This morning, before heading to work, I grabbed a snow shovel and cleared the driveway and walks. As I labored, I noticed neighbors walking behind snow blowers effortlessly spreading snow away from the cement. My back hurt. My shoulder hurt. Boy, would it have been nice to have a snowblower too.
Wait a minute...just a second...I should have a snow blower. I deserve a snow blower. To struggle with a shovel, what, with my back, my shoulder, in what kind of country do we live? Its not fair.
I have an idea: a snow blower tax. Levy a tax against those with snowblowers, those fortunate and lucky enough to live the life of luxury. Its only proper for them to give a little back to the community. With the moneys raised, the government could assist those in need...like me.
Think about it. Inevitably, children walk on the sidewalks. If the walks aren't cleared, they could slip and fall.
You don't think I deserve and need a snow blower? Then you must want bad things to happen to the poor little children? I knew it!!! You want them to slip, to fall, to hurt themselves.
Wait a minute...I have a better idea. Jesus said that we are supposed to help others. It is only morally just that those with snow blowers take the time to remove the snow for those without such modern conveniences. When my neighbors saw me struggling, what with my back, and my shoulder, they, in order to spread the love of Christ, should have marched over to my driveway and helped.
My wife is pregnant. The ice and snow present a dangerous risk to her and the baby. If my neighbors were only doing what Jesus instructed them to do, I wouldn't have to worry. But what if they don't? What if they choose not to help, not to clear my sidewalks? What could happen to my wife, my unborn child?
A law. We must have a law. For the sake of the women, the children, legislation must be drafted
immediately. Not a second to lose. Maybe an executive order might do the trick. Regardless, we must require snow blower owners, for the good of society, to assist those without snowblowers. The "haves" helping the "have nots". Those with "the ability" giving to those with "the need".
Are you saying that we cannot force those with snow blowers to help those with shovels? I am incredulous!! You hate pregnant women and unborn children too!! I'm disgusted, and anyway, I have to go and petition some legislators...
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Christmas Lights
In high school, I refused to join any of the "anti-drug" organizations. Why? Because I couldn't stomach the hypocrisy. At that time, I didn't touch any drugs or alcohol (boy, did that change later...), yet, those in DARE, SADD, etc. were some of the biggest alcoholic and/or pot-heads in the town. You're going to sit there and lecture me about the vices of substance abuse when you drink like a fish???!!!
What brought back this memory 18 years later? Christmas lights.
Tonight, driving back to the apartment, scenes of Christmas shone from seemingly every other house. Lights in trees, lights on the roof. Electric powered snow globes. Santa and all his reindeer flying through the yard. When the sun goes down, the power grid has to take a hit like a 100 degree day in July.
It was nice. I like Christmas. I like the season, the music, and the lights. If people want to spend money on these things, good for them. None of my business. The decorations are nice to view on the way home.
All the extension cords, the bulbs, the Frosty The Snowman, they got me thinking. How many of these people with property lit up like a scene from Christmas Vacation are the same people who, in November, voted for politicians who are proposing draconian measures (aka "Cap and Trade") in order to "save the environment"? How many of these individuals worship anything "green" and lecture me for criticizing?
On March 28th of this last year, we had "Earth Hour" around the world where millions of people turned off there lights in order to save the planet. I said it was retarded. I was labeled a heretic. Now I wonder how many trains of coal is it going to take to power all the Christmas lights and ornaments of our save-the-earth super heroes?
I am so sick of this crap. At the top are the elitists who make the rules for everyone else while they enjoy the finer things. It applies to us but not to them. For the most part, this "green thing" is no different from how religion and ideologies have been used throughout history - a way for the powerful to manage the masses.
Moving down the socio-economic latter are many who say and do things to "feel better" about themselves. Do they ever dig in and actually study the data? Read different opinions and research? No, it is much easier to swallow the propaganda, turn one's lights out for an hour and feel like he is "saving the planet", forget the fact that his Christmas lights will use more energy than some third world villages in a year.
People, I don't care if you want to talk to the tree in your back yard. I don't care if you want to dress it in the festive garb of the season. All I'm asking for is just a bit of consistency. You make me dizzy.
What brought back this memory 18 years later? Christmas lights.
Tonight, driving back to the apartment, scenes of Christmas shone from seemingly every other house. Lights in trees, lights on the roof. Electric powered snow globes. Santa and all his reindeer flying through the yard. When the sun goes down, the power grid has to take a hit like a 100 degree day in July.
It was nice. I like Christmas. I like the season, the music, and the lights. If people want to spend money on these things, good for them. None of my business. The decorations are nice to view on the way home.
All the extension cords, the bulbs, the Frosty The Snowman, they got me thinking. How many of these people with property lit up like a scene from Christmas Vacation are the same people who, in November, voted for politicians who are proposing draconian measures (aka "Cap and Trade") in order to "save the environment"? How many of these individuals worship anything "green" and lecture me for criticizing?
On March 28th of this last year, we had "Earth Hour" around the world where millions of people turned off there lights in order to save the planet. I said it was retarded. I was labeled a heretic. Now I wonder how many trains of coal is it going to take to power all the Christmas lights and ornaments of our save-the-earth super heroes?
I am so sick of this crap. At the top are the elitists who make the rules for everyone else while they enjoy the finer things. It applies to us but not to them. For the most part, this "green thing" is no different from how religion and ideologies have been used throughout history - a way for the powerful to manage the masses.
Moving down the socio-economic latter are many who say and do things to "feel better" about themselves. Do they ever dig in and actually study the data? Read different opinions and research? No, it is much easier to swallow the propaganda, turn one's lights out for an hour and feel like he is "saving the planet", forget the fact that his Christmas lights will use more energy than some third world villages in a year.
People, I don't care if you want to talk to the tree in your back yard. I don't care if you want to dress it in the festive garb of the season. All I'm asking for is just a bit of consistency. You make me dizzy.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
No More
A recent Rassmusen poll said that only 36% of Americans support the health care bill, having passed the House, making its way through the Senate ("Health Care Reform)". The same report claimed that 56% oppose it.
Question: Why are the politicians still trying to slam it through?
On November 17th, Rassmusen published a poll where 51% of those surveyed disagreed with the decision to try terrorists in civilian courts on American soil ("51% Oppose Decision To Try Terrorists in New York City"). They are going to do it anyway.
In the past few weeks, I have encountered many who are disgusted with the unprecedented brazen attempts at redesigning the American way of life. Ten years ago, only the conspiracy theorists leveled accusations of "socialists" and "communists". Now, politicians and "news" media boldly champion the ideas of Karl Marx. As Dennis Miller made the point today, when it comes to fighting terrorists, the progressive crowd has better things to do; when a 17-year-old girl shows up to a book signing with a Sarah Palin t-shirt, it's "on like Donkey Kong" ("Norah Comes Armed With Notes To Debate Palin Fan"). It is surreal.
Question: If so many Americans disapprove of the policies promulgated by those they voted in power, why did they vote them in power?
The answer the the latter question is complex with numerous explanations (see "Anybody Out There" for this writer's related thoughts).
The answer to the first is this: they don't care what we think. They are not afraid of us.
Why should a politician be afraid of his constituents? Because they are supposed to be "public servants" who serve at the will of the people. In a republic, when the leaders fail to represent the interests of the masses, the masses are supposed to vote them out of office. Yet we do not.
I am guilty. It is people like me that have empowered them to scoff at our discontent, to tell us with a smile that "2+2=4" because they said it does.
In the last election, I was afraid, afraid of what Obama and his crew would do to this country. Even though I detested McCain, I fell in line. I voted against Obama's promised policies fearing the irreparable damage they would do to this nation.
The same happens on the other side and among the "independents". They like the way he speaks. Its time for a "change". I'm a Democrat so I must vote for the democrat. Not many really vote what they believe anymore.
Even now, as conservatives and libertarians clamor for revival, for a return to the principals of the Founding Fathers, they warn us against third-party voting. A nail in the coffin. A guaranteed loss. But what are we gaining? Rarely is there difference between a Democrat and a Republican. One believes in government run everything, the other believes in...well...government run everything.
No longer should doctors make medical decisions. That is best left to the politicians. No longer should entrepreneurs and private business move the economy. That is best left to the politicians.
ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The time comes when one must spit out the "lukewarm". In the words of Christ, I would rather that they were "hot" or "cold", and quite honestly, many are showing that they are cold. Where is the "hot"?
Republicans be damned!!! Democrats be damned!!! Its time to support principals and not parties. No longer will I whore myself out to stop the evil by voting for the lesser evil.
God gave us freedom. The country was founded on the concept of liberty. It was the tyrannies of government that immigrants fled from Europe for a new life.
For those politicians, and this is most in present existence, who seek power, who seek money, who seek re-election, I have no use for you. I am not interested. Your flowery rhetoric, your promised security will fall on my deaf ears. You sirens will not lure me off course. No longer will I play not to lose.
America, wake up!!! They are taking you for granted. You don't want this health care bill. You don't want the cap-and-trade legislation. With one eye open, you are taking notice, but that is not enough. They are counting on your slumber. History says you will continue to vote against your own interests, and that while you are angered now, you will get back in line later.
Show them wrong!!! Get involved. Pay attention. Turn off the sitcoms and read some news. See what is going on. Soon it will be too late...
Question: Why are the politicians still trying to slam it through?
On November 17th, Rassmusen published a poll where 51% of those surveyed disagreed with the decision to try terrorists in civilian courts on American soil ("51% Oppose Decision To Try Terrorists in New York City"). They are going to do it anyway.
In the past few weeks, I have encountered many who are disgusted with the unprecedented brazen attempts at redesigning the American way of life. Ten years ago, only the conspiracy theorists leveled accusations of "socialists" and "communists". Now, politicians and "news" media boldly champion the ideas of Karl Marx. As Dennis Miller made the point today, when it comes to fighting terrorists, the progressive crowd has better things to do; when a 17-year-old girl shows up to a book signing with a Sarah Palin t-shirt, it's "on like Donkey Kong" ("Norah Comes Armed With Notes To Debate Palin Fan"). It is surreal.
Question: If so many Americans disapprove of the policies promulgated by those they voted in power, why did they vote them in power?
The answer the the latter question is complex with numerous explanations (see "Anybody Out There" for this writer's related thoughts).
The answer to the first is this: they don't care what we think. They are not afraid of us.
Why should a politician be afraid of his constituents? Because they are supposed to be "public servants" who serve at the will of the people. In a republic, when the leaders fail to represent the interests of the masses, the masses are supposed to vote them out of office. Yet we do not.
I am guilty. It is people like me that have empowered them to scoff at our discontent, to tell us with a smile that "2+2=4" because they said it does.
In the last election, I was afraid, afraid of what Obama and his crew would do to this country. Even though I detested McCain, I fell in line. I voted against Obama's promised policies fearing the irreparable damage they would do to this nation.
The same happens on the other side and among the "independents". They like the way he speaks. Its time for a "change". I'm a Democrat so I must vote for the democrat. Not many really vote what they believe anymore.
Even now, as conservatives and libertarians clamor for revival, for a return to the principals of the Founding Fathers, they warn us against third-party voting. A nail in the coffin. A guaranteed loss. But what are we gaining? Rarely is there difference between a Democrat and a Republican. One believes in government run everything, the other believes in...well...government run everything.
