Commentary

Tim Tebow chose his girlfriend for looks not character

22 Comments
The glasses don't make you any smarter, Tim Te-fool
The glasses don’t make you any smarter, Tim T-Bonehead

UPDATE: Report from TMZ says they never dated, but that Tebow did “show interest” in her, and so this post still works somewhat.

Everyone likes to pick on me because they say that I always blame women for their poor choices, when everything is really the fault of men. Well, that’s not true. I love to blame men when it really is the man’s fault. And we have a case now where it really IS the man’s fault, and you’ll never guess how all the Christian feminists are responding to me blaming the man.

Let’s see the story, first, which is very important. It’s from the UK Daily Mail.

It says:

Tim Tebow has made a vow to stay chaste until marriage.

But it seems as if Olivia Culpo just couldn’t wait.

The 23-year-old former Miss Universe has broken up with the hunky 28-year-old former professional American footballer due to his choice to stay abstinent according to a recent report.

Two points about this.

First, it’s very improbable (but not impossible) that a Miss Universe is going to have Christian character enough to step into the roles of Christian wife and Christian mother. If her entire life is spent traveling around, putting on make-up and prancing up and down a stage, that’s not going break her narcissistic, emotional spirit enough for her to orient herself in a Christian direction. Newsflash, T-Bonehead: just because a woman claims to be a Christian doesn’t make her a Christian.

Second, if you want to marry a real Christian women, I recommend looking for women whose lives show a consistent, multi-year record of studying apologetics and engaging for conservative causes in the public square. And again, it’s just safer to prefer women with STEM degrees. Women with STEM degrees have the emotivism and narcissism drummed out of them. STEM graduates know that no amount of intuition and wishing will make a program compile and run and generate correct output.

The general point here is that men are stupid – especially when they are young and don’t realize how important it is for them to choose wisely, when it comes to a bride. They imagine that because a woman is good looking, that must mean that she has a good Christian worldview – a worldview that includes a commitment to studying apologetics, and integrating Christianity with economics, politics, etc. Guess what, stupid men? Unless she has read people like Lee Strobel and J. Warner Wallace, she doesn’t know whether her Christian faith is true or not. Unless she has read people like Thomas Sowell and Jay Richards, she has no idea how her Christian faith integrates with economics or politics. Unless she has read people like Scott Klusendorf and Ryan Anderson, she isn’t really pro-life or pro-marriage – not beyond the level of feelings, she is not.You can’t sing your way to a Christian worldview, Te-Beau. Somebody needs to hand T-Bonehead my list of courting questions. I can guarantee you that Miss Universe would not be able to answer any of them.

Pretty girls are always used to getting attention from men for free, they never have to do anything they don’t feel like doing – and that is the exact opposite of what you need in a wife and mother of your children. Women who are less focused on their appearance actually have to care about helping and supporting a man in his plan to change the world with his marriage and family. So, they busy themselves before marriage getting STEM degrees, staying chaste, working with kids to practice, stay out of debt, building up a nest egg, and trying to make the society as Christian-friendly as possible through apologetics, activism, charity and political activism. She wants the world to be a safe place for a man to marry and raise a family in, and she wants to communicate to him through her serious decision-making that she will be a help to him, and not a loose cannon on deck.

Now I was going to tell you what all my good female friends on Facebook said, and here it is: all but one of them split the blame between Tebow and his girlfriend. They actually thought she was to blame in part!!!! That’s ridiculous. Only one of them thought that he was entirely to blame and she is probably the smartest one. It goes without saying that she is studying computer science.

There is no shortcut to an effective Christian woman who takes the Bible seriously when making decisions about things like chastity. A marriage-minded man has to check her worldview and past actions, just like you check an job applicant’s education and resume. Nobody hires a candidate to do a job based on attractiveness – not if the job is important. The job of a woman is not to make you feel good or to impress your friends with her looks. The job of a woman is wife and mother, and that is just as dependent on education and resume as any other job. If a man is serious about getting a partner who will help help to actually accomplish something for God, he needs to do his thinking with his mind, not with his eyes.

News

Pro-life group targets Planned Parenthood’s corporate donors

1 Comment
I'm Scheming Unborn Baby, and I approve this study
I’m Scheming Unborn Baby, and I approve this message

This is an article from the Daily Signal, and it shows the kinds of devious, mean tactics that those awful pro-lifers will stoop to, in order to stop the intentional killing of unborn children.

Look how awful:

A pro-life group say it has convinced more than 300 companies to stop donating to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.

The organization, Life Decisions International, tracks corporate sponsors of Planned Parenthood in an effort to encourage them to stop donating.

In an interview with The Daily Signal, Doug Scott, president of Life Decisions International, said his group is “primarily an educational organization.”

Its aim, Scott said, is to educate companies and CEOs about Planned Parenthood’s “real agenda.”

Using Planned Parenthood’s own annual reports, newsletters and IRS documents, Life Decisions International determines which companies contribute funds. It adds the findings to a list of such donors, and encourages pro-lifers to use the list to boycott them.

Discussions with each company are “kept completely confidential to spare them the backlash from pro-abortion people,” Scott said.

Tom Strobhar, chairman of Life Decisions International, told The Daily Signal that more than 300 companies “no longer give to Planned Parenthood” because of his organization.

