A malaphor is a mix between two or more idioms or phrases. The definition seems to make it out that malaphors are created from a misuse of phrases, usually unintentional or in error. I disagree and say that while some malaphors are a result of confusion or unintentional error, there are many malaphors that are instead clever blendings of common phrases, much like word-play (puns). Here is a list of malaphors that I came up with along with the idioms/phrases they originated from and what they mean. Some of these I’ve been using for years*, some I created myself†, and the rest I found on the Internet. Enjoy!!
I didn’t know I needed this in my life…
“Space Ace” is a 1984 space/action arcade game that featured hand-drawn animations from Don Bluth (a former Disney animator) with the protagonist who looks like the kid from Disney’s 1963 “The Sword in the Stone” mixed with Roger from Disney’s 1961 “101 Dalmatians” acting like a Buck Rogers crossover, and the damsel in distress who is a cross between the future Ariel from Disney’s 1989 “The Little Mermaid” and Princess Peach from Nintendo’s Mario Bros. Series with the voice that’s reminiscent of Katey Sagal from 1987’s “Married with Children”.
That was a mouthful, but check it out!!
It’s an election year, and like all election years in America, we are bombarded left and right with domestic, social, economic, foreign, etc… issues while trying to get behind a “lesser of two evils” political candidate. During this year we always see candidates start off nice with each other and as November draws nearer the slander and backbiting starts on their “tours of America” and political ads on television with each candidate trying their best (well not really, since they don’t actually visit less-important states only the “swing states”) to secure their win for the presidency. Yay America!
It’s a bad joke on the American people that its citizens play every four years. Presidential elections are nothing more than a strategic game of chess – except with citizen’s tax dollars and their rights at stake. So what’s the issue here (besides political corruption)?
America runs on a First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) also called the “Winner take all” voting system, and mathematically no matter how many political parties exist at the start of the system, it will always result in only two major parties in the end. If a third party wants to join, their candidate won’t have enough votes to win the election but not only that, the votes that went to the third party will be effectively lost and will give one of the two major parties the win. See below:
Say we only have two parties, the Red and Blue party. Every four years the nation has an election, and the majority of voters are die-hard Red or Blue fans while only a minority of citizens may change their mind and vote either way. Every election year, either the Red or Blue party wins because of these undecided voters. This year is an election year and the undecided voters choose the Red party and the Red party has the win.
But this year is different and a New Party joins the race. The New Party seems to have a lot in common with the Red party but also has few aspects of the Blue party too. The undecided voters and some of the Red party voters see this as a fresh start and bail on the Red party for the New party. Unfortunately, there are not enough voters for the New party to succeed, and now the Red party lost its advantage. The Blue party wins the election even though the majority of people voted for the Red party or the Red-like party (the New party).
Just like the example above, America has a two (major) party system currently. Unfortunately, this system has run long enough that both parties have devolved and become stagnant. They are now sad stereotypes of themselves, causing the extreme ideals of each party to basically dictate the “norm” of what each party stands for. One party is seen as ultra-conservative, fearful of change, fearful of others, gun-toting, rednecks that hate other groups of people. The other side is seen as an ultra-progressive, “everyone’s a winner” hippie culture with no morals or standards, always looking for handouts and a way to get more free stuff through hard-working tax dollars.
Do you see the issue yet?
United We Stand, Divided We Fall.
And… the politicians play Americans like a fiddle. Make one party look so horrible that the other party sways the voters to win the election. Have the one party that promises “free stuff” fail to deliver, and the undecided voters go back to the more conservative party the next election. Year after year, America goes into more debt, with worsening social issues than the term before it, with political corruption still reigning and Americans just as upset as the years before it. How do we stop it?
By creating a fair and equal voting system!