No longer should doctors make medical decisions. That is best left to the politicians. No longer should entrepreneurs and private business move the economy. That is best left to the politicians.
ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The time comes when one must spit out the "lukewarm". In the words of Christ, I would rather that they were "hot" or "cold", and quite honestly, many are showing that they are cold. Where is the "hot"?
Republicans be damned!!! Democrats be damned!!! Its time to support principals and not parties. No longer will I whore myself out to stop the evil by voting for the lesser evil.
God gave us freedom. The country was founded on the concept of liberty. It was the tyrannies of government that immigrants fled from Europe for a new life.
For those politicians, and this is most in present existence, who seek power, who seek money, who seek re-election, I have no use for you. I am not interested. Your flowery rhetoric, your promised security will fall on my deaf ears. You sirens will not lure me off course. No longer will I play not to lose.
America, wake up!!! They are taking you for granted. You don't want this health care bill. You don't want the cap-and-trade legislation. With one eye open, you are taking notice, but that is not enough. They are counting on your slumber. History says you will continue to vote against your own interests, and that while you are angered now, you will get back in line later.
Show them wrong!!! Get involved. Pay attention. Turn off the sitcoms and read some news. See what is going on. Soon it will be too late...
Saturday, September 26, 2009
A Rare Occasion
There are not many adults left in this world. This last Thursday, at the UN conference, we had the rare occasion to hear from one. Benjamin Netanyahu. Like a parent arriving to a chaotic scene of children running rampant sans any form of self discipline, Netanyahu brought a few moments of sanity, reason, and goodness to a gathering of tyrants and dictators, many of whom would be in prison for violent felonies in this country.
In the last few months, it has been appalling to hear the rhetoric of those who have chastised others who disagree with the President's policies. It is one thing to argue the issues, it is another to label free speech as dangerous and imply that it needs to be censored.
Recently, my mother said that I should listen to Glenn Beck, that his program is outstanding. I have. I love it. Would you like to know what I like the most about it? I agree with just about everything he says, but that is not it. It is how he counsels his listeners to engage the world around us. Over and over, he stresses that even though we may resent the actions and policies of others, we must always remain respectful, that our behavior should be impeccable.
And this is what I really love about Beck's program. Over and over, unlike other "conservative" talk-show hosts (with whom I often agree), he flat-out says that we need to get on our knees and pray. And it is not a prayer to have God implement the political policies that we want, it is a prayer that acknowledges our own fallible humanity and recognizes the awesomeness of the Creator, a prayer that seeks God's guidance. At times, I feel like I'm listening to a sermon.
Imagine my shock when I hear politicians and the main-stream press saying that Beck encourages hate and violence, that his speech is dangerous. Are we not listening to the same program?
Getting back to my point, this is what I'm trying to contrast:
Watch a tea-party protest.
Watch another protest.
Note: those were pro-health care reform people attacking a protester.
Watch another protest.
Note: In this case a moveon.org "anti-demonstrator" charged across the street after a protester and, in the scuffle, he bit off his finger...
Watch a G20-summit protest.
Note: protesters destroyed private property and it has been reported that they chanted "eat the rich!!".
Where do you see the violence?
We decry the tea-party protesters labeling their events as violent and dangerous. We are silent about the G20 Summit protesters (and in some case people support it, see the video) who are breaking things and chanting "eat the rich". CNN said that a man referring to Abraham Lincoln in a calm and collected manner is not suitable for children to view (see the video); however, a man who claims that the Holocaust never happened, a man who openly says that he wants to wipe the Jews off the map, has the privilege to address the UN assembly. Where is the balance? Thank you for the clarity and perspective, Benjamin Netanyahu:
In the last few months, it has been appalling to hear the rhetoric of those who have chastised others who disagree with the President's policies. It is one thing to argue the issues, it is another to label free speech as dangerous and imply that it needs to be censored.
Recently, my mother said that I should listen to Glenn Beck, that his program is outstanding. I have. I love it. Would you like to know what I like the most about it? I agree with just about everything he says, but that is not it. It is how he counsels his listeners to engage the world around us. Over and over, he stresses that even though we may resent the actions and policies of others, we must always remain respectful, that our behavior should be impeccable.
And this is what I really love about Beck's program. Over and over, unlike other "conservative" talk-show hosts (with whom I often agree), he flat-out says that we need to get on our knees and pray. And it is not a prayer to have God implement the political policies that we want, it is a prayer that acknowledges our own fallible humanity and recognizes the awesomeness of the Creator, a prayer that seeks God's guidance. At times, I feel like I'm listening to a sermon.
Imagine my shock when I hear politicians and the main-stream press saying that Beck encourages hate and violence, that his speech is dangerous. Are we not listening to the same program?
Getting back to my point, this is what I'm trying to contrast:
Watch a tea-party protest.
Watch another protest.
Note: those were pro-health care reform people attacking a protester.
Watch another protest.
Note: In this case a moveon.org "anti-demonstrator" charged across the street after a protester and, in the scuffle, he bit off his finger...
Watch a G20-summit protest.
Note: protesters destroyed private property and it has been reported that they chanted "eat the rich!!".
Where do you see the violence?
We decry the tea-party protesters labeling their events as violent and dangerous. We are silent about the G20 Summit protesters (and in some case people support it, see the video) who are breaking things and chanting "eat the rich". CNN said that a man referring to Abraham Lincoln in a calm and collected manner is not suitable for children to view (see the video); however, a man who claims that the Holocaust never happened, a man who openly says that he wants to wipe the Jews off the map, has the privilege to address the UN assembly. Where is the balance? Thank you for the clarity and perspective, Benjamin Netanyahu:
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Coexistence
Those who seek sustenance from government sometimes accuse those who do not as being prideful and arrogant. Being one who does not, I shouldn't react to such logical fallacies (a False Dilemma in this case); however, the number of "Christians" who think that Jesus was referring to state social programs when He said, "Whatever you did for one of the least of these..." has exposed a nerve.
Why does this sentiment anger me so? While listening to Dr. Walter Williams on a recorded radio broadcast last Saturday, it hit me. In the cloak of caring and compassion for one's fellow man, there is a movement in Christian circles that exploits other "fellow men" while trampling on the Eighth of the Ten Commandments.
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. Pretty clear. Not much "gray" room. As Dr. Williams said on the radio, there's no caveats. God did not say, "don't steal except when you need to help someone." He did not include, "don't take what doesn't belong to you, unless you think someone else shouldn't have it or doesn't deserve it." Maybe He could have said, "okay, leave the property of another alone, except if the "another" is greedy. If he hordes his money and doesn't use it for good, then you can take it."
Williams said it best:
Bravo Dr. Williams!!
That's so "Old Testament" you say. Well, lets jump forward to Christ's earthly ministry as recorded in the "New Testament". List one time Christ even remotely implied that believers should help the poor, the sick, and the widows by confiscating the wealth of others. It didn't happen.
Instead, Jesus frequently petitioned His followers to willfully disregard their material possessions and follow Him. In one case, He prompted a wealthy man to sell all he owned, give it to the poor, and then follow Him (Matthew 19:16-28). The scripture says that the man "went away sad" leading readers to conclude that he choose to keep his wealth. This is important: HE HAD THE CHOICE.
All throughout the Gospels, the scope of Christ's instructions encompassed the individual and his property, not that of others. It is what irritated the Pharisees. He spoke directly to them, to their responsibilities. The Pharisee's thrived by exposing the inadequate efforts of those around them attempting to follow the law. It was often the Pharisee's obsessive need to qualify the "holy" performance of others that Jesus chastised.
Jesus spoke directly to the heart of the individual. The message was simple: follow Me. Sometimes it included walking off the job (Matthew 4:18-22). Another time, it meant missing a father's burial (Matthew 8:18-22). Never did He say to stop at the "evil" corporate neighbor's house and grab some cash for the cause. Actually, there isn't one instance where Christ or any of the apostles even hinted that Christians should consider the wealth of others. It was always right at the individual. YOU give to the needy. YOU help widows. YOU! YOU!! YOU!!!
Don't worry about others. Don't wait for them. You are accountable for your "talents" (Matthew 25:14-28). You will answer to the Master of the house. Did either of the two "faithful" servants deem it proper to dig up and assume ownership of that which had been assigned to the "foolish" servant?
Current culture colors wealth confiscation methods masterfully, but ultimately it always boils down to taking from those whom we have determined don't "need" it, and giving it to those whom we have concluded that do. Maybe I have such a distaste for this practice because, from a scriptural perspective, when I am compelled to spread Christ's love, I take inventory of what He has given to me. What is it that I have that I can give to others? Another man's property is not on my radar. No matter how noble my intentions, I cannot bring myself to justify stealing for the "greater good". If God decides that action is necessary, rest assured, He will take what He so desires and "redistribute" it Himself.
*************************************
Another tenet of this issue that I cannot swallow are those "Christians" who want to have the redistributed wealth. Dr. Williams finished the quote above by saying, "...if you [Christians] were to say to God, 'well, I know You say thou shalt not steal, but is it okay to be a recipient of stolen property?'" It is not pride or arrogance that will not allow me to take money from the government. There are three things standing in the way.
The first is this and is quite simple: I will not take what doesn't belong to me. Would I let someone help me who chose to do so? If I needed it, yes, over and over again. Sometimes we give the help. Sometimes God sends us the help. If I'm hungry, and someone wants to give me a sandwich, I'll eat it. If I'm homeless, and someone is kind enough to put a roof over my head, I will sleep there. If I'm cold and naked, and someone offers me a shirt nobly yet unlawfully taken from his rich neighbor's house, forgive me, but I will take my chances in the elements.
The second is this: if God made me an able-bodied person, one who has the ability, while still suffering at times, to provide for my family, yet I choose to take "assistance" because things are difficult, because they are "not fair", because I am entitled, how many truly needy people will suffer because I was not willing to suck it up and struggle through the hard times. What happens when no food is left at the soup kitchen for the mentally retarded paraplegic because I got in line before he did?
The final reason is this: the physical suffering in this world pales in comparison to that of the next. Both fiction and non-fiction overflows with deals with the devil. Had Faust truly considered what it meant to let the devil into his house, would he really have entertained the promise of knowledge and understanding?
It is one of Satan's "oldest tricks in the book." He offers what we want, what we need, but there is a stipulation, a quid pro quo. The devil offered the kingdoms of the earth to Jesus...if He would just bow down and submit to him (Matthew 4:1-11).
When one human being gives to another out of love, he does not expect repayment; there are no strings attached. When the government gives handouts, it is the soul that it seeks. It needs you to need it. It needs you to realize that a vote for the wrong person or party, regardless of related character and platforms, will mean you are cut off, you could starve, you won't have health care, no retirement, etc., etc.. The government will feed you, it will be your doctor. It will do just about whatever you desire. But it expects, no it demands your dependency and devotion.
What I'm trying to say is that we can, we should keep the eighth commandment (Old Testament). I'm also saying that we have been commissioned by Jesus Christ to help others (New Testament). These two guidelines are not mutually exclusive. In the life of a Christian, they can, they should co-exist.
Why does this sentiment anger me so? While listening to Dr. Walter Williams on a recorded radio broadcast last Saturday, it hit me. In the cloak of caring and compassion for one's fellow man, there is a movement in Christian circles that exploits other "fellow men" while trampling on the Eighth of the Ten Commandments.
