Bio

I'm a professional illustrator, specializing in children's and comic style illustration, living with my wife and two kids in the great northwest. You can visit my website at www.micahchampion.com my portfolio and other examples of my work.


This section of Mantis9's profile is hidden.


People Following Mantis9

This section of Mantis9's profile is hidden.


Conversations Mantis9 is Following

This section of Mantis9's profile is hidden.


Conversations Mantis9 has Started (3)

Mantis9's Profile

Mantis9
Name:
Mantis9
Hometown:
Eugene, Oregon
Joined:
Feb 24, 2012

Recent Comments

Mantis9

I'm not clairvoyant. But, I am Batman.

Mantis9

I never want to celebrate my birthday, but my wife and family do. Why tick them off? Plus, I like the excuse of making others feel special.

Mantis9

Mine is a logo I conceived of after Mr. Robinson explained his interview strategy of placing his Uncommon Knowledge guests at ease. 

Mantis9

I'm entirely sympathetic to Libertarian positions on government, free markets, etc. And, yes, I do agree that persuasion is an essential ingredient to allying those with common cause.

The problem arises on a more personal level. As a SoCon, I see personal virtue, family life, and community as necessary to maintain individual freedoms. Now, of the libertarians I personally know some hold very similar understandings, but the majority do not. I do not mean that these persons are morally bankrupt or even bad company. They just seem to be of a devil-may-care attitude. Its a hedonism (especially the younger) or Epicurean-ism (among the older) shoved together free-market principles. Most, but not all, are atheist and most, but not all, are hostile toward religion.  

Here in my neighborhood, it just seems that Libertarian is a byword for socially liberal and economically conservative, which strikes me as at odds. I know that Libertarianism is a unique proposition, but if I knew nothing  about it academically, I'd believe it to be the government pulling down a cross and nominally regulating or taxing strip clubs. 

Mantis9

As a parent, to my shame, I've played thoughts like this woman's in my head, only I've struck those thoughts down. They're purposeless, evil thoughts that would have bestowed a miserable self-importance on me.  

I was 22 when I had Stuart, who was a placid and biddable baby. So, no, my feelings were not sparked by tiredness, nor by post-natal depression or even a passing spell of baby blues.

It seems people are waiting for life to be easy and fulfilling. These are at odds with each other. The worth of maternal/paternal relationships with your children is the honest effort we invest in them. Feelings are sparked because of tiredness, post-natal depression or a passing spell of baby blues--not in their absence--and become fully formed bonds. 

Mantis9
Valiuth: Government may not have a right to define marriage, marriage is defined by society at large. The problem SoCons are having is that society at large is changing its opinion about what marriage is. You can cry and argue all you want that they can't do that, but clearly they can and are. Thus the definition of marriage is in flux because society is in flux. The Government now is faced with two alternative meaning for the same word. They don't have any special competence in deciding which meaning is right, other than popular sentiment, and the Government need to have an operational meaning of the word because so many government benefits/rules refer to "marriage".  · 0 minutes ago

I believe your wrong on this point. Simply put, if society is capable of redefining the institution of marriage, that stands upon a tradition older than our rights, though deemed "self-evident" by our Declaration of Independence, than our rights are just as susceptible to redefining as marriage. 

To my libertarian friends, I believe this is the great con of the SSM debate. 

Mantis9

Honestly, I think Mr. Prager missed an opportunity here. Marriage isn't defined by government. For so long, it's been a no-brainer--until now. I'd liken it to Plato's forms. If I start referring to my dog as a cat, my sanity is questioned, not the template by which my dog actually fits. Likewise, governments are legitimized by guaranteeing rights that are self-evident. In other words, there are standards that are beyond humankind meddling for the good of humankind by our Creator. 

Mantis9
Britanicus: As an adult who benefits immensely from his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medicine, I'll offer a slightly different opinion. I was only diagnosed two years ago--well out of college--and I wish that I had gotten treatment as a little boy. I can't tell you how much of a difference it makes.

I second that. I was diagnosed with ADHD in my thirties. As a diagnoses it was a complete paradigm shift, explaining many, many behaviors (though not "bad" per se) that placed me at a disadvantage in school.

Additionally, Ritalin is a stimulate. It doesn't help anybody, especially boys, be more sedate if they don't have ADHD. It makes them worse! Also, it doesn't change the behavior of a person with ADHD, it simply helps them maintain focus. In my case, that meant I could read a paragraph once and retain the information, instead of repeatedly losing my place, reading it multiple times, and still forgetting what I just read.