Why isn’t our current system fair and equal? One reason is that FPTP creates a “minority wins” situation where the minority of voters choose the president while the majority of voters didn’t choose the winning candidate or winning party. The example above with the graphs is overly simplified, but think of a bigger system with two major parties (Red and Blue) with only a few minor parties (Yellow and Green) with multiple candidates from each party. It might sound fair since everyone gets a shot, but the truth is different, see below:
In this chart we have a nation of 48 voters with one vote each, 4 parties, and each party has 3 candidates. The votes are tallied up and Candidate 1 of the Red party wins, but most of America is disappointed. Candidate 1 of the Red party only received 9 of the 48 votes! In a FPTP voting system, minority rules — only 19% of voters were properly represented. The other 81% of the nation were dissatisfied with this candidate. Not only that, but the minor parties (Yellow and Green) never stood a chance in the election because there are not enough voters to support them. This eventually leads to the Green and Yellow parties dissolving into one of the major parties that they most closely resemble (Red or Blue), and because of the lack of support, it discourages third or more parties from joining in the future.
A second reason that FPTP fails is because of Gerrymandering. Gerrymandering states that the way a city divides its voting districts can change the outcome of the election in favor of one party/candidate. It’s illegal, but it happens quite often because politics is really all about money. Here’s an example:
In the above city, you can see that there are 6 Blue voters and 5 Red voters, clearly the Blue voters win the city 3:2 by the districts. But by rearranging the district boundaries (Gerrymandering), the city can be won over by the Red voters 3:1, see below:
There are more reasons than these, but the “Winner takes all” system is flawed and always will be. With the amount of bright people that we have in this day and age, we should be able to devise a better system. Well actually, other systems have already been developed and we can list them here:
- Single Transferable Vote (STV)
- Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) System
- Additional Member System (AMS)
- Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR)
My vote goes to DPR or MMP voting systems. STV is more focused on making sure as many citizens as possible get the local representation that they want, and as a side-effect it gives slightly proportional representation, but it isn’t as effective as DPR or MMP.
DPR Voting can be explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOcVA0D4Gkg
MMP Voting can be explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU
STV vs MMP explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DNtsjB7L_I
For an article on proportional representation voting systems, check out this website: http://www.dprvoting.org/System_Comparison.htm
Here is a descriptive chart detailing the different voting systems (a screenshot from the above website).
For a video playlist to better understand different voting systems (but basically covers everything I just talked about), check out this playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYPDp5asmWLmIiTjrOTibDZYqk8SUz3tY
America is a great country, but it could be way better. My hope is that a more fair and equal voting system will be the spark that America needs to get back on its feet.
<Original work by BenBRockN. Feel free to reblog, ONLY if you give credit to the original author (me). Thanks!>
Here are four quotes that I think encompass the heart of someone who is willing to stand up for what is right, noble, and good, even if it means standing alone – The heart of a warrior of God. (the third one I thought of today):
— Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. (Revision of a quote by Edmond Burke)
— We do not fight because we hate what is in front of us, we fight because we love what is behind us. (Revision of a quote by G.K. Chesterton)
— “Fight on behalf of those who are weak. Protect those cannot defend themselves. Speak up for those whose voice is not heard. Be the light for others to follow in this dark world.” (myself)
— Choose this day whom you will serve: Whether you will serve the gods of this world: money, sex, power, or your own interests; or serve religion and traditions of men. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. (Revision of Joshua 24:15)
Recently, this video surfaced on Facebook revealing a “gun store” and provided “first-time gun owners” a glimpse into the “histories” of those guns. See here:
The video above is less a social experiment and more of an emotionally-charged scare tactic. The weapons or “guns” as they call them, all have horrible “histories” behind them and the “gun store owner” is extremely passionate about all of the murders and accidental killings involved with all of the “guns” and proceeds to tell all of the “potential first-time gun owners” all about them. Why is this video fake?
- The statistic in the beginning of the video has no sources, and even if it did, it is faulty logic. It said:”Over 60% of Americans think that owning a gun will make their lives safer. In fact, owning a gun increases the risk of homicide, suicide, and unintentional death”.Owning a car also increases the risk of homicide, suicide, and unintentional death. The reason is because both are dangerous objects if not used properly, especially if alcohol or drugs were used before driving.