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. Pretty clear. Not much "gray" room. As Dr. Williams said on the radio, there's no caveats. God did not say, "don't steal except when you need to help someone." He did not include, "don't take what doesn't belong to you, unless you think someone else shouldn't have it or doesn't deserve it." Maybe He could have said, "okay, leave the property of another alone, except if the "another" is greedy. If he hordes his money and doesn't use it for good, then you can take it."
Williams said it best:
...helping your fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable, but under only one circumstance. That is when you reach into your own pockets to help your fellow man in need, that is praiseworthy and laudable. When you reach into somebody else's pockets to help your fellow man in need, that is despicable and worthy of condemnation...I'm very sure that when God gave Moses the commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Steal", He did not mean that thou shalt not steal unless you've got a majority vote in Congress.
Bravo Dr. Williams!!
That's so "Old Testament" you say. Well, lets jump forward to Christ's earthly ministry as recorded in the "New Testament". List one time Christ even remotely implied that believers should help the poor, the sick, and the widows by confiscating the wealth of others. It didn't happen.
Instead, Jesus frequently petitioned His followers to willfully disregard their material possessions and follow Him. In one case, He prompted a wealthy man to sell all he owned, give it to the poor, and then follow Him (Matthew 19:16-28). The scripture says that the man "went away sad" leading readers to conclude that he choose to keep his wealth. This is important: HE HAD THE CHOICE.
All throughout the Gospels, the scope of Christ's instructions encompassed the individual and his property, not that of others. It is what irritated the Pharisees. He spoke directly to them, to their responsibilities. The Pharisee's thrived by exposing the inadequate efforts of those around them attempting to follow the law. It was often the Pharisee's obsessive need to qualify the "holy" performance of others that Jesus chastised.
Jesus spoke directly to the heart of the individual. The message was simple: follow Me. Sometimes it included walking off the job (Matthew 4:18-22). Another time, it meant missing a father's burial (Matthew 8:18-22). Never did He say to stop at the "evil" corporate neighbor's house and grab some cash for the cause. Actually, there isn't one instance where Christ or any of the apostles even hinted that Christians should consider the wealth of others. It was always right at the individual. YOU give to the needy. YOU help widows. YOU! YOU!! YOU!!!
Don't worry about others. Don't wait for them. You are accountable for your "talents" (Matthew 25:14-28). You will answer to the Master of the house. Did either of the two "faithful" servants deem it proper to dig up and assume ownership of that which had been assigned to the "foolish" servant?
Current culture colors wealth confiscation methods masterfully, but ultimately it always boils down to taking from those whom we have determined don't "need" it, and giving it to those whom we have concluded that do. Maybe I have such a distaste for this practice because, from a scriptural perspective, when I am compelled to spread Christ's love, I take inventory of what He has given to me. What is it that I have that I can give to others? Another man's property is not on my radar. No matter how noble my intentions, I cannot bring myself to justify stealing for the "greater good". If God decides that action is necessary, rest assured, He will take what He so desires and "redistribute" it Himself.
*************************************
Another tenet of this issue that I cannot swallow are those "Christians" who want to have the redistributed wealth. Dr. Williams finished the quote above by saying, "...if you [Christians] were to say to God, 'well, I know You say thou shalt not steal, but is it okay to be a recipient of stolen property?'" It is not pride or arrogance that will not allow me to take money from the government. There are three things standing in the way.
The first is this and is quite simple: I will not take what doesn't belong to me. Would I let someone help me who chose to do so? If I needed it, yes, over and over again. Sometimes we give the help. Sometimes God sends us the help. If I'm hungry, and someone wants to give me a sandwich, I'll eat it. If I'm homeless, and someone is kind enough to put a roof over my head, I will sleep there. If I'm cold and naked, and someone offers me a shirt nobly yet unlawfully taken from his rich neighbor's house, forgive me, but I will take my chances in the elements.
The second is this: if God made me an able-bodied person, one who has the ability, while still suffering at times, to provide for my family, yet I choose to take "assistance" because things are difficult, because they are "not fair", because I am entitled, how many truly needy people will suffer because I was not willing to suck it up and struggle through the hard times. What happens when no food is left at the soup kitchen for the mentally retarded paraplegic because I got in line before he did?
The final reason is this: the physical suffering in this world pales in comparison to that of the next. Both fiction and non-fiction overflows with deals with the devil. Had Faust truly considered what it meant to let the devil into his house, would he really have entertained the promise of knowledge and understanding?
It is one of Satan's "oldest tricks in the book." He offers what we want, what we need, but there is a stipulation, a quid pro quo. The devil offered the kingdoms of the earth to Jesus...if He would just bow down and submit to him (Matthew 4:1-11).
When one human being gives to another out of love, he does not expect repayment; there are no strings attached. When the government gives handouts, it is the soul that it seeks. It needs you to need it. It needs you to realize that a vote for the wrong person or party, regardless of related character and platforms, will mean you are cut off, you could starve, you won't have health care, no retirement, etc., etc.. The government will feed you, it will be your doctor. It will do just about whatever you desire. But it expects, no it demands your dependency and devotion.
What I'm trying to say is that we can, we should keep the eighth commandment (Old Testament). I'm also saying that we have been commissioned by Jesus Christ to help others (New Testament). These two guidelines are not mutually exclusive. In the life of a Christian, they can, they should co-exist.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Hatred
Truth exists independently from the medium that proclaims it. A logical conclusion, whether from the mouth of a fool or a genius, by definition, owes nothing to that which publicizes it. Two plus two equals four. This equation, if uttered by a saint, is true. If stated by a convicted murder, it is true. Dumb-smart. Evil-good. Talented-incompetent. It always is true: 2+2=4.
Seems obvious, yet it isn't, at least not anymore. People ignore the truth for a plethora of reasons; however, here I want to specifically explore one that blinds millions: the polarizing hatred of an individual or an entity that disables one's intellect.
Before casting stones, I have looked inward for potential prejudices, for any selective conclusions. I have searched for beliefs based not on sound reasoning, but formed as a reaction. Have there been instances where someone said "zig" so I said "zag"? A foe suggested night so I chose day? Have I ever, because of my feelings toward an individual or a personality, flavored my ideologies with my distaste for another's views.
Is this making sense? Maybe not, and that is the problem. It doesn't make sense, and I, at this point, am not able to relate. Especially recently, I have experienced and observed instances where a person or people ride a merry-go-round of thoughts. In one context, a discussion leads one to avow conservative principles: those of liberty, and individual rights. Point to a recent news story that reveals the communist leanings of a newly appointed "Czar" and hear a friend claim disapproval. Mention that Fox News reported the story, and see him defend the appointment with religious zeal.
Call attention to specific Orwellian tenets of the recent health care bill, and the room fills with rage. Reveal that one first heard about these oversteps of power from Glenn Beck and find the same room filled with Barack Obama sycophants.
I don't hate Barack Obama. I disagree with just about every one of his policies. If he were to announce tomorrow that, instead of more government intrusions, he had decided to pursue tax breaks for charitable contributions, I would cheer from the rooftop. His approval ratings, his electability are not my concern. I want what is right. How he would benefit or suffer is not on the radar.
How can we develop good and just policies when so many people color their perceptions with emotional reactions to the person? Truth is not affected by those who report if or subscribe to it; however, when a simple emotional appeal can send so many astray, vertigo is nearly unavoidable for those who think.
Seems obvious, yet it isn't, at least not anymore. People ignore the truth for a plethora of reasons; however, here I want to specifically explore one that blinds millions: the polarizing hatred of an individual or an entity that disables one's intellect.
Before casting stones, I have looked inward for potential prejudices, for any selective conclusions. I have searched for beliefs based not on sound reasoning, but formed as a reaction. Have there been instances where someone said "zig" so I said "zag"? A foe suggested night so I chose day? Have I ever, because of my feelings toward an individual or a personality, flavored my ideologies with my distaste for another's views.
Is this making sense? Maybe not, and that is the problem. It doesn't make sense, and I, at this point, am not able to relate. Especially recently, I have experienced and observed instances where a person or people ride a merry-go-round of thoughts. In one context, a discussion leads one to avow conservative principles: those of liberty, and individual rights. Point to a recent news story that reveals the communist leanings of a newly appointed "Czar" and hear a friend claim disapproval. Mention that Fox News reported the story, and see him defend the appointment with religious zeal.
Call attention to specific Orwellian tenets of the recent health care bill, and the room fills with rage. Reveal that one first heard about these oversteps of power from Glenn Beck and find the same room filled with Barack Obama sycophants.
I don't hate Barack Obama. I disagree with just about every one of his policies. If he were to announce tomorrow that, instead of more government intrusions, he had decided to pursue tax breaks for charitable contributions, I would cheer from the rooftop. His approval ratings, his electability are not my concern. I want what is right. How he would benefit or suffer is not on the radar.
How can we develop good and just policies when so many people color their perceptions with emotional reactions to the person? Truth is not affected by those who report if or subscribe to it; however, when a simple emotional appeal can send so many astray, vertigo is nearly unavoidable for those who think.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Down and Out
Its been over a month since the last posting here. Nothing to say? No, that's not it. No time? No, we make time for what is important. So what has happened?
The last entry was July 4th ("Independence Day"), a day to celebrate freedom and liberty. Please forgive the excuses, but I am in shock at the state of the nation. I have fallen and I can't get up. The daily decrees and declarations out of Washington has numbed the mind. Liberty? Independence? No, I am drowning in socialism. The depression, the sadness, it comes from this: many of the people with whom I speak about these issues fall into one of three categories which include ignorance, apathy, and assent.
The ignorant ones are people that simply don't know. They are like children. A child cannot think past his or her own wants. He wants a toy and he wants it now. He does not compare his parents' income and expenses to determine if it is a prudent purchase. He does not consider how it will affect his welfare or that of his siblings. It is tunnel vision. The child's scope of awareness does not extend beyond Freud's Id. "I want that GI Joe action figure now. I need it." To these individuals, Marx's "to each according to his need" concept is all that is necessary.
The second group is one of apathy; its membership simply doesn't care. Those under this umbrella have social sites overflowing with fantasy applications and top ten lists. Ask them for the name of the recently confirmed Supreme Court nominee and prepare for a blank, glassy stare. Ask them what new sitcoms come out in the fall and be prepared to stay for a while. Rome is burning, yet they have no idea because they are in the basement watching the Home Shopping Network.
The third group terrifies me the most. The assentors are those who see what is happening, understand that principles of socialism are antithetical to those of liberty, and this is what they choose. To them, maybe Marx was more right than Jefferson and Madison. They perceive freedoms posed by capitalism and free markets as the root of all evil. These seek to bring a Utopian balance to the world through "good intended" impositions. Identifying their policies in the Communist Manifesto are no longer met with contention, rather prideful concession.
There actually is a fourth group, and it is surreal. It often includes those in the first three. It is religious in nature. It's prophet and leader is the current US President. Underneath him are myriads of priests who conduct ceremonies in their temples: the House of Representatives and the Senate. There are other temples around the world: the UN, the British Parliament, the World Court. Underneath the clergy are uncountable minions and sycophants. They worship the creation but not The Creator. They have a "form of godliness but [deny] its power" (II Timothy 3:5).
