That’s the general reason he’s known as the architect, because he thought of that idea. That it was so popular to be opposed to "gay marriage" and to support traditional marriage back in 2004, that it was the thing that motivated people to go to the polls over a presidential election. Now we have a situation where it’s a 16-point margin among all people, and it’s 75-18% for younger people. Pretty amazing….

I mean, that’s just a societal study. You’re kind of seeing how people’s views change. I will say, on "gay marriage," I don’t know that I’ve ever seen something move that fast. 19 in five years is an astounding move for something that has been… You know, it wasn’t like a, you know, an idea no one had ever thought of. This is something that people considered for a really long time. And about a third of people said, “Yeah, there should be 'gay marriage.'” And all of a sudden, 19 points in five years. Interesting.

What else has happened during this five years? A civilization-hating president has been in the white house. Certainly he hasn’t helped, by lying during his campaign about what he wanted to do on this issue (lying about pretty much any issue, if he didn’t want us to make a judgment based on truth) and then going so far in the other direction that people are prosecuted for their beliefs, or forced out of business if they don’t go along with the homosexual agenda.

But it can’t be all just him. The speed of the change is alarming.

Meanwhile, more people are educated on the Constitution and basic human rights than ever before—mostly in the same time frame—about five years since the Tea Party started popping up. Albeit with the mistaken idea that Mitt Romney isn’t conservative enough, but at least making it clear that adhering to the Constitution—which we read and carry with us—is required of anyone we vote for.

If we’re looking for a reason the changes could happen so quickly, I think we have to look at the diversity of the media. We connect with each other instantaneously and widely, where such communication used to take days, weeks, or months, and was much more limited.

This blog is a tiny little example. The Spherical Model think tank is just me, and my computer, and whatever resources I put to use (which include my son Political Sphere, my son Economic Sphere, and my daughter Social Sphere). As obscure as this spot on the internet is, during the past week, it reached people not just in the US, but also in Russia, Ukraine, Taiwan, France, Singapore, South Korea, United Kingdom, Canada, Philippines, China, and New Zealand. If you add beyond this week, there were also significant readers in Turkey, Poland, Lavia…. Thank you, readers, for sharing. I write because I hope that what I have to say can help people seeking freedom, prosperity, and civilization. Such people are kindred spirits, wherever we are in the world.

Elder David A. Bednar
speaks on flooding the earth with positive messages.

David A. Bednar, former BYU-Idaho President, and now an Apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, gave a talk this past week in which he suggested that we flood the world with positive messages. Use the internet for good, for uplifting one another. He said,

"I exhort you to sweep the earth with messages filled with righteousness and truth—messages that are authentic, edifying, and praiseworthy—and literally to sweep the earth as with a flood."

We need to flood the world with truth, in greater quantities than the opposition is flooding the world with lies. On the issue of same-sex “marriage,” for example, the widespread message/lie has been, “It’s discriminating to prevent gays from marrying.” In truth, no homosexual is prevented from marrying, according to the definition we’ve always had; they simply choose not to. They choose instead to force a change in the definition, so that we no longer have what marriage has always been.

What if every time any media source supported “gay marriage,” a clarifying message showed up saying, “homosexuals insist on changing the definition of marriage, so that it no longer includes permanence, exclusivity, nor the sexual act that can lead to procreation, but refers simply to any two people declaring they are currently in some sort of sexual relationship”? What if every time any media source referred to “a ban on gay marriage,” a more accurate reference showed up: “a change in the definition that would throw out the millennia-old definition of marriage and replace it with a new definition that lacks all the known benefits”?

The term “gay marriage” is quicker to say than what is actual. And the term “banning gay marriage” is quicker to say than what is actual. But going with the “quick” and “easy” over and over, in a flood of messages, has led to a change in thinking that is harmful to civilization and to freedom. (More, new, examples another day.)

How do we get out the truth, on this issue and so many others, when the message is harder and longer to say? I don’t know. Twitter might not be enough. And we don’t want to put out contention on Facebook or Pinterest. A blog, like this, at least has a chance of saying the fuller message—to people who choose to seek it.

But we have to get into the minds of young people, and older people, to get the ground ready for re-planting a great tree of civilization.

And, not to put too much pressure on, but a year from now we’ll be deciding who to put forward as president against the anti-civilization crowd currently dominating the media.

Flood! Positive, uplifting, truth! Now! Go!

Preparing the Ground, Part I

When is the best time to plant a tree? Twenty years ago. When is the next best time? Today.

I’d like to offer a variation on that theme. When is the best time to have Mitt Romney as President? Since 2009. When is the next best time to have Mitt Romney as President? Since 2013. When is the next best time to have Mitt Romney as President? From January 2017 on.

But I’m not planting that tree. I am not hoping he runs again.

It matters who is president—because a president can do so much damage to our country, our freedom, our economy, and our society. We have seen that deterioration in action more during the current administration than any in US history.

But the problem isn’t on the shoulders of a single person. The current climate in this country is not about an ineffectual, America-hating socialist; it’s about an electorate who chose an ineffectual, America-hating socialist—when they had the option of an extremely successful executive, with a long record of turning difficult situations into successes, who lives the highest level of civilization, honoring God, prioritizing family, and giving service generously.

 

There are people who are saying, “I told you so” at this point. It is true that Romney was right—about Obamacare, about taxes, about international conditions and America’s best role in a dangerous world, about, well, pretty much everything.

But there are also people, still, among conservatives who claim the problem was that Romney wasn’t a good enough candidate to beat the known-to-be-bad-for-America Obama. These include some names I would like to trust on conservatism: Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, various Facebook fellow conservative soldiers, Tea Party associates, the county GOP chair…. The main claim is that, since Romneycare (Massachusetts medical insurance plan) was the blueprint for Obamacare, Romney couldn’t possibly be anything but a liberal being shoved down our throats by RINO party leadership.