- If an object can be to blame for people’s actions and retain a criminal history, then why are there not videos like this about knives, cars, swimming pools, baseball bats, and other things used in homicide or suicide? The point could be raised that none of those things “kill” as many people as “guns” do. But even with that point, if you blame one object for mass murder/destruction, then why aren’t all other similar objects to blame as well? According to the CDC’s statistics on abortion (see here: http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/) in just 2011, 730322 legal abortions took place. That is 730322 lives murdered in 2011, at the “fault” of surgical instruments. There is no video posted online about the histories of surgical instruments in gruesome detail.
A comment that has since been deleted said: Guns are “murder machines”.
Knowing that murder is an evil act where a person intentionally takes the life of another (whereas killing is a lesser act, and usually has some justifiable reason such as in defense of self or others, or for hunting for food), this can lead to one of two meanings:
- Guns are Evil
- Guns have the capacity to be used for Evil purposes
(1) cannot be true because firearms are not sentient beings. They have no understanding of “good” or “evil”. Firearms are tools used by humans. Humans, on the other hand, are sentient beings and have the mental capacity to do “good” or “evil” deeds. A human with a gun can use it constructively (such as defense of self or others against evil actions of another or wild animals, or for hunting for food) or they can use it destructively (such as murder of any life, human or animal). Therefore, firearms (or “guns”) cannot be Evil, but the user behind it can be evil or commit evil actions.
(2) can be true, but it is based on fuzzy logic. Can anything else in this world (inanimate objects) have the capacity to be used for Evil purposes? Yes, many things can, so this logic is flawed. An ordinary kitchen knife has been used in countless murders not only in America but globally as well. A kitchen knife’s purpose is a tool used in the kitchen to aid in preparation of food (constructive). Since it is sharp, it can also be used as a stabbing weapon (destructive). A MagLight flashlight is a very sturdy flashlight (constructive) but can be used as a bludgeoning weapon (destructive). A baseball bat has the purpose of hitting baseballs in the self-titled sport (constructive). A baseball bat can also be used as a bludgeoning weapon (destructive). The same can be said for a multitude of other inanimate objects.
The logic that Guns are “murder machines” is flawed in both examples. Some might say “But guns are used for the purpose of murder!”. One of the purposes of a firearm is to defend oneself or others, which can lead to death. But firearms are merely tools used by humans. You would not consider police and military members Evil just because they train on and use firearms. But for some reason, law-abiding citizens are considered crazy and dangerous if they own firearms (as portrayed by the video). Either ALL firearm owners/users are Evil or they are considered humans using tools to do their job (defense of self or others) and may either use them constructively (“good”) or destructively (“evil”). If ALL firearm owners/users are Evil because weapons have the capacity to do Evil, then all inanimate objects used in murders since the dawn of mankind, are also Evil since they had the capacity to do Evil and Evil was committed. So this list would be incredibly long and contain sticks, stones, bricks, logs, kitchen knives, sports equipment, pens, flashlights, firearms, etc… and ALL of them should be considered Evil and banned, but this is not the case, only “guns” are considered Evil (or have the ability to commit Evil acts) and have policies to ban them.