Of all the groups, it is the third and the fourth for which a physical solution remains hidden to this writer. A tenacious campaign of intellectual discourse and debate may win a very select few, but when the majority not only disregards logic and reason, but rather loathes them as obstacles, elements of argument are sterilized. Ultimately and fundamentally, the only thing left to do is what God asked us to do, that is to pray.
I will continue to write, but most importantly, I will pray.
The last entry was July 4th ("Independence Day"), a day to celebrate freedom and liberty. Please forgive the excuses, but I am in shock at the state of the nation. I have fallen and I can't get up. The daily decrees and declarations out of Washington has numbed the mind. Liberty? Independence? No, I am drowning in socialism. The depression, the sadness, it comes from this: many of the people with whom I speak about these issues fall into one of three categories which include ignorance, apathy, and assent.
The ignorant ones are people that simply don't know. They are like children. A child cannot think past his or her own wants. He wants a toy and he wants it now. He does not compare his parents' income and expenses to determine if it is a prudent purchase. He does not consider how it will affect his welfare or that of his siblings. It is tunnel vision. The child's scope of awareness does not extend beyond Freud's Id. "I want that GI Joe action figure now. I need it." To these individuals, Marx's "to each according to his need" concept is all that is necessary.
The second group is one of apathy; its membership simply doesn't care. Those under this umbrella have social sites overflowing with fantasy applications and top ten lists. Ask them for the name of the recently confirmed Supreme Court nominee and prepare for a blank, glassy stare. Ask them what new sitcoms come out in the fall and be prepared to stay for a while. Rome is burning, yet they have no idea because they are in the basement watching the Home Shopping Network.
The third group terrifies me the most. The assentors are those who see what is happening, understand that principles of socialism are antithetical to those of liberty, and this is what they choose. To them, maybe Marx was more right than Jefferson and Madison. They perceive freedoms posed by capitalism and free markets as the root of all evil. These seek to bring a Utopian balance to the world through "good intended" impositions. Identifying their policies in the Communist Manifesto are no longer met with contention, rather prideful concession.
There actually is a fourth group, and it is surreal. It often includes those in the first three. It is religious in nature. It's prophet and leader is the current US President. Underneath him are myriads of priests who conduct ceremonies in their temples: the House of Representatives and the Senate. There are other temples around the world: the UN, the British Parliament, the World Court. Underneath the clergy are uncountable minions and sycophants. They worship the creation but not The Creator. They have a "form of godliness but [deny] its power" (II Timothy 3:5).
Of all the groups, it is the third and the fourth for which a physical solution remains hidden to this writer. A tenacious campaign of intellectual discourse and debate may win a very select few, but when the majority not only disregards logic and reason, but rather loathes them as obstacles, elements of argument are sterilized. Ultimately and fundamentally, the only thing left to do is what God asked us to do, that is to pray.
I will continue to write, but most importantly, I will pray.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Independence Day
Someone recently asked if I thought that "freedom was for everyone". Ten years ago, such a question would have offended. Ten years ago, concepts of freedom and democracy were unquestionable tenets of the American culture. That was until George W. Bush. As president, he was targeted with unprecedented hatred. If he said "black", they said "white". If he said "day", they said "night". There was, and still is, a segment of population that would say something like this, "I used to be a Texas Rangers fan. That was until I discovered George W. Bush was a fan. Now I hate the Rangers."
This reexamination of the "freedom-is-for-everyone" concept began when the "hate-George-Bush" crowd performed daily ideological acrobatics to position themselves opposite of Bush. The President invaded Iraq, a country that had suffered for decades under a ruthless dictator. Hussein had tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people. "How do I take the other side on this one?" they began to think. Creatively, their answer killed two birds with one stone. They could demonstrate compassion for Iraq's persecuted citizens while suggesting that they should remain subject to an evil despot. They proposed that "maybe democracy and freedom is not for everyone", that to assume so is ethnocentric and a way of imposing our beliefs on other cultures.
I answered the question, "Yes, I believe freedom is for everyone, we were all made by the same Creator, He gave it to us, human beings do not have the right to take it away." The conversation fizzled. Had it not, I was prepared for what would have likely been the next phase: Ad Hominem attacks against the Founding Fathers in an attempt to discredit their philosophies.
This is another "en vogue" political argument in contemporary culture. Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy in which one attacks "the person" in order to discredit the person's argument. It is called a "fallacy" because the logic involved is faulty. The quality of one's character, by itself, cannot warrant the dismissal of one's premises. Logically, evidence must exist that addresses the premise and not the person.
Regardless, elements of sound argument are often abandoned. Many assume that pointing to their flaws negates the Founding Fathers' ideas and philosophies on which the country's foundation rests. It is beyond the scope of this post to examine the lives of these great men; however, to shine light on their respective vices in order to contend with the ideas of freedom and democracy is quite foolish.
Only one "great" historical figure has walked this planet without sinning, and He walked on water. To judge history's achievers by tallying their "sins" would result in only one great historical figure, the latter. It is especially inconsistent for "Christians" to attack the Founding Father's by listing their shortcomings (i.e., Franklin was a "womanizer", Adams was an alcoholic, etc., etc.).
David, who scripture describes as "a Man after God's own heart" committed a 7-Deadly-Sins "trifecta". He first lusted after Bathsheba when he saw her bathing on the roof. Using his power as King, he committed adultery with her. To hide the first two sins, he murdered her husband. Using the same logic applied to the Founding Fathers, the book of Psalms (attributed to David's authorship) should be tossed from the canon.
*************************************
George W. Bush has disappeared from the political spotlight for over six months now; however, those on the side of freedom and democracy has not returned to "normal". Alarmingly, those jumping ship are increasingly numerous. More and more seem to resent that which we celebrate today (some of us celebrate...some just get a day off and barbecue). We also have a huge segment of "lemmings" who know nothing about Independence Day. The combination of the ignorant and the neo-socialists (sometimes individuals are part of one because of the other) spells danger for American democracy and freedom itself.
Today, we specifically celebrate the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson brilliantly summed the justifications for breaking from England in the following words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The concept of freedom, described by Jefferson, justly references "The Creator", a Supreme Being as the source of human rights. Who can argue with the Creator? In this age of relativism, this is likely the initial source of agitation among those who detest American traditions.
The first right, life, cannot be more fundamental. Without it, all others are impossible.
The second two rights can be combined into one word: freedom. The Founders were not without reason and historical support for this precept. Consider the Biblical time line starting with Adam and ending with the Apostles. An underlining theme throughout scripture is freedom.
Starting with the first two human beings, God granted the freedom to choose, even when the choice may not be the right one. When the first couple disobeyed, He could have ended free will there, but He did not. He allowed them to continue to exist, to continue to exercise their own will, even when it was not His.
The rest of the Old Testament describes a continuous cycle of God's chosen people, the nation of Israel exercising its free will. For a time it would choose God. Then it would choose to disobey Him. Then Israel would experience God's judgment (note that even in His judgments, He still allowed His people to choose; He didn't make them follow Him).
The New Testament centers around Christ's message of salvation where every individual is presented with a choice: to follow Christ or not to follow Christ. Ironically, God has never forced this decision on anyone, it is man that has always intervened.
The Roman Empire attempted to regulate the Christian movement. Presented with torture and death, the Early Christians testified that men could not take away their God-give freedom to choose Christ.
The winds changed when the established church became the governing force in the Middle Ages. Religious men reciprocated the efforts of the Romans, striving to force those under the church's rule to choose Christ. Again, many men and women went through horrible tortures and ultimately their deaths showing that organized religion could not force a decision for which God had given them the right to make themselves.
Is freedom for everyone? Yes, it is. God made us all. God gave us freedom. Man cannot take it away.
Still, this July 4th, in an unprecedented manner, is littered with justifications for resubmitting to "the king". From health care to economic stability, the masses are ready and willing to trade freedoms for security. What should be the responsibility of families and individuals, people are looking to government for every want and need in their lives.
Jefferson said, "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Government was "instituted" to protect God-given, "inalienable" rights, not to provide them. Today, the individual looks to the government as its mother, the president as its father. Problems are no longer met head on by the people. Instead, the people wait around as children for the government to save them. Elections have transformed into gift exchanges. Voters select whichever candidate best resembles Santa Claus.
****************************************
Today, when I woke up, it was raining. At the time of this writing, the sun has yet to come out on this Independence Day. Coincidence?
This reexamination of the "freedom-is-for-everyone" concept began when the "hate-George-Bush" crowd performed daily ideological acrobatics to position themselves opposite of Bush. The President invaded Iraq, a country that had suffered for decades under a ruthless dictator. Hussein had tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people. "How do I take the other side on this one?" they began to think. Creatively, their answer killed two birds with one stone. They could demonstrate compassion for Iraq's persecuted citizens while suggesting that they should remain subject to an evil despot. They proposed that "maybe democracy and freedom is not for everyone", that to assume so is ethnocentric and a way of imposing our beliefs on other cultures.
I answered the question, "Yes, I believe freedom is for everyone, we were all made by the same Creator, He gave it to us, human beings do not have the right to take it away." The conversation fizzled. Had it not, I was prepared for what would have likely been the next phase: Ad Hominem attacks against the Founding Fathers in an attempt to discredit their philosophies.
This is another "en vogue" political argument in contemporary culture. Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy in which one attacks "the person" in order to discredit the person's argument. It is called a "fallacy" because the logic involved is faulty. The quality of one's character, by itself, cannot warrant the dismissal of one's premises. Logically, evidence must exist that addresses the premise and not the person.
Regardless, elements of sound argument are often abandoned. Many assume that pointing to their flaws negates the Founding Fathers' ideas and philosophies on which the country's foundation rests. It is beyond the scope of this post to examine the lives of these great men; however, to shine light on their respective vices in order to contend with the ideas of freedom and democracy is quite foolish.
Only one "great" historical figure has walked this planet without sinning, and He walked on water. To judge history's achievers by tallying their "sins" would result in only one great historical figure, the latter. It is especially inconsistent for "Christians" to attack the Founding Father's by listing their shortcomings (i.e., Franklin was a "womanizer", Adams was an alcoholic, etc., etc.).
David, who scripture describes as "a Man after God's own heart" committed a 7-Deadly-Sins "trifecta". He first lusted after Bathsheba when he saw her bathing on the roof. Using his power as King, he committed adultery with her. To hide the first two sins, he murdered her husband. Using the same logic applied to the Founding Fathers, the book of Psalms (attributed to David's authorship) should be tossed from the canon.
*************************************
George W. Bush has disappeared from the political spotlight for over six months now; however, those on the side of freedom and democracy has not returned to "normal". Alarmingly, those jumping ship are increasingly numerous. More and more seem to resent that which we celebrate today (some of us celebrate...some just get a day off and barbecue). We also have a huge segment of "lemmings" who know nothing about Independence Day. The combination of the ignorant and the neo-socialists (sometimes individuals are part of one because of the other) spells danger for American democracy and freedom itself.
Today, we specifically celebrate the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson brilliantly summed the justifications for breaking from England in the following words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The concept of freedom, described by Jefferson, justly references "The Creator", a Supreme Being as the source of human rights. Who can argue with the Creator? In this age of relativism, this is likely the initial source of agitation among those who detest American traditions.
The first right, life, cannot be more fundamental. Without it, all others are impossible.