The lie about "Romneycare" came from the Obama campaign. That ought to be a clue. If you need a refresher, I wrote a seven-part assessment of Romney the candidate near the end of 2011, called “Measuring Mitt.” Most pertinent might be part VI on MassachusettsCare. Anyone who looks into it can see one thing really clearly: Obama and minions patterned NOTHING on anything that could be called Romney policy. Romney worked with Democrats to get policy that would be the most conservative possible—because that would be best for the people. And he succeeded in changing every organization he ever touched from debt-prone to profitable.

We admire George Washington because he was an honorable man, who gave selflessly for the country he loved, working always toward freedom rather than personal aggrandizement. Washington happened to be the wealthiest of colonists at the time of the founding. But it was not his wealth that was memorable; it was his character.

Lincoln started out in poverty and worked his way up, with much opposition. He was made for such a time. It was also his character that we admire. His strength, his dedication to principle, his love of the goodness of our country as a whole. He did things that were divisive—because to be good required division from those who preferred the continuation of a great evil. You can't compromise with evil and remain whole. Dedication to principles of truth and freedom gave the American people something to hold to in wholeness.

Reagan, who earned his significant wealth in Hollywood, is also remembered for his character. He stood strong and bold against evil. He honored America’s goodness, without even a hint of shame for country love. And he spoke directly and clearly to the good hearts of good Americans.

Our best presidents had valuable qualities, made for such times as they faced.

Romney has the experience, ability, and character to precisely fit this decade. He has the attitude of servant leadership that we admired in Washington. We simply would not be in much of the messes we’re in, if we had chosen him instead of the ignominious alternative. Yet many of the best conservatives among us missed the obvious and said, “Not good enough!”

I do not trust people so recently blind to suddenly see the light. They don’t even yet recognize their error.

So, please, don’t “draft Romney.” He is available to help wherever needed, in various campaigns, perhaps in a cabinet position later. Unlike most people in politics, he is motivated by a desire to serve. We can still let him, without putting him and his family through yet another “you’re not good enough” campaign, which is not likely to pull in the masses of even less informed voters.

I do not know who the candidate should be. No democrat should be allowed to win again in my lifetime; they have proven incapable of leading America and Americans. So that is a given. Almost any Republican would be better. But better than a democrat is hardly enough to move us from our sinking southward position, back up to the northern hemisphere of freedom, prosperity, and civilization. We could use a great man, made for the time. One who is so obviously right that every voter can be held responsible for an informed vote.

I’m leaning toward Ted Cruz. He is bold, and principled, and clearly willing to stand up against great opposition. There may be others. I pray the Lord will lead us to someone meant for the even more difficult job of restoration-after-destruction.

But my greater concern is the blinded society.

In the metaphor I began with, it’s about preparing the ground for planting. The current soil is in great need of nutrients.  The culture needs to be…cultivated.

Pointing out the blindness took this whole post. So it’s going to take a second part to consider how to get better cultural conditions.

Defining Terrorism

The other day I came across a little video supposedly about Islam being a peaceful religion. That isn’t actually what it was; it was pro-terrorist propaganda. Normally I would just ignore such a thing, but what bothered me is that it was linked by a friend, passing it along as useful for us to think about, to be more open minded.

So I thought I’d spend a post going over how to recognize propaganda and define terms—rather than letting the enemy redefine perfectly useful words.

Definition of Terrorist

Terrorists are persons or groups who use mass murder aimed at innocent civilians in an attempt to coerce submission to the terrorist’s control, particularly control over beliefs.

In the internationally agreed upon rules for war, terrorism is outside any acceptable form of engagement. Terrorists are typically without uniform, dressed or disguised to look unlike recognizable combatants. While terrorists can come from a variety of ideological views, in today's world virtually all are Islamist (radical Muslims who see anyone outside their beliefs, including moderate Muslims, as the subhuman enemy).

Is it possible for a state to commit terrorism? Yes. If the state purposely attacks innocent civilians rather than military installations or infrastructure—particularly for the purpose of coercing submission to belief change.

During the rules of war, collateral damage can include significant numbers of civilian casualties. When Britain carpet bombed Berlin, that was not terrorism. When the US dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that was not terrorism. Both were defensive actions carried out militarily, with the intent to cease invasion by the aggressive enemy, and were both proven to have saved lives in the long run.

Were these bombs terrifying? Yes. But they were not terrorist attacks carried out by terrorists. They were defensive military attacks carried out by uniformed military.

When Hamas attacks Israeli citizens, purposely targeting civilians, that is terrorism. Hamas is a known terrorist organization. It does not follow rules of war. It doesn’t have any legitimate state purpose. It doesn’t have uniformed military. It has an ideology it intends to impose through coercion by mass murdering innocents.

Israel’s response to Hamas attacks is not terrorism. Israel’s military responds, legally, in self-preservation of the state. It goes way out of its way to avoid civilian casualties. But Hamas tries to force attacks on civilians by attacking from schools and hospitals, and then pressuring people to stay and face possible death so that they can use the civilian casualties in a propaganda war against their civilized enemies.

Here’s another thing that is not equivalent to terrorism: having a military base in a foreign country, by agreement with that country, for the purpose of benefitting that country as well as our own interests in the region.

It would not even be terrorism if we occupied bases in those countries against their will (Guantanamo in Cuba, for example). We would simply be seen as exerting our power. When Russia exerts power, as it is doing in Ukraine, that is an act of aggression, for the imperialist purpose of increasing power—bad, but not terrorism. When the US military exerts power, helping nations become independent and self-sufficient, that is not only within the rules of war, it is defensive, not offensive or imperialistic.