Not only that, but banning things that are considered evil do not deter people with evil intentions. The prohibition did not stop alcohol manufacturing or sales, the “War on Drugs” did not stop the manufacturing or sale of illegal drugs, and “Gun-Free Zones” do not stop humans with evil intentions from committing crimes. What did all three of these “banning solutions” accomplish? They stopped law-abiding citizens from using their freedoms, and the third ban caused many lives to be destroyed. The prohibition stopped law-abiding citizens from enjoying their alcoholic beverages, even though they did nothing wrong. The “War on Drugs” stopped law-abiding citizens from using medical marijuana to aid in their medical conditions, even though they did nothing wrong. The “Gun-Free Zones” stopped law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and others against humans with evil intentions, even though they did nothing wrong. Not only that, “Gun-Free Zones” fostered an area that was ripe for destruction because it punished good-guys-with-guns, and freely allowed bad-guys-with-guns to do as they please. Without the good-guys-with-guns around, the bad-guys-with-guns saw the opportunity to commit evil acts. It is the same way in the animal kingdom. When bats are around (good guys), mosquito populations (bad guys) dwindle, since the mosquitoes cannot fight back. But when bats are threatened by the environment or human interaction, the mosquito population rises because the bats (good guys) are not there to stop them. It is a simple balance of power.
Not only that, but the entire premise of the video is misleading. Let’s make a fake gun shop, to tell fake histories of firearms, to make an emotional (and illogical) connection that guns are bad because humans used them in a bad way in the past. Let’s do the same thing with an antique shop!
The store owner shows a woman a candlestick and then tells how it was used to violently kill Colonel Mustard. The store owner shows a man a butcher knife and tells him that it was the same one used by a horrific serial killer in 19 of his murders. The store owner then shows a woman an old bow and arrow set and exclaims that a native American child accidentally stumbled upon it because his parents didn’t lock it up in a bow and arrow case, and that the child used it to kill his brother on accident. All of these fabricated stories are emotionally charged and could easily be told with any inanimate object. It is illogical and asinine.
If police officers and military members are not seen as Evil, but forces necessary to protect the “good”, then law-abiding citizens with sufficient training should be given the same opportunity and right.
Since this is a blog about the Gospel, how does this current event relate to the Gospel?
This is Jesus’ words to the apostles when He was leaving them, and told them to protect themselves when He was away:
“Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” – Luke 22:36
Not only that, but we have two verses where a centurion (a roman solider) went to Jesus and John the Baptizer to ask something of them, and neither one told them to stop protecting innocent lives or to stop using weapons or to stop being soldiers: Matthew 8:5-13, Luke 3:12-14. They told them to have faith, not to intimidate anyone, and be content with their wages.
The last evidence that weapons are not evil and should be used to defend oneself or others, is found in Revelation 19:11-16, when Jesus comes riding back to earth on a horse with a sword in His hands and His angel army ready to fight Satan.
If guns are evil, then swords, spears, slings, and bow & arrows are also evil, which means that most of the Old Testament humans like King David are also evil, and the armies God commanded to defend Israel or to attack other neighboring countries are also evil, and lastly that would imply Jesus is evil because He will be coming back with a sword to defeat the King of Evil Satan — Which makes absolutely no sense, especially since Jesus said that evil cannot do good and good cannot do evil (Matthew 7:17-18), one person cannot serve two masters, both God and Corrupted things (Luke 16:13), and that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6).
The idea that inanimate objects are “bad” or “evil”, such as firearms, is completely illogical just like the video above.
Last but not least, some words of wisdom:
“Evil triumphs when good men do nothing” – paraphrased, Edmund Burke
A friend posted this article about the abortion debate. The only reason I chose to create a response to it was because the Gospel (or referred here as the religious view) was incorrectly represented. In addition, there were many false assumptions that I aim to correct here. This was the original article:
For the purposes of this paper, I am referring only to the abortion that affects the majority of the women who get them. I am not referring to the very small percentage of women that were raped and decided to not have the baby, or even the small percentage of young girls that have sex and have a baby very early in their lives and choose not to have it. Thank you.
“Third, talking about sex as a natural thing (not some act that needs to be punished … sheesh).”
I’m not so sure about this comment, but if it were referring to the Gospel, then I would response by saying read Song of Songs where it beautifully (and graphically) talks about sex as a natural thing and in no way indicates punishment. God created men and women and He created a way for them to procreate, and not only that, but have fun while doing so! Sex is not just for making babies, it is also a beautiful, intimate, and fun way to connect with your spouse.