Naughty! Anyway, let me think about the people I know of who are doing pro-life work. I know two people who are professional pro-life debaters, who debate university professors, etc. at open-to-the-public events at major universities. Another person I have heard of has a project where pregnant women can get a free ultrasound to help them to decide what to do with their babies. Another person sets up booths at her local university to answer questions from pro-life students. Another person who comments here regularly and is an expert in Christian apologetics regularly engages with pro-abortion activists while protesting outside of abortion clinics. We also have people who sneak into clinics and capture the words of pro-abortion people on video. And of course I know that politically, the big push right now is to de-fund abortion providers – cut off their taxpayer funding, especially. Dastardly pro-lifers!

Here’s a recent story about wicked pro-lifers using their trickses to defeat abortion greed:

Oklahoma Republican Gov. Mary Fallin ordered the Oklahoma Health Care Authority to terminate contracts with two Planned Parenthood affiliates Thursday, citing billing problems.

Fallin said she made the decision because of problems with the two affiliates overcharging Oklahoma residents for services by 20 percent and 14 percent. She pointed out that there are about 120 other health care options for Oklahoma residents.

[…]Fallin asked for a state review of Planned Parenthood earlier this year which revealed the overbilling. There was not, however, misuse of Medicaid funds. “These results are alarming,” Fallin wrote in the letter to Gomez. “These errors result in overbilling to the Oklahoma taxpayer. The lack of attention to the requirements imposed on a responsible provider is a continuing problem for these Planned Parenthood affiliates.”

Why, they even have popularly-elected governors helping them! Sneaky, mischievous, under-handed villains! Working within the law to end abortion? It’s inconceivable! (It’s inconceivable to the anti-reality secular left, I mean).

And there was actually a good article on The Stream explaining why this is so, by John Zmirak, so let’s link to that. I recommend that everyone who wants to know why pro-lifers are so busy using these cognitive / fiscal methods to address the abortion issue read that article, especially if your name is “Child of Ra” or if you attended college to obtain a non-STEM degree.

News

Two peer-reviewed studies shed light on news media bias

1 Comment
Here's the left-wing media
Here’s the left-wing media

Let’s learn about media bias using these peer-reviewed studies.

Here’s a UCLA study on media bias.

Excerpt:

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume” and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the “NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.” CNN’s “NewsNight With Aaron Brown” and ABC’s “Good Morning America” were a close second and third.

“Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill,” Groseclose said. “If these newscasters weren’t centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators.”

The fourth most centrist outlet was “Special Report With Brit Hume” on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC’s “World News Tonight” and NBC’s “Nightly News” to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

“If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox’s ‘Special Report’ as ABC’s ‘World News’ and NBC’s ‘Nightly News,’ then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news,” said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.”

Here’s a Harvard University study on media bias.

Excerpt:

The programming studied on Fox News offered a somewhat more positive picture… of Republicans and more negative one of Democrats compared with other media outlets. Fox News stories about a Republican candidate were most likely to be neutral (47%), with the remainder more positive than negative (32% vs. 21% negative). The bulk of that positive coverage went to Giuliani (44% positive), while McCain still suffered from unflattering coverage (20% positive vs. 35% negative).

When it came to Democratic candidates, the picture was more negative. Again, neutral stories had a slight edge (39%), followed by 37% negative and 24% positive. And, in marked contrast from the rest of the media, coverage of Obama was twice as negative as positive: 32% negative vs. 16% positive and 52% neutral.

But any sense here that the news channel was uniformly positive about Republicans or negative about Democrats is not manifest in the data.”

From the Washington Examiner, a study of the political contributions made by the mainstream media.

Excerpt:

Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.

By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.

[…]The data on contributions by broadcast network employees was compiled by CRP at the request of The Examiner and included all 2008 contributions by individuals who identified their employer as one of the three networks or subsidiaries. The data does not include contributions by employees of the three networks who did not identify their employer.

The CRP is the organization behind OpenSecrets.org, the web site that for more than a decade has put campaign finance data within reach of anybody with an Internet connection.

President Obama received 710 such contributions worth a total of $461,898, for an average contribution of $651 from the network employees. Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain received only 39 contributions totaling $26,926, for an average donation of $709.

And more from a study done by the radically leftist MSNBC.

Excerpt:

MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

The donors include CNN’s Guy Raz, now covering the Pentagon for NPR, who gave to Kerry the same month he was embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq; New Yorker war correspondent George Packer; a producer for Bill O’Reilly at Fox; MSNBC TV host Joe Scarborough; political writers at Vanity Fair; the editor of The Wall Street Journal’s weekend edition; local TV anchors in Washington, Minneapolis, Memphis and Wichita; the ethics columnist at The New York Times; and even MTV’s former presidential campaign correspondent.

Those are the facts.

So what?

Now consider this column from Brent Bozell, which explains the difference media bias makes to political intelligence.

Excerpt:

A 2008 survey by the Pew Research Center asked media consumers three questions: which party was in control of Congress (Democrats), who was the secretary of state (Condi Rice) and who was the prime minister of Britain (Gordon Brown).

Let’s document how the viewers of “Hannity & Colmes” were better informed than Stewart’s “Daily Show”  gigglers on basic political facts. Hannity viewers beat Stewart’s on the Democratic majority (84 percent to 65 percent correct answers), Condi Rice (a dramatic 73 percent to 48 percent gap) and Gordon Brown (49 percent to 36). Overall, as a percentage getting all three questions right, Hannity won 42-30.

Just keep that in mind when you are watching the mainstream media news shows. A very good site to bookmark and read is Newsbusters, which documents mainstream media bias daily.