The US does not coerce ideology, nor does it subject nations and peoples to its imperialist rule. Our military assistance to allies should not be construed as imperialist—let alone as terrorism. Anyone who calls what the US has done in Afghanistan or Iraq as terrorism is misusing the word.

In the Spherical Model, while war is a terrible thing, people living in the northern hemisphere of freedom, prosperity, and civilization CAN engage in war justifiably—in order to preserve their way of life from those who would threaten to take it.

Terrorism—using mass murder to coerce belief change—is savage. Always. It is down near the south pole of the miserable southern hemisphere. Down that far south, it is a short distance from the chaos of terrorism to the control of coercive tyranny. It is engaged in by savage tyrannists. There is NO path connecting terrorism to freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

Spotting Propaganda

Some time back I wrote a piece about identifying propaganda. Here are the questions to ask:

·         What is the point of view of the information source?

·         Do the themes coincide with known principles?

·         Is there documented and verifiable evidence following a line of logic, rather than implication and accusation?

So, looking at the video in question, I can see that it is developed by a Muslim. And because it supports the idea that terrorism is just, it is not from a peaceful, moderate Muslim, but from an Islamist. Is it from an actual terrorist? I can’t tell that without knowing more, but its script indeed does support the possibility that terrorism is justifiable--which it is not. I do not recognize names, and I hesitate to do too much searching, or mentioning of names, for the sake of privacy and safety.  I hope I am safe in linking the video below.*

The other questions are answerable by looking at the script. So below is the transcript, with my comments in brackets.

The video takes place in a classroom setting. The teacher, Mr. Kahn, is talking about the comparison between the number of times (41) jihad is mentioned in the Koran [their spelling, so I’ll go with it], and how many times (355) mercy, peace, and compassion are mentioned.

Girl Student: If Islam truly is a religion that preaches peace, then how come the world’s most troubled spots—the West Bank, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq—they’re all plagued with Islamic terrorism? [She asks a reasonable question, which he dismisses.]

Mr. Kahn: That depends on your definition of terrorism. [No it doesn’t. Regardless of your definition, her question is valid. A lot of unrest, outside of military conflict, involving mass murder of civilians by non-uniform-wearing attackers is happening in those places.] Some might argue that the US invasions of countries like Iraq and Afghanistan are also acts of terrorism. [Some might argue that, but it isn’t a valid argument. Military attacks are not terrorism, whether justified or not. And he is erasing that difference and implying lack of valid reasons in one stroke—without any evidence to justify his assertion.]

Girl Student: No. Those were acts of war to get rid of despotic regimes. [They were acts of war. Whether they were solely to get rid of despotic regimes is debatable. Also implied by placing these words in the mouth of the naïve student is the validity of getting rid of so-called despotic regimes as justification for war. This is an attempt to delegitimize anything the US may have done.]

Mr. Kahn: Or means of getting other countries’ oil. [This implies that the US had ulterior, self-serving motives for war in Iraq. But there is the historical fact that the US never took Iraqi oil—or anyone else’s. The US helped Iraq build infrastructure so it could sell its own oil for its own benefit.]

Boy Student: Conspiracy theories.

The teacher allows an answer from Riyaz, a young man who joined the class a minute late.

Riyaz: Mr. Khan is right. I mean, if we’re talking about terrorists, the world’s biggest terrorists are the white superpowers. [Notice that he has equated military action, for any reason whatever, with terrorism—which it is not, by definition. This is a lie. He adds the racial component—probably to imply racism on the part of the US and Britain, but in reality revealing the racism of the propagandist. The US and Britain do not choose which Iraqis to support based on the amount of melanin in their skin—but based on their belief in freedom and human rights.]

Another Boy Student: Come on, now.

Riyaz: Really. Stop and think about it. [Implying that he is the thinker, and the others are not.]

Girl Student: Explain 9/11.

Riyaz: Okay. Do you know how many people died in the twin towers strike?

Girl Student: Around 3,000.

Riyaz: And do you have any idea how many people died in the bombings of Afghanistan? Take a wild guess. More than 15,000 people died. And that’s just conservative figures. About 50,000 tons of explosives were dropped on innocent civilians. Men, women, children. [He has just done a bait and switch. 9/11 was a terrorist attack on innocents, to create chaos with the purpose of terrorizing and eventually coercing submission to the terrorists’ rule. Afghanistan losses occurred over a decade of battle, in which military people attacked specific terrorist groups—the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda—and not only attempted to avoid civilian casualties, but attempted to free and help those previously subjected to the Taliban to have freedom and self rule. He is equating using bombs designed to infiltrate mountain caves hiding terrorists with using airplanes to fly into skyscrapers. They are not equal. The US was never limited to a certain number of Taliban deaths or tons of explosives for the purpose of taking out those who were guilty of attacking American citizens on American soil. The US military had every right to go to any lengths necessary to wipe out that enemy. Were some innocents killed in the process? No doubt. But the US always attempted to minimize such casualties; it did not seek them.]

Girl Student: Yes, but that was because of the Taliban.

Riyaz: Now that you brought it up, did you know that the Taliban was a creation of the CIA, to fight the Russians? [But this is a lie. The Taliban dates back to around 1992, with its first major military action in 1994, and ruled Afghanistan from 1996-2001, ending when NATO forces defeated them. This is entirely after the fall of the Soviet Union and the official end of the Cold War. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the 1980s, the US joined with Saudi Arabia to offer financial support to the local Afghani resistors to Soviet invasion. The US never created nor supported the Taliban, nor did it seek to support any tribal entities that sought to enforce Islamist Sharia law.]

Another Boy Student: Whatever. They were still harboring terrorists.