“Because let’s also be honest, the religious view behind the anti-abortion movement has nothing to do with protecting “life”.”
If abortion takes a life, and anti-abortion tries to stop taking a life, then rationally, anti-abortion would be trying to protect life.
“If it did, why wouldn’t the movement care more about protecting kids once they were born? Why wouldn’t these people be in the streets fighting for pre- and post-natal care or reducing the infant mortality rate (the U.S. ranks last in the world among the 27 most developed countries in infant mortality)? Why wouldn’t they be fighting just as aggressively for education?”
This is a straw-man argument (see pre- and post-natal care, reducing infant mortality rate, and education) that tries to associate one theme with another that is not connected at all (If they were really pro-life they would care about XYZ). It is also creating a false assumption in that “the movement” has to care, or be in the know, or currently be active, in all other social issues in order to be relevant to the main topic (abortion).
“No, the issue is religion and control. The religious view is that sex out of marriage is immoral and that babies are an appropriate punishment for this act.”
Read Psalm 127:3, children are not a burden they are a blessing. In all actuality, wouldn’t abortion promote the idea that children are a burden? If children were not a burden, why go to such lengths to legally kill them? If the abortion advocates felt that children were a blessing, then they would advocate keeping them or giving them up to adoption, correct?
“Women need to be disciplined and deserve the consequences of their immorality.”
This only makes sense in the correct light, and here it is trying to show chauvinism and power over women, but to someone who understands the Gospel (or as it is called here, the religious view) it doesn’t make sense. The truth is that we are all bad and make mistakes in this life, those mistakes or intentional wrongdoings (both referred to as sin) which separates us from God. Sin = both Spiritual and Physical death (see Romans 6:23). So any sinful action is deserved, because you chose (or unintentionally chose) to do it. Even if it is unintentional, you have at some point in the past or in the future will, intentionally sin. This places everyone in the same boat. Everyone sins. So this sentence could be changed to “Men need to be disciplined and deserve the consequences of their immorality” and still hold true. The other point is that discipline = correction, not punishment. Stubbing your toe on the nightstand will take discipline to stop you from doing it again the next time. It is not punishment, or a negative reward for wrongdoing, it is corrective. Because of sin, because we all sin, we need God to help us (correct us). But we can’t get to God because sin separates us from Him, that’s why we have Jesus – to bridge the gap between us and God, and bring us back to Him. But to get back to this statement of false implications, no, it is not the woman’s fault and that they need to be corrected, or punished, or taken care of, because they had a baby out of wedlock. We all make choices, good and bad, and unfortunately in a broken world (because of sin) there are consequences of those actions, whether negative or positive. Stub toe? -> feel pain. Get a gift? -> feel happy. Have sex -> Get a baby. Is a baby a blessing or curse? It is a blessing from the Lord, even if you do not want it.
“The people behind the anti-abortion movement play an attacking game because they actually have a weak moral position.”
You just lumped everyone in the same category, and that category is “they play a game that attacks” and “they have a weak moral position”. Don’t abortion advocates and well, everyone else on the planet, do the same? I’m not saying it is right, but you can’t say “Look how bad they are, we would never do that” when in fact other people do.
“Avoid the framing of fetuses as “babies”.”
This is the major issue with the abortion debate. If fetus = baby and baby = human, then killing a fetus would mean killing a human. But if we call it a different name, like tissue or cells, then fetus does not equal baby or human. A sperm is not human, an egg is not human. Sperm have 23 chromosomes, eggs have 23 as well. Humans have 46 chromosomes. So when an sperm (23) attaches to an egg (23) you get a fetus (46), the same number of chromosomes that a human has (46). Even if a small minority of humans had an extra (or one less) chromosome due to genetic instability or variance (such as XXX, XXY, 45 chromosomes, etc…) they are still human, statistically this will occur in any species, but the majority of the human population has and will continue to have 46, the same number that a fertilized egg has.