The second two rights can be combined into one word: freedom. The Founders were not without reason and historical support for this precept. Consider the Biblical time line starting with Adam and ending with the Apostles. An underlining theme throughout scripture is freedom.
Starting with the first two human beings, God granted the freedom to choose, even when the choice may not be the right one. When the first couple disobeyed, He could have ended free will there, but He did not. He allowed them to continue to exist, to continue to exercise their own will, even when it was not His.
The rest of the Old Testament describes a continuous cycle of God's chosen people, the nation of Israel exercising its free will. For a time it would choose God. Then it would choose to disobey Him. Then Israel would experience God's judgment (note that even in His judgments, He still allowed His people to choose; He didn't make them follow Him).
The New Testament centers around Christ's message of salvation where every individual is presented with a choice: to follow Christ or not to follow Christ. Ironically, God has never forced this decision on anyone, it is man that has always intervened.
The Roman Empire attempted to regulate the Christian movement. Presented with torture and death, the Early Christians testified that men could not take away their God-give freedom to choose Christ.
The winds changed when the established church became the governing force in the Middle Ages. Religious men reciprocated the efforts of the Romans, striving to force those under the church's rule to choose Christ. Again, many men and women went through horrible tortures and ultimately their deaths showing that organized religion could not force a decision for which God had given them the right to make themselves.
Is freedom for everyone? Yes, it is. God made us all. God gave us freedom. Man cannot take it away.
Still, this July 4th, in an unprecedented manner, is littered with justifications for resubmitting to "the king". From health care to economic stability, the masses are ready and willing to trade freedoms for security. What should be the responsibility of families and individuals, people are looking to government for every want and need in their lives.
Jefferson said, "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Government was "instituted" to protect God-given, "inalienable" rights, not to provide them. Today, the individual looks to the government as its mother, the president as its father. Problems are no longer met head on by the people. Instead, the people wait around as children for the government to save them. Elections have transformed into gift exchanges. Voters select whichever candidate best resembles Santa Claus.
****************************************
Today, when I woke up, it was raining. At the time of this writing, the sun has yet to come out on this Independence Day. Coincidence?
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
And Justice For All
So how would this have worked when I was in high school?
*******************************************************
I arrive at my desk, 30 seconds before the bell rings.
Class starts. Teacher instructs the class to clear off the desks and take out a sheet of paper and a pencil. Time for a quiz.
The quiz includes 10 short answer questions.
Time's up. Students exchange papers for grading.
Teacher enumerates the answers, instructs students to record total right answers at the top of the page and hand it back to the owner.
Each student glances at his or her score.
The teacher asks, "how many white students got at least 7 right? How many black students got at least 7 right, how many Asian students got at least seven right?"
"Wait! Wait! Wait!!!!" the teacher exclaims. "Not enough Asians passed the test. This test doesn't count. We'll take another quiz tomorrow..."
*******************************************************
Sounds crazy doesn't it. Luckily, by only a 5 to 4 margin, the Supreme Court today said that it was insane as well when it decided that "white" firefighters were the target of discrimination after their city disregarded test results because too few "minorities" did well on the test, a test which could have resulted in a promotion (see "Connecticut Firefighters 'Vindicated' by Supreme Court Ruling" - Fox News).
The troubling part is that four Justices dissented implying that a test is only valid if "minorities" do well.
"Lady Justice" often appears with a blindfold to symbolize the equal and unbiased distribution of fairness and equality. To reference skin color of test participants recklessly abandons any reasonable perception of fairness.
Ironically, it is in the name of fairness that such discrimination is often perpetrated. In the end, the very people for whom these decisions are intended to help are truly insulted. Today, the four dissenting Justices suggested that the "minorities" are not "good enough" to pass the test on their own, that they need a little extra help.
********
As many in the press are reporting, this case is a "political football" for the most recent Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, who supported the lower court's decision to rule in favor of the city of New Haven, CT. She has a judicial history of incorporating the "two-wrongs-make-a-right" philosophy in her court decisions. Race has all too frequently been an ingredient in her rulings.
The Founding Fathers assigned the Supreme Court the responsibility of interpreting the law, especially the Constitution. They are not to make the law, not to implement policy, only to interpret the law. Sotomayor has a political chip on her shoulder. A little research reveals that the glasses through which she views the world are not color blind (see "Videos Shed New Light on Sotomayor’s Positions" - The New York Times).
What's my point? It is a plea, and that plea is this: please make informed votes. Those who make the decisions on Sotomayor are already in place (i.e., the President and the Senate). For all those "Einsteins" out there that said that the president has little effect on court decisions (i.e., Roe v Wade), please start turning off MTV for a few minutes and tune into the daily news.
*******************************************************
I arrive at my desk, 30 seconds before the bell rings.
Class starts. Teacher instructs the class to clear off the desks and take out a sheet of paper and a pencil. Time for a quiz.
The quiz includes 10 short answer questions.
Time's up. Students exchange papers for grading.
Teacher enumerates the answers, instructs students to record total right answers at the top of the page and hand it back to the owner.
Each student glances at his or her score.
The teacher asks, "how many white students got at least 7 right? How many black students got at least 7 right, how many Asian students got at least seven right?"
"Wait! Wait! Wait!!!!" the teacher exclaims. "Not enough Asians passed the test. This test doesn't count. We'll take another quiz tomorrow..."
*******************************************************
Sounds crazy doesn't it. Luckily, by only a 5 to 4 margin, the Supreme Court today said that it was insane as well when it decided that "white" firefighters were the target of discrimination after their city disregarded test results because too few "minorities" did well on the test, a test which could have resulted in a promotion (see "Connecticut Firefighters 'Vindicated' by Supreme Court Ruling" - Fox News).
The troubling part is that four Justices dissented implying that a test is only valid if "minorities" do well.
"Lady Justice" often appears with a blindfold to symbolize the equal and unbiased distribution of fairness and equality. To reference skin color of test participants recklessly abandons any reasonable perception of fairness.
Ironically, it is in the name of fairness that such discrimination is often perpetrated. In the end, the very people for whom these decisions are intended to help are truly insulted. Today, the four dissenting Justices suggested that the "minorities" are not "good enough" to pass the test on their own, that they need a little extra help.
********
As many in the press are reporting, this case is a "political football" for the most recent Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, who supported the lower court's decision to rule in favor of the city of New Haven, CT. She has a judicial history of incorporating the "two-wrongs-make-a-right" philosophy in her court decisions. Race has all too frequently been an ingredient in her rulings.
The Founding Fathers assigned the Supreme Court the responsibility of interpreting the law, especially the Constitution. They are not to make the law, not to implement policy, only to interpret the law. Sotomayor has a political chip on her shoulder. A little research reveals that the glasses through which she views the world are not color blind (see "Videos Shed New Light on Sotomayor’s Positions" - The New York Times).
What's my point? It is a plea, and that plea is this: please make informed votes. Those who make the decisions on Sotomayor are already in place (i.e., the President and the Senate). For all those "Einsteins" out there that said that the president has little effect on court decisions (i.e., Roe v Wade), please start turning off MTV for a few minutes and tune into the daily news.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
An Announcement: Part I
“Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.”
- Edmund Burke
I'm going to make a bold and risky prediction. I'll be labeled a conspiracy theorist, a paranoid schizophrenic. I hope I'm wrong. It is with great sadness that I have to make such an assessment. However, as Joe H. says, "never be afraid to speak the truth."
Drum roll please....
...um, wait...I must write some background.
Recently, I made the wife start reading the book Nineteen Eighty Four by George Orwell. I actually didn't make her, but I wanted to imagine the convulsions now happening in some readers.
The truth is, is that I strongly recommended the book in response to many of our conversations recently. Having intentionally married a "life-partner" (a PC bone for those liberal readers) who not only has a brain but chooses to use it to engage the world around her, we have discussions about politics and the world in general. Over and over, recently, she keeps asking things like, "Are people stupid? Are they blind? Do they not see what is happening?", etc., etc. I used to ask the same questions, that is until I recently read Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four.
I had the same types of revelations when reading C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters. It explained the inexplicable. I asked questions like, "why do people do such bad things? Why have I done such bad things?" The Screwtape Letters (in conjunction with Perretti's This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness) answered my questions. These books explained why and how illogical things happen.
Okay, now the drum roll...
...RIM SHOT!!!!
**********************************************
Barack H. Obama is the 44th President of the United States. There will not be a 45th President of the United States for a long time.
**********************************************
...now we'll pause for that to be fully absorbed.
Let me put it another way, he's not going anywhere.
We, the current citizens, take for granted that we have had peaceable transitions of power every four, eight, and (in one case) twelve years. Most do not know what a modern marvel this has been. George Washington, whom many historians have suggested was so popular at the end of his second term that he could have snatched absolute power from the very beginning, set the precedence of limited power when he retired to his home in Mount Vernon. Since then, this seamless transfer of leadership from one President to the next has become a background miracle for over 230 years.
This will change. President Obama shows all the historical signs of a leader who intends to assume life-long power. Americans show all the signs of a people who are ready for a king (see "A Bible Story").
I have now "pinged" the nation in this humble blog. This is for what I now listen: the first politician, media personality, etc. to say something like, "You know, extreme problems require extreme measures. President Obama inherited some of the most prolific issues in this country's history. It will take more than eight years to fix them. We need to readdress the concept of term limits."
I liken this to another realization that many of us, who do have our ears to the ground, have made. Obama has a religious, cult-like following in this country. People almost seem to worship him. I couldn't believe that it was actually a possibility in the U.S. (history shows numerous examples of people regarding their leader as god-like), but I wondered how long it would be until someone actually dropped the "g-word".
It happened on Friday, June 5, 2009 when Evan Thomas of Newsweek (a mainstream media outlet) said "...in a way, Obama's standing above the country, above - above the world, he's sort of God."1. Kablow!!! There it was. Just came right out and said it. Note to self: make pilgrimage to Washington, DC.
Now, I may have to wait at least another five years to be proven wrong. The Republican Party has neutered itself. Obama and the Democrats have been giving the GOP a perpetual bitch-slap since McCain claimed the party's nomination in 2008. President Obama, the master manipulator, will see no need to take unprecedented action until his second term, when other democrats want his seat of power.
In "Part II" of this entry, I will explain specifically why I am predicting that Obama is not planning on leaving the White House.
Notes
1 "Newsweek's Evan Thomas: Obama Is 'Sort of God'" - NewsBusters 06/05/2009
- Edmund Burke
I'm going to make a bold and risky prediction. I'll be labeled a conspiracy theorist, a paranoid schizophrenic. I hope I'm wrong. It is with great sadness that I have to make such an assessment. However, as Joe H. says, "never be afraid to speak the truth."
Drum roll please....
...um, wait...I must write some background.
Recently, I made the wife start reading the book Nineteen Eighty Four by George Orwell. I actually didn't make her, but I wanted to imagine the convulsions now happening in some readers.
The truth is, is that I strongly recommended the book in response to many of our conversations recently. Having intentionally married a "life-partner" (a PC bone for those liberal readers) who not only has a brain but chooses to use it to engage the world around her, we have discussions about politics and the world in general. Over and over, recently, she keeps asking things like, "Are people stupid? Are they blind? Do they not see what is happening?", etc., etc. I used to ask the same questions, that is until I recently read Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four.