Riyaz: Yeah, right. Terrorists that were never found. [This is another lie. Osama Bin Laden and dozens of his higher and lower minions were taken out. Al-Qaeda trained between 10-20,000 terrorists in Afghanistan  before 9/11. These were the enemy NATO forces were fighting in Afghanistan. He’s pretending these enemies never existed, and that the US and NATO forces simply attacked innocent Afghani citizens. Re-read Lone Survivor.] Just like the weapons of mass destruction that were never found in Iraq. [Another twist of the facts. The weapons of mass destruction in question in Iraq were those listed as known to be in the possession of Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War—which had not been shown to be destroyed. All intelligence sources agreed then, and still do, that Saddam Hussein had not destroyed those listed weapons, and that he was seeking ways to use them. He was in violation of the Gulf War peace treaty; whether they were found or not was always irrelevant to whether the US and NATO forces should hold Hussein accountable. The fact that they were not found means there is still the possibility that he transferred them elsewhere, possibly Syria. Or, less likely, that he destroyed them but refused to show evidence that he had done so.] Do you want to get into the death toll in Iraq? 500,000 civilians and counting. [He’s implying here that the US attacked the peaceful Iraqis, which is exactly opposite of the facts. Hussein attacked his own people if they sought freedom. Remember that his sons used a wood chipper to dispose of dissidents? The US did not seek to destroy Iraqi civilians, but to help them free themselves and develop a free government.] And what do Britain and America say when they don’t find these weapons? It’s simple. They just say, “sorry.” And still refuse to relinquish control of these countries. [US facilitated self-rule. To claim the US refused to relinquish control is a lie. It is certainly, now, arguable that the US has removed help prematurely, and the resurgence of Islamists there is a predicted result.]

Yet Another Boy Student: What are you trying to say?

Riyaz: What I’m trying to say is that, just because you’re American, wear a fancy suit and call yourself the president doesn’t make you any less of a terrorist. I’m saying that if you don’t stop meddling in other people’s countries, you will face a backlash. [What he’s doing is threatening. Using the term “terrorist” to refer to civilized national leaders is simply a ploy. Terrorism is savage and never justifiable. He isn’t redefining terrorism to include us to make us see how bad it is; he is redefining it to distract us from noticing that he advocates and justifies terrorism.]

Girl: If Muslims like you feel that way, then why don’t you get out of our country?

Riyaz: We will. As soon as you promise to leave ours. [This is another lie. They don’t call us The Great Satan because we have legal, invited military bases in some Muslim countries. They call us The Great Satan because they hate us and want to destroy us—along with everyone else in the world who doesn’t share their beliefs. Our show of weakness would not lead to peace; it would encourage more bold attacks.]

One advantage to using the Spherical Model is that you can see where things fall. Terrorism falls in the savage tyranny zone, near the southern pole. The US Constitution resides in the upper northern hemisphere where people thrive with freedom, prosperity, and civilization. They’re not close.  

___________________________
*Post by Chik Fakhrul Azzam, found here:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=427180640761529&set=vb.100004087890982&type=2&theater

 

 

Chinese Food for Thought

This past week a colleague of Mr. Spherical Model was in town from China. He is a Chinese native, but an employee of the same US-based company Mr. Spherical Model works for. Whenever he comes to town, we try to go to dinner. Usually we go to a Chinese restaurant, but this time we went Texan and had steak. (He had lobster, which we also had last time at an Asian restaurant.)

Chinese dragon medallion;
our Chinese friends always bring a gift

Much of the conversation was work related, which was necessary. But we also had enough time to learn quite a lot about China.

Many of the Chinese who come here adopt an American name, to make pronunciation easier for the rest of us, so for our purposes here, we’ll call our friend Lee. He is forty-ish, married, I’m unaware of any child. Unlike most Chinese, he is Christian. Or at least his wife is Christian. She works for an international Christian non-profit. One of the things she works to accomplish is the rescue of children with relatively small deformities, such as cleft palate, who would otherwise be disposed of (put to death). I don’t know how that works, but there must be some secretly working with hospital nurses to smuggle such children out. They send them to the US or elsewhere, where they get the surgery they need. And he didn’t spell it out, but I think they are then put up for adoption—although I suppose it’s possible their parents want them and wanted the disallowed surgery for them, and somehow arrange to get them back.

He told us about religion in China. And here I’m not certain whether all of it applies to Buddhism and Confucianism, or just to Christianity and other non-standard religions or philosophies. Anyway, most churches are public churches. The government does the hiring of clergy. The government determines much of the doctrine. Mainly, the order of priorities is loyalty first to the government, and then to God and family and community. In other words, it is dogma that government is the greatest force in the universe, but as long as you acknowledge that, then you can be allowed to believe in God if you want to.

This is an improvement, certainly, over Mao’s cultural revolution, which did away with religion entirely. And it is also a huge improvement over just a couple of decades ago when bringing a Bible into the country was illegal.

The non-public option is the family church. Technically they’re not legal. There’s no freedom of assembly, so if you have more than, say, seven people gathered, you have to report all the names and the purpose of the meeting. You might be able to call it a training meeting, but then, after not too long, the government will start interrogating all the attendees, asking why they need so much training. So it’s better to limit to just a few friends. If too many show up, you might get away with separating into two groups in separate rooms, if you’re lucky.

The difficulty with these family churches is that you can’t determine truth, or doctrine. It’s just the opinions of whoever happens to show up a specific week. It will be someone different, putting forth different opinions, the next time. Lee went with this option for a while but got frustrated with it.

He mentioned one man, a Christian, who had a practice every Friday of inviting a friend in (not someone he worked with) to come to his office and study scriptures—from 11:00 till 2:00. If you’re a good Christian, that’s not the way to show devotion; you have promised those hours to your employer, and if you do something other than work during work hours, you’re not meeting your commitment to your employer. That is clearly wrong; you should do your study on your own time, Lee said.