For a thirty-seven year old, I'm still relatively hyper.

It's extremely weird for me to hear parents explain physical behavior in boys as ADHD.

See DocJay's advice above.

Mantis9

Pretty much anything by John Carpenter is a perfectly "good" bad movie. Well, yeah, sometimes they're just bad movies.

But. my all-time favorite movie isBig Trouble In Little China. Terrible John Wayne-esque dialog, horrible stereotype characters, bad kung fu, neon lit Chinese demon idol statues, Kim Catrall, James Hong as the Heavy. The only thing missing is Bolo Yeung. 

Ah, my brain is releasing endorphins.

Mantis9

The problem of scientific positivism, materialism, and naturalism are they are effective philosophies as long as the foundationala priori knowledge of our conscious mental states accurately reflect reality around us. This correlation between perception and reality is not likely based on these philosophies and they lack they intellectual tools to investigate this area of deficiency.

Mantis9

Ahh, superheroes.

First off, great podcast. Second, as a comic artist and lover of mostly gold and silver age heroes, I think its interesting to note how heroes act as stand-ins for political and philosophical outlooks. Superman began as a character that carried a lot of water for Roosevelt's New Deal Liberalism and like-minded progressive ideology of the era. Jonah Goldberg might have called Supes a liberal fascist. 

However, the two intrinsic qualities, it seems to me, that push superheroes to more conservative ends is 1) their exceptionalism and 2) their ethos.  The Incredibles explicitly speaks to 1) and captures 2).  

The postmodern morality experiment just doesn't play well with a character that stands for some form of justice, however that word is defined by the character. 

Edited on March 6, 2013 at 9:26pm
Mantis9

I find the whole "it's a parasite" meme disturbing. A baby is not a parasite. Why would you call a baby that? Did these young women identify themselves as parasites? 

Mantis9

I like Arthur Brooks' argument. The key, which he share on a past Ricochet podcast is to frame the debate in moral terms. I think conservatism is appealing, but I find a lot of conservatives, myself included sometimes, believe it something of a gnostic philosophy.  

Instead of buzzing through flow charts and academic manifestos as we're apt to do when expounding the virtues of conservatism, why not start with a simple, but obvious question: Who knows you best?

The answer shouldn't be the federal government. So, why should the federal government sap the monetary resources of those who know you the best (and, therefore, what you need) and care the most?

I'm sure there's a better formulation to the question, but I think it illustrates the most basic understanding of small government, low tax, moral engagement, and community building that conservatives champion. 

Mantis9
MJBubba: It sounds like the world is just as well off if these people never have offspring.  · 3 hours ago

You know, I took the post to mean more that selfishness is sort of purged from a young woman and man when they have children. I personally was surprise by how selfish, even if well-meaning, I was before I'd married and we'd had our first baby. The veil had been lifted. It was the Rumsfeldian "unknown unknown" I encountered. 

Now, with social mechanics not what they once were, there's little pressure to marry and have kids.  And, hence, the selfish man or woman saunters  through their life unenlightened to their condition.  Of course, there are other means to find this self-knowledge, but parenthood seems the naturally immediate avenue.  

I don't know. Maybe?

Edited on March 2, 2013 at 7:16am
Mantis9
Valiuth: I agree that sports are meant to bring out the best in us. But, there are many aspects of humanity that are good. At its heart I believe sports are meant to promote skill, determination, fair play, and cooperation. I do not think that kindness, charity, and compassion are not good things to teach or demonstrate, but I believe that they are not really demonstrated well in sports if doing so causes you to undermine the primary qualities of sport.

You're right. But, that's why this story is so good and heartfelt. Those qualities you describe of competition are demonstrably good. However, both the coach and the Franklin player, the fans, and both benches sacrificed these good things (things of value to them, personally) to uphold a greater good--the love of and toward a young man. 

It's singularity is sublime.

Mantis9

Does a traffic officer break the law if he breaks the speed limit? No. The officer has greater legal authority to carry out his duties. In the same way, God has greater moral authority, and more importantly, no one gives God duties or moral obligations.

Also, because He is the moral paradigm, His character being the locus of goodness, His wrath and jealousy gathers His creation to Him--the greatest Good. If I were to act jealous and wrathful, it would be for my gain, which, as a subordinate creature and morally flawed, would be a sin.

This argument is like exclaiming two men, one drunk and the other sober, the same in character because they both hoped into a car and drove home.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In