I had the same types of revelations when reading C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters. It explained the inexplicable. I asked questions like, "why do people do such bad things? Why have I done such bad things?" The Screwtape Letters (in conjunction with Perretti's This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness) answered my questions. These books explained why and how illogical things happen.
Okay, now the drum roll...
...RIM SHOT!!!!
**********************************************
Barack H. Obama is the 44th President of the United States. There will not be a 45th President of the United States for a long time.
**********************************************
...now we'll pause for that to be fully absorbed.
Let me put it another way, he's not going anywhere.
We, the current citizens, take for granted that we have had peaceable transitions of power every four, eight, and (in one case) twelve years. Most do not know what a modern marvel this has been. George Washington, whom many historians have suggested was so popular at the end of his second term that he could have snatched absolute power from the very beginning, set the precedence of limited power when he retired to his home in Mount Vernon. Since then, this seamless transfer of leadership from one President to the next has become a background miracle for over 230 years.
This will change. President Obama shows all the historical signs of a leader who intends to assume life-long power. Americans show all the signs of a people who are ready for a king (see "A Bible Story").
I have now "pinged" the nation in this humble blog. This is for what I now listen: the first politician, media personality, etc. to say something like, "You know, extreme problems require extreme measures. President Obama inherited some of the most prolific issues in this country's history. It will take more than eight years to fix them. We need to readdress the concept of term limits."
I liken this to another realization that many of us, who do have our ears to the ground, have made. Obama has a religious, cult-like following in this country. People almost seem to worship him. I couldn't believe that it was actually a possibility in the U.S. (history shows numerous examples of people regarding their leader as god-like), but I wondered how long it would be until someone actually dropped the "g-word".
It happened on Friday, June 5, 2009 when Evan Thomas of Newsweek (a mainstream media outlet) said "...in a way, Obama's standing above the country, above - above the world, he's sort of God."1. Kablow!!! There it was. Just came right out and said it. Note to self: make pilgrimage to Washington, DC.
Now, I may have to wait at least another five years to be proven wrong. The Republican Party has neutered itself. Obama and the Democrats have been giving the GOP a perpetual bitch-slap since McCain claimed the party's nomination in 2008. President Obama, the master manipulator, will see no need to take unprecedented action until his second term, when other democrats want his seat of power.
In "Part II" of this entry, I will explain specifically why I am predicting that Obama is not planning on leaving the White House.
Notes
1 "Newsweek's Evan Thomas: Obama Is 'Sort of God'" - NewsBusters 06/05/2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
1st Amendment
Freedom of speech. It's a simple concept, yet as a democratic republic (at least for now), we have so much difficulty with it. To many today, especially the generations who are so far removed from any tyrannical experiences, freedom of speech means, "the right to say whatever one wants until I don't like it."
On the most recent docket is David Letterman. His recent very offensive, distasteful, and classless remarks about Sara Palin, and especially her daughter, has outraged individuals from New York to Los Angeles. I just read an article where a New York politician is calling for CBS to fire Letterman for his comments ("New York Lawmaker Calls on CBS to Fire Letterman For Palin Comments" - Fox News). Basically, this congressman thinks that these hurtful and reckless words should not go unpunished and warrant censorship.
Here is my reaction to Letterman's humor, "Let's see here...channel four, yes there it is. Oh, there's Letterman. Hmmmm still ranting about George Bush. Still telling Chaney jokes when Joe Biden is a walking gaff machine...oh!!! What a horrible thing to say about a young mother...Where's the Wii controller? Here we go." Button pressed. Game selected. Time to save Princess Zelda.
I turn it off. I stop listening. While I think he has become less funny and more politically motivated over the past few years, he still has the right to say what he wants. He is paid for what he says. If society is offended, it will stop watching, and he will go away. If not, so be it. I choose not to listen.
Also recent in the news is the coverage of an 88-year-old psychopath who unleashed an episode of anti-Semetic violence at the US Holocost Museum in Washington, DC ("Guard dies after Holocost museum shooting" - MSNBC). In the same manner that gun-control proponents exploint tragic school shootings to demonize responsible legal gun owners; the press and politicians have been foaming at the mouth pointing fingers at "right-wing hate speech" ("On Hardball: Journalist Links Rush Limbaugh to Holocaust Museum Shooting" - Media Research Center).
Someone asked me recently what I thought about this horrible event and what the perp had said. I said that I didn't, that I don't give thought to the ramblings of the insane.
How people are painting this guy as religious right-wing is beyond me. The biggest problem with such an assessment is that the religious right is always being accused of supporting Israel and the Jews at the expense of the Palestinians. One of the most prolific anti-Semitic entities was the Nazi party, a left-wing socialist party.
Regardless, whether this nut was right-wing or left wing, his unstable and detached mind has nothing to do with the speech of others. It is a dangerous path to tread to target speech as the culprit behind sensless, unpredictable acts by the mentally ill. Hitler's words did not kill 6 million Jews. It was those who chose to follow Hitler's words that killed 6 million Jews.
Example #3: Carrie Prejean. When asked a direct question about California's Proposition 8 (gay marriage) she replied with a direct and honest answer. She replied, "...I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised" ("Timeline of the Carrie Prejean Controversy" - Fox News)
The gall!!! The nerve!!! What a barbarous opinion!!! Marriage between a MAN AND WOMAN??!!!
This is what is messed up. The cries went out from Los Angeles to New York to strip her of her Miss California crown. For what? For what she said. Free speech until I don't like it...
In 1919 the Supreme Court (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr) introduced the concept of clear and present danger, that when speech can directly put the safety of others at risk (i.e., shouting "fire" at a movie theater), legal action could be taken ("Schenk v. United States" - Wikipedia). Unfortunately, what was originally meant to be a common sense interpretation of the Constitution has been bent to regulate the thoughts and ideas of the opposition.
In 1989, the Supreme Court hit a bulls eye protecting the concept of free speech. I must provide a caveat before proceeding: I think that flag-burning is detestable and an inexcusable form of disrespect for a great country. That said, Justice William Brennan, writing the majority opinion, made the following statement: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. . . " ("Texas v. Johnson" - Landmark Supreme Court Cases). In other words, freedom of speech means the right to say whatever, even when I don't like it.
Some Christians have sought to regulate pornographic internet content. Some politicians have sought to regulate talk radio. Some activists have attempted to restrict the political speech of powerful lobbyist. Some Muslims have threatened the lives of newspaper political cartoonists whose message offends their faith.
When Christians sense persecution, they claim violation of the 1st Amendment. The politicians constantly accuse the other side of suppressing the voice of the minority. Muslims cry out "intolerance" when a DOT says that a woman must remove her vale to have her driver's license picture taken. Everyone wants to express themselves freely; however, they are not willing to endure the expression of others when that message contends with their own beliefs and ideals.
The question is often asked, "why does God let bad things happen?" The answer is simple. If God intervened every time someone choose to do something "bad", we would no longer have free will. In order for His creation to have the ability to choose freely, logic says that "bad" things will happen.
In order to have free speech, logic says that horrible and hateful things will be said. To prevent them from being said is to prevent free speech. The co-existence of both is impossible: all good words and the 1st Amendment.
I have mentioned this before in this blog. I had a professor in college that said, "the problem with free speech is knowing who to listen to." Let them speak. The good, the bad, and the ugly. If you don't like it, don't listen.
On the most recent docket is David Letterman. His recent very offensive, distasteful, and classless remarks about Sara Palin, and especially her daughter, has outraged individuals from New York to Los Angeles. I just read an article where a New York politician is calling for CBS to fire Letterman for his comments ("New York Lawmaker Calls on CBS to Fire Letterman For Palin Comments" - Fox News). Basically, this congressman thinks that these hurtful and reckless words should not go unpunished and warrant censorship.
Here is my reaction to Letterman's humor, "Let's see here...channel four, yes there it is. Oh, there's Letterman. Hmmmm still ranting about George Bush. Still telling Chaney jokes when Joe Biden is a walking gaff machine...oh!!! What a horrible thing to say about a young mother...Where's the Wii controller? Here we go." Button pressed. Game selected. Time to save Princess Zelda.
I turn it off. I stop listening. While I think he has become less funny and more politically motivated over the past few years, he still has the right to say what he wants. He is paid for what he says. If society is offended, it will stop watching, and he will go away. If not, so be it. I choose not to listen.
Also recent in the news is the coverage of an 88-year-old psychopath who unleashed an episode of anti-Semetic violence at the US Holocost Museum in Washington, DC ("Guard dies after Holocost museum shooting" - MSNBC). In the same manner that gun-control proponents exploint tragic school shootings to demonize responsible legal gun owners; the press and politicians have been foaming at the mouth pointing fingers at "right-wing hate speech" ("On Hardball: Journalist Links Rush Limbaugh to Holocaust Museum Shooting" - Media Research Center).
Someone asked me recently what I thought about this horrible event and what the perp had said. I said that I didn't, that I don't give thought to the ramblings of the insane.
How people are painting this guy as religious right-wing is beyond me. The biggest problem with such an assessment is that the religious right is always being accused of supporting Israel and the Jews at the expense of the Palestinians. One of the most prolific anti-Semitic entities was the Nazi party, a left-wing socialist party.
Regardless, whether this nut was right-wing or left wing, his unstable and detached mind has nothing to do with the speech of others. It is a dangerous path to tread to target speech as the culprit behind sensless, unpredictable acts by the mentally ill. Hitler's words did not kill 6 million Jews. It was those who chose to follow Hitler's words that killed 6 million Jews.
Example #3: Carrie Prejean. When asked a direct question about California's Proposition 8 (gay marriage) she replied with a direct and honest answer. She replied, "...I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised" ("Timeline of the Carrie Prejean Controversy" - Fox News)
The gall!!! The nerve!!! What a barbarous opinion!!! Marriage between a MAN AND WOMAN??!!!
This is what is messed up. The cries went out from Los Angeles to New York to strip her of her Miss California crown. For what? For what she said. Free speech until I don't like it...
In 1919 the Supreme Court (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr) introduced the concept of clear and present danger, that when speech can directly put the safety of others at risk (i.e., shouting "fire" at a movie theater), legal action could be taken ("Schenk v. United States" - Wikipedia). Unfortunately, what was originally meant to be a common sense interpretation of the Constitution has been bent to regulate the thoughts and ideas of the opposition.
In 1989, the Supreme Court hit a bulls eye protecting the concept of free speech. I must provide a caveat before proceeding: I think that flag-burning is detestable and an inexcusable form of disrespect for a great country. That said, Justice William Brennan, writing the majority opinion, made the following statement: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. . . " ("Texas v. Johnson" - Landmark Supreme Court Cases). In other words, freedom of speech means the right to say whatever, even when I don't like it.
Some Christians have sought to regulate pornographic internet content. Some politicians have sought to regulate talk radio. Some activists have attempted to restrict the political speech of powerful lobbyist. Some Muslims have threatened the lives of newspaper political cartoonists whose message offends their faith.
When Christians sense persecution, they claim violation of the 1st Amendment. The politicians constantly accuse the other side of suppressing the voice of the minority. Muslims cry out "intolerance" when a DOT says that a woman must remove her vale to have her driver's license picture taken. Everyone wants to express themselves freely; however, they are not willing to endure the expression of others when that message contends with their own beliefs and ideals.