We talked a bit about the one-child policy. It is very real. I asked how that would affect a Chinese person who lives in the US. Lee would very much like to have that opportunity. And it doesn’t seem out of the realm of possibility. It also seems quite possible for Chinese workers at American countries, who come to work in the US, to become US citizens. For those of us who lived through the Cold War with the USSR and the stricter communist years of China past, this still seems surprising.

Lee mentioned one famous actor (not by name), who made his fame in movies in the US and in China. While in the US he had a long-time live-in girlfriend whom he eventually married, and they had three children together. But he decided not to renounce his Chinese citizenship, and to move back—Lee was still surprised by this, the only person in such a position that he knew of who chose to stay Chinese rather than choose the freedom of the US. But once he and family got back to China, he became subject to the one-child law. He was forced to pay about a million dollars per child for breaking the law. Only because he was a famous actor could he have that option.

At one point, Lee was talking about the differences between government over-control—which is frustrating but often manageable if you don’t fight it—and the chaos of lack of government control. I can’t remember the examples now, of where they were even allowed to have chaos. Maybe it was just the threat of chaos if there wasn’t enough control. Mr. Spherical Model tried suggesting that I write about such things, but I didn’t see a way to suddenly explain the northern hemisphere of freedom without taking over the conversation, so I didn't introduce him to the Spherical Model.

After dinner we brought Lee back to our house, to visit a bit longer. He said, “I love American houses!” And he said a house like ours would cost $2 million in China. For perspective, the median home price in Houston, as of a year ago, was about $185,000. Our home value is well below that. It’s the nicest house I’ve ever lived in, but there are plenty that are bigger and nicer. He was also amazed at the size of our back yard—which, we were shocked to learn when moving here, is measured in square feet, rather than portions of an acre. I think it’s around an 8^th of an acre—so, a postage stamp-sized lot. But we have a few trees, a shed, and a garden.

Chinese knot,
a gift from another Chinese friend

Mr. Spherical Model pointed out that a house like this would cost nearly a couple million in downtown San Francisco as well, so location matters. But here in the US, generally a relatively successful middle-class worker can live in a comfortable house like this. In China (or the people’s republic of San Francisco) a two-bedroom apartment is about all you have to look forward to.

A couple of days after the dinner, I was flipping through channels while fixing dinner and watched a portion of the 1982 movie Night Crossing [with John Hurt and Beau Bridges], about a family that escapes from East Germany in a homemade hot air balloon. The wife of the escaping family has a conversation with her mother, whom they have not informed of their plans. She asks, “Have you ever thought about applying to emigrate?” The mother’s answer was no, not unless things got a lot worse than they were then.

There was no freedom to move about the country, nor to travel elsewhere. There was little choice about where to work, and a lot of explaining about any use of free time, or use of resources. Things we take for granted, still, were significant difficulties for the East Germans. But there was enough food to avoid starvation, there was shelter, there was work. It was hard on the human spirit, but not impossible to live through.

Most of the people in the world through history have lived in such times—dependent on the limited tyranny of the potentate.

Last week we also talked with our son stationed in South Korea, and he talked a bit about North Korea. The people there are the most isolated in the world. They are told their country is the best in the world, and no evidence to the contrary is allowed in. But people are starving and struggling in significant ways. Occasionally someone tries to escape. But if they escape into China, they get picked up and returned. If they escape to South Korea, they will probably be assumed to be a spy and summarily shot. They’re on a peninsula; there aren’t a lot of escape options. So they continue trapped by their tyrannical government.

Eventually world pressure (such as Reagan’s “Tear down this wall” speech) caused the German wall to crumble. Korea’s “wall” has held firm for almost sixty years, and the people get very little opportunity to even dream of better. I don’t know what will happen in China's future. For the sake of its economy—because no socialist state can continue economically after it uses up the capital built up during freer markets—China has allowed more free trade, better education, and therefore more exposure to the amazing (by comparison) wealth of the free world. And their people want it.

I think it is true that human nature yearns for freedom, and wants to pursue personal dreams and work of our choosing. I hope China is able to peacefully gain more and more freedom—in a violence-free revolution against tyranny. The people themselves are not our enemies; they want much of what we want, as they become familiar with what we have.

I also hope that we do not let our freedoms further erode, just because too many of us tolerate sinking into the southern tyranny sphere just because things aren’t impossible to tolerate yet.

Admitting Bias, Part II: The right to abortion?

This is Political Sphere. I felt the need to add to the discussion the recent abortion decisions in Alabama and Mississippi that Mrs. Spherical Model discussed last Thursday. The one that I want to focus on, though, is the Mississippi case. In Mississippi, the court decided that the legislation that had recently passed was unconstitutional because it would result in the closure of the state’s only abortion clinic. This is generally a very reasonable basis in the law—but not in this case.

Generally, if a state is responsible for ensuring a right, they must ensure that right may be obtained within the borders of the state. The best example for this legal basis is the right to legal counsel. Each state is required to ensure that residents of that state have access to legal counsel. This requirement means that the state must provide a lawyer to represent an accused individual when that individual is incapable of paying for legal counsel on their own. The right to counsel has been used to prevent a state from refusing to allow a lawyer to practice in the state if the lawyer did not have an office within the state.

However, in Alabama and Mississippi, the court misunderstands the right being asserted. Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers assert that the right the court is required to protect is the right to an abortion within the state. The right that is actually being protected, according to the “umbras and penumbras” discovered by The Supreme Court, is the right to privacy. The right, specifically, is that reproductive choices made between men, women, and doctors are generally not subject to government interference beyond generally applicable restrictions on the medical industry.

