“Your Son Was Saved by Trump.” “Who?”

By | November 27, 2017 | 0 Comments

The first thing to do when learning to play poker is to watch the players and learn the relative value of the various hands. A straight flush is the rarest hand, so it beats the next rarest, four of a kind. The ranks of the hands teach us about the laws of probability, which underlie all games of chance. A similar approach is useful elsewhere. When ideas conflict, we can observe which ones dominate. This gives a clear indication of the underlying beliefs and values of the persons involved.

● President Trump intervened with President Xi of China to secure the release of three UCLA basketball players who had been arrested for shoplifting ‒ which they later admitted. They might have spent years in a Chinese prison instead of being home with their friends and families. But the father of one of the players belittled Trump’s role, saying, “Who?” The father added, “They try to make a big deal out of nothing sometimes.” Apparently “nothing” referred both to Trump’s help, and to the crime of shoplifting ‒ because “nobody got hurt.” We learn rules of behavior from our parents, but the question is, which rules?

If this were a poker game, you might conclude that mocking a President you dislike beats saving your own son from years of imprisonment.

● People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals claims to stand for animal welfare. But its president once remarked that it wouldn’t be a bad thing if foot-and-mouth disease spread to North America. To her, it was preferable that millions of animals die miserable, useless deaths than that humans have access to meat, dairy products, wool, and leather.

If this were a poker game, you might conclude that hatred of humans beats love of animals.

● Pro-choice advocates insist that women have the final say over their own bodies. But is the right to choose unquestionable? A woman was trying to become pregnant. She and her husband had undergone infertility tests. Yet if she became pregnant and suddenly decided on an abortion, her husband would have no legal say. One day this woman had her hair done at a new salon. The stylist visited the toilet, after which he massaged the woman’s scalp with his fingertips. As he talked, saliva sprayed onto the woman’s face and eyes. After he finished, he announced that he was HIV-positive.

This woman’s control over her body extended to the right to an abortion with no regard for the fetus’s life or the father’s wishes, but did not extend to giving consent before having her skin rubbed and her eyes sprayed with saliva by a stranger carrying the virus of a potentially fatal disease. The likelihood of contracting HIV in this way is tiny, but the point is that she was given no choice.

If this were a poker game, you might conclude that the rights of HIV-carriers beat a woman’s right to choose.

● Studies show that circumcised men are less likely to contract HIV or penile cancer, and their female partners are less likely to contract HIV or cervical cancer. Yet this information rarely appears in the media. On the contrary, anti-circumcision activists remain vocal.

If this were a poker game, you might conclude that opposing anything even remotely connected with religion beats preventing AIDS or cancer.

● Many feminists remained silent, or were actively hostile, when Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and other women accused Bill Clinton of various sexual offenses including rape. Yet these same people are ruthless in their condemnation of Judge Roy Moore. They supported the liberal when he was accused of offenses for which they now condemn the conservative.

If this were a poker game, you might conclude that party politics beats protecting women.

● Democrats pride themselves on supporting labor unions. In an era of declining union membership, one might expect “pro-labor” politicians to do everything possible to strengthen unions. In fact, many of these politicians block efforts to control illegal immigration, despite the fact that unions will be further weakened by a continuing supply of immigrants forced to work at or below the minimum wage, and with few or no benefits.

If this were a poker game, you might conclude that the well-being of immigrants, legal and illegal, beats the well-being of American workers and their families.

●  Politicians claim that they are helping “the children” by increasing financial aid for day care and similar programs. But increased spending means higher taxes, which in turn means that more women will be forced to work outside the home whether they want to or not. Lower taxes would allow many mothers and fathers to spend more time with their children, but those who propose lowering taxes are paradoxically called “anti-family.”

If this were a poker game, you might conclude that increasing the government’s role in child-rearing beats allowing parents to spend more time with their children.

● My wife and I attended three funerals where leftist political statements were inserted, either in the eulogy or by handing out leaflets. To these people, the “wall of separation” between church and state has a door that opens only one way – religion must not influence politics, but politics can influence religion all day long.

If this were a poker game, you might conclude that making a political statement beats honoring the memory of the departed.

When ideas or ideals conflict, we reveal which one we hold dearest by what we do, regardless of what we may claim.

Saving your son from years of misery in a foreign prison is important, but there is something more important: making a political statement.

Preventing the suffering of animals is praiseworthy, but there is something more important: reducing the freedom of humans.

A woman’s right to control her own body is worth fighting for, but there is something more important: the rights of HIV-carriers.

Preventing AIDS and cancer is crucial, but there is something more important: rejecting anything with a Biblical basis.

Protecting women from powerful men in the workplace is laudable, but there is something more important: a leftist political agenda.

Increasing union jobs and workers’ benefits is admirable, but there is something more important: appeasing self-appointed leaders of ethnic groups by allowing illegal immigration to continue at high levels.

Helping parents spend more time with their children is commendable, but there is something more important: increasing governmental control of child-rearing.

Honoring the memory of departed family or friends is righteous, but there is something more important: injecting leftist politics even into funeral services.

Through all this runs a theme of self-centered elitism ‒ we need not trouble ourselves with all human problems, but only with what furthers our current agenda. Leftist politics is seeping into every aspect of life, displacing what we used to consider important.

Yes, life is like a poker game. You never know what hand you will be dealt, but by observing which hand beats which, you can discover what people consider really important. And all too often, it’s not what they claim they consider important. You might even say there’s a joker in the deck.

Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.