The question is often asked, "why does God let bad things happen?" The answer is simple. If God intervened every time someone choose to do something "bad", we would no longer have free will. In order for His creation to have the ability to choose freely, logic says that "bad" things will happen.
In order to have free speech, logic says that horrible and hateful things will be said. To prevent them from being said is to prevent free speech. The co-existence of both is impossible: all good words and the 1st Amendment.
I have mentioned this before in this blog. I had a professor in college that said, "the problem with free speech is knowing who to listen to." Let them speak. The good, the bad, and the ugly. If you don't like it, don't listen.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Look In The Mirror
This article, "Liberals Frustrated Over Losses On Guantanamo, Gun Control", reminded me of a major fallacy that I have been wanting to explore. Conservatives are often labeled as fascists and control freaks. The press paints liberals as the compassionate ones, being for the people, "the working man". In the end, who is it really that wants to control "we, the people"?
Before I move on, it is now necessary to separated the ideology from the man. Many in today's world associate themselves with a label (i.e., Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Liberal, etc.), and this, in turn, throws them into defense whenever arguments are presented that contend with their title. Rather than examine thoughts and ideas, independent of self, they must protect their existence which has been personalized and defined by a word. Unfortunately, instead of saying, "Liberalism is an ideology that enumerates what I already believed, " it too often could be described as "I am a liberal. This is what liberals believe so this is what I believe".
Why people "put the cart before the horse" is beyond the scope of this post. It will likely be pursued in a future entry.
The United States has a two-party political system: Democrats and Republicans. In the last few decades, the difference between the two organizations has grown smaller and smaller. No longer can one assume that a Republican is a conservative. Ultimately, a majority of politicians, both in the GOP and the DNC, have transformed into what Mark Levin, in his book Liberty and Tyranny, calls a "Statist", someone who subscribes to a all-powerful central government. The Statist is not necessarily concerned with policies or issues; the acquisition and the retainment of power is first priority to which all others are a means to this end.
Conservatism is a way of thinking. It is an arrangement of ideas and philosophies, especially as applied to forms of government. It addresses the relationship between the governed and those who govern. Importantly, conservatism focuses on the rights of an individual, a human being created by God. From this point on, unless otherwise noted, a conservative refers to a person who holds to these principals.
The conservative would point to the timeless phrase penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, that all human beings have three "inalienable rights": the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Jefferson did not order these elements randomly. Obviously "life" is the most important on which the other two depend. Without it, one cannot have liberty or happiness, hence a conservative's staunch opposition to abortion.
This conservative (the author), contends that liberty lines up next to life, that without it, one cannot have true happiness. The ultimate warrant for this supposition is quite simple, and it is this: God's plan of salvation is built around the concept of liberty. He gave us free-will, and starting with Adam and Eve, we have frequently chosen to exercise it against His wishes.
Before I move on, it is now necessary to separated the ideology from the man. Many in today's world associate themselves with a label (i.e., Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Liberal, etc.), and this, in turn, throws them into defense whenever arguments are presented that contend with their title. Rather than examine thoughts and ideas, independent of self, they must protect their existence which has been personalized and defined by a word. Unfortunately, instead of saying, "Liberalism is an ideology that enumerates what I already believed, " it too often could be described as "I am a liberal. This is what liberals believe so this is what I believe".
Why people "put the cart before the horse" is beyond the scope of this post. It will likely be pursued in a future entry.
The United States has a two-party political system: Democrats and Republicans. In the last few decades, the difference between the two organizations has grown smaller and smaller. No longer can one assume that a Republican is a conservative. Ultimately, a majority of politicians, both in the GOP and the DNC, have transformed into what Mark Levin, in his book Liberty and Tyranny, calls a "Statist", someone who subscribes to a all-powerful central government. The Statist is not necessarily concerned with policies or issues; the acquisition and the retainment of power is first priority to which all others are a means to this end.
Conservatism is a way of thinking. It is an arrangement of ideas and philosophies, especially as applied to forms of government. It addresses the relationship between the governed and those who govern. Importantly, conservatism focuses on the rights of an individual, a human being created by God. From this point on, unless otherwise noted, a conservative refers to a person who holds to these principals.
The conservative would point to the timeless phrase penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, that all human beings have three "inalienable rights": the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Jefferson did not order these elements randomly. Obviously "life" is the most important on which the other two depend. Without it, one cannot have liberty or happiness, hence a conservative's staunch opposition to abortion.
This conservative (the author), contends that liberty lines up next to life, that without it, one cannot have true happiness. The ultimate warrant for this supposition is quite simple, and it is this: God's plan of salvation is built around the concept of liberty. He gave us free-will, and starting with Adam and Eve, we have frequently chosen to exercise it against His wishes.
Being all-powerful, at anytime God could have forced us to comply. He could have grown weary of our disobedience and wiped us out of existence. Instead, for thousands of thousands of years, He has chosen to give us the freedom to make our own decisions, to live how we want. Of course, there will be consequences, but at no time has God "regulated" our behavior. He wants us to seek Him of our own device.
The conservative, especially this one, asks this: If God, the Creator of the Universe, decided to allow human beings to live freely and independently, even though it would cause horrific events and terrible things to happen, how can we, the created beings, attempt to control others of His created beings with "the greater good" as the justification?
The conservative is obsessed with freedom, its protection and preservation. It is only when the first right, life, is in jeopardy (again because, without life, one cannot have freedom) that the conservative even considers infringing upon liberties.
Only a few times during America's history have "true" conservatives determined that conditions existed that warranted government intrusion on individual freedom. One of the most famous examples is Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpes during the Civil War. Even then, many have argued since that Lincoln should not have done so.
Frequently, conservatives are accused of forcing their beliefs on others, recklessly trampling on freedoms. True, this happens, most notably by what is called the "religious right"; however, it is not through conservative inspiration that such actions are taken. Just as those who participated in the Crusades used the name of Jesus to perpetuate acts contrary to Christ's message, the banner of Conservatism has often been flown when those behind it defied its tenets.
Times do exist where the conservative demands that certain rights must yield to others, that polarizing ideals exist that cannot coexist in a civil society. Again, one such example is abortion. When a conservative believes that life begins at conception, and the right to life supersedes all other rights, it is not logical to conclude that a mother's "right to choose" (to kill her child, which is what it is if it is a life) cannot possibly outweigh the child's right to live. To protect the primary right, life, it is necessary to deny the secondary liberty, the right to choose to kill one's child.
The article referenced in the first paragraph is such an archetypal example of the hypocrisy committed by mainstream culture. MTV farms generation after generation of conservative-hating, liberalized youth, telling the kids that Ronald Reagan starved all the poor people.
If as a reader, you have made it this far, take a red pill. Think about all the things that government has determined that you are not allowed to do, especially in the cases where it is for a more noble cause. Consider the limitations place on your daily life in order to "fix" some other problem.
Remember that conservatism sees you as an adult fully capable of making your own decisions, even if they are not the right ones, that in order to have freedom, human nature dictates that injustice is an unfortunate, but necessary side-effect. Who is it that wants to control you? Who is the real fascist?
Be vigilant. Failure to recognize the enemy only gives him more time to exercise his power...
The conservative, especially this one, asks this: If God, the Creator of the Universe, decided to allow human beings to live freely and independently, even though it would cause horrific events and terrible things to happen, how can we, the created beings, attempt to control others of His created beings with "the greater good" as the justification?
The conservative is obsessed with freedom, its protection and preservation. It is only when the first right, life, is in jeopardy (again because, without life, one cannot have freedom) that the conservative even considers infringing upon liberties.
Only a few times during America's history have "true" conservatives determined that conditions existed that warranted government intrusion on individual freedom. One of the most famous examples is Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpes during the Civil War. Even then, many have argued since that Lincoln should not have done so.
Frequently, conservatives are accused of forcing their beliefs on others, recklessly trampling on freedoms. True, this happens, most notably by what is called the "religious right"; however, it is not through conservative inspiration that such actions are taken. Just as those who participated in the Crusades used the name of Jesus to perpetuate acts contrary to Christ's message, the banner of Conservatism has often been flown when those behind it defied its tenets.
Times do exist where the conservative demands that certain rights must yield to others, that polarizing ideals exist that cannot coexist in a civil society. Again, one such example is abortion. When a conservative believes that life begins at conception, and the right to life supersedes all other rights, it is not logical to conclude that a mother's "right to choose" (to kill her child, which is what it is if it is a life) cannot possibly outweigh the child's right to live. To protect the primary right, life, it is necessary to deny the secondary liberty, the right to choose to kill one's child.
The article referenced in the first paragraph is such an archetypal example of the hypocrisy committed by mainstream culture. MTV farms generation after generation of conservative-hating, liberalized youth, telling the kids that Ronald Reagan starved all the poor people.
If as a reader, you have made it this far, take a red pill. Think about all the things that government has determined that you are not allowed to do, especially in the cases where it is for a more noble cause. Consider the limitations place on your daily life in order to "fix" some other problem.
Remember that conservatism sees you as an adult fully capable of making your own decisions, even if they are not the right ones, that in order to have freedom, human nature dictates that injustice is an unfortunate, but necessary side-effect. Who is it that wants to control you? Who is the real fascist?
Be vigilant. Failure to recognize the enemy only gives him more time to exercise his power...
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Unbelievable
The other day I attended a presentation by a well-credentialed and experienced executive in the health care industry. In it, he outlined the steps his organization was going to take in order to stay in business, in order to save jobs. Considering current economic conditions, such a message could hardly be considered extraordinary except for one thing. The strategic plan was not a reaction to the downward turn of free-flowing market forces; it was a defensive measure specifically meant to safeguard the quality and availability of patient care while continuing to provide around 1500 jobs in the local community. "Defensive" action implies an aggressor. Explicitly named as the obstacle, the oppressor, the negative force was none other than the federal government and its unchecked power.
To be quite honest, I didn't really hear anything that I didn't know. Those in power, when in the minority, have never hid the fact that they want a socialist, government-controlled health care industry; the only thing that has changed is that now they have opportunity. Furthermore, with programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, the government has already had its hands in the cookie jar for some time.
The material presented was well organized and documented containing numerous citations. The speaker reported first-hand experiences with congregational members including senators and representatives. He described his role as a leader in a major hospital organization, one that has been lobbying government entities, pleading with them to leave health care to the health care professionals. By the end of the event, the outlook did not seem promising.
Please allow me to step up on the soap box and rant for a moment...
Imagine that!! Allowing health care professionals to run the health care industry. What an absurd concept!!! Who is going to know better? Who is going to have more experience? Who will have the foresight necessary to address current problems? It makes total sense. Senators and Congressmen, of course. What folly exists to even consider that a HEALTH CARE PRO-FES-SION-AL would know more than a lawyer elected to the Senate or a community organizer vaulting to the Presidency!!!
It makes total sense. It fits. Its the "new way". You don't have automobile makers run the car business. Its the lawmakers who know better. You don't have bankers run the banking sector. Its the politicians who can do it better. Why? Because they have unprecedented credentials.
They run the retirement business. A huge success!!! Viva la Social Security!!! Bernie Madoff is going to jail for the same scheme.
Look at their degrees and experiences. Most of them have never run a business, never managed something as large as a convenience store. Most have law degrees which, or course, is what people study in order to build automobiles and work on Wall Street.