The only exception to this right of privacy is what leads abortion proponents to get confused. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade did note that the State had a long-recognized interest in the life of its citizens, including persons-in-being (or unborn children/fetuses). Thus, it became an issue of where is The State’s interest in the person-in-being great enough to eliminate the continued right of privacy in reproductive decisions.

Clarifying the right The Supreme Court has actually recognized also clarifies the claim that the right is to be ensured by the state. If the state were held positively responsible to ensure abortion services were available within that state, that requirement would defeat the clarified right. Instead of being required to limit the restrictions the state may put on private reproductive choices, the state would be required to actively insert itself in the reproductive decisions made.

The undue burden rule

Recognizing that the right found by The Supreme Court is actually a right to privacy in making reproductive choices, The Supreme Court requires that the correct test to apply to legislation affecting reproductive choices is the rational basis undue burden test. This test requires first that some rational basis support the legislation imposed by the government. If a rational basis exists, step two of the test asks whether the legislation creates an undue burden on the person making the reproductive decisions. This second step is where the court in the Alabama and Mississippi cases err.

The first step requires that a rational basis exist for the enacted legislation. In other words, does any logical reason exist that the legislature may have used in deciding to enact the legislation. This does not require that the legislature used any rational basis in enacting the statute. As far as the court is concerned, the legislation may have been enacted because the tea leaves in the cup of the speaker of the house encouraged the Congress to vote yes on all votes scheduled that day. If the court is able to find any logical reason the legislature may have used, the actual reason a statute was enacted is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is whether the legislation actually achieves the rational basis that might have been used to enact the legislation. The Court is not allowed to impose its personal beliefs on elected officials.

The second step allows the court to consider whether the statute results in an undue burden. While this is an outcome based test, the court misapplies the burden onto the state. In Mississippi, the only abortion facility has announced its intention to shut down in response to the new legislation. In Alabama, three of the five abortion facilities announced intentions to shut down in response to the new legislation. The courts in these cases decided that the announced closings imposed an undue burden on people making reproductive decisions within that state.

As I discussed in the last section, however, the state cannot and should not take an affirmative role in assuring that abortion facilities remain open. All the state is required to do under this second step is ensure that the legislation is not unrealistic for the abortion facilities to follow. However, the burden falls to the party claiming that the statute imposes the undue burden to prove that the statute imposes a restriction that the abortion facility cannot comply with.

In other situations, inability to abide by the law is a defense, but the burden is on the party asserting the defense to show that it cannot abide. It is not enough that a party chooses not to abide by the law that imposes some restriction. If that were the case, then The State could not even require sterilization of instruments if abortion clinics chose not to abide by that restriction. Therefore, the test requires that opponents of the statute show that the restrictions are impossible to abide by, or that the restrictions create such an imposition that it is completely unreasonable to expect that the opponent can abide by the statute.

In conclusion, the courts misunderstand the right being alleged in the cases. There is no right to abortion, just a right to privacy in making reproductive choices. This misunderstanding results in the courts then misapplying the rational basis undue burden test as The Supreme Court requires. Using the correct test, it becomes clear that the statutes do not unconstitutionally interfere with the right recognized by The Supreme Court.

Admitting Bias

Earlier this week a couple of stories appeared concerning abortion—specifically concerning whether abortion clinics can be required to meet the standards required of other ambulatory surgical centers. One story is that Texas’s law is having another day in court. The other is that a judge blocked such a law in Alabama.

Tuesday's Houston Chronicle front page

I’m dealing with the news section of August 5^th Houston Chronicle, front page above the fold, and A-7, where theoretically you get news instead of opinion. But what we get here is the news from the point of view of the “abortion-rights” side.

The Texas story’s first paragraph is:

Abortion providers returned to court Monday seeking to block a provision of Texas’ stringent new law that would require abortion facilities to comply with the standards of ambulatory surgical centers, a restriction opponents said would force more clinics out of business and leave hundreds of thousands of women without easy access to the procedure.

Stringent is a subjective term, not news. What the law actually did—in the wake of the Gosnell horrors—was cause abortion clinics to meet the standards expected already of other surgical centers. Why that is considered “stringent” is not mentioned. It should be noted that just days after the Gosnell verdict, Texas employees at an abortion clinic came forward with evidence of similar situations in Houston, with babies being killed.

US Rep. John Culberson gave this reaction to the story:

On the heels of Kermit Gosnell’s conviction, I am deeply saddened to learn about more atrocities committed against precious unborn babies, this time in our own backyard. Douglas Karpen of Houston, TX, has been accused of brutally murdering babies born after twenty weeks. He is innocent until proven guilty, but the descriptions from his former employees are gut wrenching and absolutely heartbreaking. Taking a baby from its mother’s womb and terminating its life is murder. Throughout my years in public service I have been committed to protecting the lives of the innocent, and as a Member of Congress, I will work with my colleagues to ensure that we put an immediate end to this practice in every corner of this nation. I will never stop fighting to protect the lives of the most vulnerable.

So the Texas legislature’s law had two missions: prevent abortions after 20 weeks, when it is now known the fetus feels pain (which also prevents the botched abortion-live birth killings that have been reported); and bring the clinics up to normally accepted health codes for the sake of women’s health.

This is the law, you may recall, that won Wendy Davis (now candidate for Texas governor) notoriety for filibustering, forcing a second special session to get a vote; it passed easily once a vote was taken. Afterward Davis seemed unaware of the actual provisions in the law, and seemed to think it was to outlaw all abortions. Maybe she just seemed confused while revealing she simply can’t bear the thought of any abortion ever being thwarted. Claiming that prevention of any abortion under any circumstances is a "war on women" is hardly a basis for leading the strongest state in the nation.

The providers testifying against the law weren’t led by people actually affected by the Texas law, but the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights. Their lawyers spoke in front of US District Judge Lee Yeakel, asking him to block implementation of the law’s provision, scheduled for September 1^st. Judge Yeakel ruled House Bill 2 unconstitutional last year—his decision was overruled by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. So going before this judge again is likely to go as before.

The pro-abortionists' main argument is that requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles means that the clinics have to close. They also claim that these regulatory burdens are “not imposed on any other health care providers in Texas,” which is false on its face. There are various simple procedures, like dental extraction, that are done in doctor’s offices, but if they are procedures in which there’s a risk of bleeding to death or other serious complications, they are already done in surgical centers meeting the requirements, or in hospitals.

Let’s take a close look at the admitting privileges question. When this came up last year, my question was, “Why don’t the doctors just go get admitting privileges?” They were given ample additional time to do so. And everything I read made it sound pretty standard. But here are the abortionists still complaining that they can’t qualify.

So I looked it up. The main thing is providing credentials. There’s some paperwork involved, but any practicing physician probably has his/her diploma and licenses available. There are two levels of admitting privileges. There are courtesy privileges, which are simply that the doctor is allowed to occasionally use the hospital, to perform rounds with patients and do procedures within his/her specialty on an as needed basis—just in case a need ever arises. This level is relatively simple to get, and would meet the law’s requirements.

The second type is full admitting privileges. This may require that the doctor become a part of the hospital staff, attend staff meetings, and provide a certain number of patients to the hospital per year. Sometimes the doctor must belong to the same insurance group as the hospital. This is admittedly harder to get, and might not be possible for an abortionist to meet.

Here’s where I have a problem with the story—and with the abortionists’ argument: the story says, quoting a coalition attorney: “Almost half of the roughly 40 abortion facilities operating in Texas before the passage of House Bill 2 already have closed because of doctors’ inability to obtain admitting privileges.”

It is not necessarily that doctors couldn’t obtain admitting privileges; it is that they didn’t. An online story I found, describing what it takes to get admitting privileges, quotes the CEO of the untruthfully named abortion provider Whole Woman’s Health, talking about the process: "We’ve worked with at least 25 hospitals around the state in the last six months trying to get privileges on behalf of our physicians."

I see a couple of problems here. First, 25 hospitals isn’t that many. As of 2012 there were 630 hospitals in the state. There are 80 just in Harris County, where Houston is located. Why work with only 25 hospitals? Why not apply with all of them, or at least all that are within 30 miles of an abortion clinic? And how do we know whether these 25 hospitals were the least likely to accept the requests? Catholic hospitals, or other Christian supported hospitals, or possibly hospitals related to specific insurance groups? After all, these are people trying to provide evidence that the law is too restrictive, not people actually trying to meet the requirements. It also appears, from the descriptions, that only full admitting privileges were sought—possibly so that they would be turned down, and then they could claim they couldn’t meet the requirements of the law, giving them "evidence" for appeal.

Second, why is the abortion provider clinic organization, rather than the physician, doing the applying? At some point the doctor has to apply. And generally applications are available for download from a hospital website, so the intermediary isn’t really necessary. Apparently we’re just supposed to take it as fact that they’ve exerted every effort and failed, because the law is too stringent?

On that note, if requiring that a doctor be credentialed and not barred because of various malpractice complaints is too stringent, aren’t we really undervaluing women’s health?

Another problem with the story is the numbers. The pro-abortion coalition claims that there’s a particular shortage of clinics in El Paso and generally in the southwestern portion of the state: “That would leave some 900,000 women of reproductive age in the Rio Grande Valley and West Texas living at least 150 miles from a Texas abortion facility.”

They are counting all women, not just the relative few who choose abortion as their birth control method. Let me proclaim, loudly, that abortion clinics do not serve me. Nor any woman in my family. Nor any woman I know at church. Possibly not any woman in my circle of friends and acquaintances. They are vastly overestimating the number of women they “serve” by killing their babies.

And they’re assuming the state should go to great lengths—even to the point of dumbing down safety requirements that can affect women’s health—just to encourage more clinics where there hasn’t been enough of a market thus far.

This is similar to the argument in the Alabama story (Houston Chronicle p. A7, Tuesday, August 5): “Judge blocks Alabama’s Abortion Law.” In that state, with a law similar to Texas’s, the claim is that, because the abortion doctors live outside the state, they wouldn’t be able to get admitting privileges. The state has just five abortion clinics, and three have this challenge. The claim is, “it’s unlikely that local doctors would begin performing abortions because of a history of violence across the South that includes bombings, shootings, and arsons against clinics, the judge said.”

First, as if I need to say it, violence is not the right approach to persuading people not to commit abortions. And any such violence should be prosecuted according to the law—as it has been; most perpetrators are on death row, have been executed, or are serving life sentences. That said, I haven’t heard of abortion clinic violence in a long time. So I did a Wikipedia search. I found one case listed for Alabama, in 1998. The story says “the South,” so I broadened the search. There are two Florida cases, one in 1993, and one in 1994—with a follow-up bombing in 2012 at the same clinic. One in Kansas in 2009.

There are some additional incidents of attempted murder, death threats, and criminal mischief. I found one case of criminal mischief (breaking in, threatening, damaging equipment) in Alabama, in 1984.

So, my question is, why, if the damage is aimed at the clinics, does a doctor feel safe performing abortions in Alabama clinics, but not living there? And since Alabama is only part of the South, why do those doctors feel safe living across state lines but still nearby? The argument doesn’t hold water. What abortion clinics are saying is that, in some places they find it difficult to find doctors willing to enter into that profession—so they want government to lower standards for women’s health to make it easier for them to ply their grisly trade.

A similar problem is happening in Mississippi, where the single abortion clinic might close, and abortionists are asserting that each state should be required to make sure it has at least one abortion clinic, regardless of nearby access across state lines. They don't say why.

The subheading reveals bias

One more complaint about the Chronicle piece on the Texas law: One of the subheads is “Other Victories.” The paper is telling the story of the struggle of abortion providers; it is on their side. You can get facts about the issue from the story, but know that you might not be getting them all, because the reporter has revealed a pro-abortion bias.

If you think there’s reasonableness on that side, you need to read their protest signs: “Abortion on Demand & without Apology” and the absurdly irrelevant “Forced motherhood is female enslavement.” That is not exactly “safe, legal, and rare” message most pro-choice people would say they support. These religiously pro-abortion activists are perfectly willing to risk women’s health, as long as they press for what they want: to kill any baby up to birth, and even beyond. It’s an ugly business.

On the other hand, the signs at the anti-abortion prayer rally read, “Abortion harms women,” which it does. Not to mention women's babies. 

People need to rethink that whole “war on women” claim. Abortionists aren’t for women; they’re for profit. And they really resent being held to responsible standards if it could cost them money.

North and South Comparison

In the Spherical Model, north on the sphere is good—where we want to be—and south is bad. But throughout history, countries that maintain freedom, prosperity, and civilization have been the exception.

I believe it is a part of our nature to want the northern good—ultimate good. But many people don’t see the possibility, and just try to get some sort of tolerable in the southern hemisphere. Evidence shows the southern hemisphere methods don’t lead to freedom, prosperity, and civilization; they lead to various levels of tyranny, poverty, and savagery. But rather than looking upward for better methods, the people just keep re-trying what doesn’t work, apparently thinking a little tweaking to bad policy will suddenly result in their envisioned perfect world. It won’t and can’t happen.

If you look at many of the stated goals, you’ll find counterfeits of the actual northern hemisphere. I wrote a two-part post [here and here] on southern hemisphere counterfeits. Many have to do with misunderstanding what a right is.

Today I thought it might be useful to list the comparisons side by side.  

Southern Hemisphere Version	Northern Hemisphere Version
Everyone deserves equality, so the government forcibly takes from those who have earned more than they need and gives to those who earn very little.	Everyone deserves equal opportunity, so laws protect a person’s right to what he earns, and all are permitted to choose their legal means of earning wealth.
Everyone needs food and shelter, and everyone should give charitably to those who can’t afford it, so government takes from those who have plenty and pays for the food and shelter of the less fortunate.	Everyone needs food and shelter, and everyone should give charitably to those who can’t afford to provide for themselves, so people who have enough and to spare freely give charitably to those who would otherwise go without.
Everyone deserves medical care, so government forces everyone to buy health insurance that the government determines is best, at the cost the government requires, regardless of specific individual needs or preferences, or ability to pay.	Everyone deserves to be able to seek medical care, and for those unable to provide payment for themselves, philanthropy can offer aid. Free market helps provide better service at better prices, which is good for everyone.
Gun violence is bad, so people shouldn’t be allowed to own guns, or ownership should be strictly controlled by government. Law enforcement personnel should be depended on in all circumstances to protect against outlaw violence.	Gun violence is bad, and cannot be completely prevented by law enforcement, so people retain the God-given right to defend themselves—as long as they are sane and law abiding. Otherwise the unarmed innocent are at the mercy of the armed perpetrators of violence.
Marriage is a statement that people are in a sexual relationship and live together at this time, and therefore deserve tax advantages and other privileges expected by any married persons. Banning anyone from marriage is bigotry and anyone with such beliefs should be prosecuted and/or ostracized.	Marriage is a permanent and exclusive commitment between a man and a woman, forming the basis for a family, and is to be protected and encouraged, since it is the basic unit of civilization—the best way to safely raise children, educate them, prepare them for productive adult life, and inculcate in them the principles of civilization. Redefining marriage as anything else damages the family.
Religion is allowed for those who think they need it, but they shouldn’t expect public policy to support religion in general, nor should they be allowed to express their religion in public places, such as on public property or in the workplace.	A religious population is essential for a free and prosperous civilization. People get their rights from God, and govern themselves in accordance with God’s laws. Religious freedom, therefore, is essential for civilization, and should be encouraged in public policy, so that the free exercise thereof shall not be infringed.
Government knows best what information it needs in order to protect everyone, so it should have free rein to gather data and use it as it sees fit; no one should have the expectation of privacy in today’s world.	People should feel secure in their persons and papers, without any illegal searches or seizures. Law enforcement officers must have legal warrants for searches, and no data not pertinent to a pending case should be retained if gathered inadvertently.
Everyone deserves to have a job that pays a living wage, so government can force employers to pay what the government deems necessary, regardless of the business’s ability to profit under those requirements. The government knows best what a minimum wage should be, and assumes all employees are in need of a wage to support themselves free of family or other help that have traditionally been provided for young workers gaining skills.	Everyone is free to exchange their work for pay as they see fit, according to their skills and value to an employer, and the employer is free to exchange pay for work, as it values the contribution of that employee. This reduces unemployment and offers employment that gives experience that may lead to better opportunities in the future for a worker who shows his worth.
Government may favor people of various races, ethnicities, or genders, because government knows best how to make up for perceived past generational disadvantages. People not meeting quotas put forth by government should be punished and labeled as bigots until they conform, and may be labeled bigots even after they conform.	People should be valued according to the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin or some other characteristic.

 We could go on. Maybe we will another day. Most of the southern hemisphere examples above relate to the statist side of tyranny (southeast quadrant), rather than the chaos side, since that relates more closely to government policy. Maybe another day we’ll do a chaos comparison with civilization.

What we do know is that, no matter how the southern hemisphere argues about people deserving this or that, as the government decides, real freedom, prosperity, and civilization can only be obtained by living the principles of the northern hemisphere.