Here's the best part. While the only thing that these politicians excel at is saying the things that people want to hear, they get to manipulate and massage the private sector, and when they screw things up, they get to blame it on the actual professionals (i.e., Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) from whom they wrangled control. And a la Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the very same politicians who cause the problems (i.e., Barney Frank and Chris Dodds) get to self appoint themselves to save us all from the...ahem...evil, corrupt, and greedy capitalist executives who got us into the mess.
Please give me a moment to step down...
It was surreal to hear what the new Obama administration, with a sycophantic press and congressional branch, had planned for health care in America. It was the first time that the Stalinist agenda had touched me personally, seeing it unfold immediately before my eyes.
I sat there listening as the speaker enumerated the different components of which the federal government was poised to control, what it intended to do with its "new toys", and what the likely consequences would be.
The scope of this post is not to reproduce the different elements; however, the most memorable one was the intention to regulate the amount that health care providers and companies can expect for reimbursement.
Now, to the uneducated 8-year-old child, such an approach sounds great. Free candy!!!! Free cookies!!! Whatever I want, I get!!!!
To the practical, experienced, and scholarly adult, such a notion is insanity. It defies the laws of supply and demand. It facilitates scarcity. It is irresponsible.
How does the shoe maker stay in business when his costs of production increase, but he is limited in the amount that he can charge for a shoe, even to the point where he cannot regain his expenses let alone make a profit?
How does the restaurant keep its doors open when food costs rise, but management is forced to leave prices the same? How long are the cooks going to have a job? The wait staff?
And if the federal government decided that Applebee's must provide the same experience as before, only now it must provide steak dinners at $2/piece. Imagine the line of people at its doors when this policy takes effect. I can see it now.
"Uhh, yes, can you tell me how long of a wait it will be for a table?"
"Okay, let me see here, we should be able to put you in a booth in about three months. Would you like to get a drink at the bar?"
"Sure, give me one of those little vibrator things to tell me when my table is ready. I'll go and sit at the bar and...what's that...you're all out of steaks....emmmmhehhh...okay...right. At $2/steak there's no more cows?"
And while we're on the topic of restaurants, having extensive experience in my younger years, let me be perfectly clear about this. I am terrified of eating something prepared by a disgruntled, underpaid cook. Now, I can look forward to my elderly years in going under the knife of someone who no longer gives a damn because the government has said there is no difference between the amount that someone can make fixing your car to that of someone who fixes your heart and keeps you from dying. As the presenter mentioned, there is a reason that people flock to this country for procedures from countries who already have government health care.
When he completed his material, the speaker asked if there were any questions. I had one, but I didn't ask it. Today's political climate has more religious overtones than anything, and no one is interested in truth. They follow their leaders as though they are divine, and to question their intentions is considered sacrilege. I wasn't in the mood.
What I wanted to ask him was this: Did you ever, in your wildest dreams, envision a time where, as a leader of a large health care organization, that an environment would exist that demanded defensive actions in order to save that organization from, of all things in the United States of America, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
To be quite honest, I didn't really hear anything that I didn't know. Those in power, when in the minority, have never hid the fact that they want a socialist, government-controlled health care industry; the only thing that has changed is that now they have opportunity. Furthermore, with programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, the government has already had its hands in the cookie jar for some time.
The material presented was well organized and documented containing numerous citations. The speaker reported first-hand experiences with congregational members including senators and representatives. He described his role as a leader in a major hospital organization, one that has been lobbying government entities, pleading with them to leave health care to the health care professionals. By the end of the event, the outlook did not seem promising.
Please allow me to step up on the soap box and rant for a moment...
Imagine that!! Allowing health care professionals to run the health care industry. What an absurd concept!!! Who is going to know better? Who is going to have more experience? Who will have the foresight necessary to address current problems? It makes total sense. Senators and Congressmen, of course. What folly exists to even consider that a HEALTH CARE PRO-FES-SION-AL would know more than a lawyer elected to the Senate or a community organizer vaulting to the Presidency!!!
It makes total sense. It fits. Its the "new way". You don't have automobile makers run the car business. Its the lawmakers who know better. You don't have bankers run the banking sector. Its the politicians who can do it better. Why? Because they have unprecedented credentials.
They run the retirement business. A huge success!!! Viva la Social Security!!! Bernie Madoff is going to jail for the same scheme.
Look at their degrees and experiences. Most of them have never run a business, never managed something as large as a convenience store. Most have law degrees which, or course, is what people study in order to build automobiles and work on Wall Street.
Here's the best part. While the only thing that these politicians excel at is saying the things that people want to hear, they get to manipulate and massage the private sector, and when they screw things up, they get to blame it on the actual professionals (i.e., Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) from whom they wrangled control. And a la Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the very same politicians who cause the problems (i.e., Barney Frank and Chris Dodds) get to self appoint themselves to save us all from the...ahem...evil, corrupt, and greedy capitalist executives who got us into the mess.
Please give me a moment to step down...
It was surreal to hear what the new Obama administration, with a sycophantic press and congressional branch, had planned for health care in America. It was the first time that the Stalinist agenda had touched me personally, seeing it unfold immediately before my eyes.
I sat there listening as the speaker enumerated the different components of which the federal government was poised to control, what it intended to do with its "new toys", and what the likely consequences would be.
The scope of this post is not to reproduce the different elements; however, the most memorable one was the intention to regulate the amount that health care providers and companies can expect for reimbursement.
Now, to the uneducated 8-year-old child, such an approach sounds great. Free candy!!!! Free cookies!!! Whatever I want, I get!!!!
To the practical, experienced, and scholarly adult, such a notion is insanity. It defies the laws of supply and demand. It facilitates scarcity. It is irresponsible.
How does the shoe maker stay in business when his costs of production increase, but he is limited in the amount that he can charge for a shoe, even to the point where he cannot regain his expenses let alone make a profit?
How does the restaurant keep its doors open when food costs rise, but management is forced to leave prices the same? How long are the cooks going to have a job? The wait staff?
And if the federal government decided that Applebee's must provide the same experience as before, only now it must provide steak dinners at $2/piece. Imagine the line of people at its doors when this policy takes effect. I can see it now.
"Uhh, yes, can you tell me how long of a wait it will be for a table?"
"Okay, let me see here, we should be able to put you in a booth in about three months. Would you like to get a drink at the bar?"
"Sure, give me one of those little vibrator things to tell me when my table is ready. I'll go and sit at the bar and...what's that...you're all out of steaks....emmmmhehhh...okay...right. At $2/steak there's no more cows?"
And while we're on the topic of restaurants, having extensive experience in my younger years, let me be perfectly clear about this. I am terrified of eating something prepared by a disgruntled, underpaid cook. Now, I can look forward to my elderly years in going under the knife of someone who no longer gives a damn because the government has said there is no difference between the amount that someone can make fixing your car to that of someone who fixes your heart and keeps you from dying. As the presenter mentioned, there is a reason that people flock to this country for procedures from countries who already have government health care.
When he completed his material, the speaker asked if there were any questions. I had one, but I didn't ask it. Today's political climate has more religious overtones than anything, and no one is interested in truth. They follow their leaders as though they are divine, and to question their intentions is considered sacrilege. I wasn't in the mood.
What I wanted to ask him was this: Did you ever, in your wildest dreams, envision a time where, as a leader of a large health care organization, that an environment would exist that demanded defensive actions in order to save that organization from, of all things in the United States of America, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Nonsense
Besides the facts that businesses create jobs, that they produce products for the consumer, that taxing them more not only causes prices to go up, but it also causes workers to lose jobs when the company goes to balance the new costs, is anyone else sickened by the barrage of Double Speak coming from the White House?
For details, see this article: Obama Unveils Plan to Close Tax Loopholes - Fox News
The same administration that is concerned about the American worker, the working family, jobs going overseas, etc., etc. is worried about American companies having an "unfair advantage".
Rah, Rah!!! Save our jobs!!!
Rah, Rah!!! Sock it to the evil American companies!!!!
...beam me up!!!
For details, see this article: Obama Unveils Plan to Close Tax Loopholes - Fox News
The same administration that is concerned about the American worker, the working family, jobs going overseas, etc., etc. is worried about American companies having an "unfair advantage".
Rah, Rah!!! Save our jobs!!!
Rah, Rah!!! Sock it to the evil American companies!!!!
...beam me up!!!
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Program Notes
If one wants to examine the rest of the "storyline", it is important to study the book of Daniel. So far most of the "main characters" have been introduced. The tension between the protagonist (God and His "chosen people", the Israelites) and the antagonist (Satan, "the devil", etc.) has been established. Here is a brief summary:
In Daniel chapter one, one reads how, through his obedience to God, Daniel rose to a position of respect and authority in Nebuchadnezzar's administration.
Chapter two starts with Nebuchadnezzar being deeply troubled from a dream. Here is the first insight into Nebuchadnezzar's impulsive instability. He summoned all the Babylonian wise men to interpret the dream. Likely to prevent fraudulent speculations, the caveat was that the winner must also recall an accurate account of the dream. To facilitate urgency and inspiration, King Nebuchadnezzar decreed that if the assembled group did not perform successfully, he would "cut [them] into pieces" and turn their houses into "piles of ruble" (Daniel 2:5).
No one knew the dream so, of course, no interpretation was possible. The king stated that all the wise men should be put to death, which included Daniel, who in turn asked the king for time to consider the dream and its meaning. Daniel then, with his friends, sought God's divine intervention.
The next day, Daniel went to the king with the requested revelation. He acknowledged God as the source . He described the dream. He explained that, in it, Nebuchadnezzar saw a statue whose components consisted of respective precious metals:
The most important part of the dream, and its interpretation, as it relates to the series, "The World Is Crazy: Now What?", is the dream's finale. Daniel told the king how, after seeing the statue, he then saw a Rock, uncut with human hands, strike the statue in the feet, destroying it. The rock then morphed into a great mountain and expanded throughout the entire earth.
Daniel reveled that the rock was from God. It was the establishment of His never-ending kingdom.
The rock, not cut by human hands (see John 1:1-2), of which Daniel spoke was the same Rock that Jesus mentioned as being the cornerstone of The Church. It was (will be) Jesus Himself, and He will put an end to worldly powers (see Revelation 19).
This passage, Daniel chapter two, laid out the rest of the storyline. In it, God revealed that there would be five great world powers prior to the return of Christ (the 2nd Advent), a time when all would be made right again, an event anticipated and prophesied over thousands of years in numerous scripture passages. Like knowing the final score without watching the game, it shows how governments will rise, and powers will fall, but in the end and as referenced by Rev. Dave Clardie when describing a minister's comments who emerged from an underground church at the fall of the Soviet Union, "God Wins!"
Read the previous posts in this series:
1) The World Is Crazy: Now What?
2) Cue The Lights
3) The Antagonist
4) Sturm und Drang
5) Enters Stage Right: Israel
6) An Interlude
- God created the "heavens and the earth" which included Adam and Eve (Genesis 1-2).
- With "the serpent's" instigation, Adam and Eve sinned separating humankind from God (Genesis 3:1-7).
- God chose to spare His creation (Genesis 3:8-24)
- God made a covenant with Abraham that included a promise of reconciliation between God and man(Genesis 15).
- As promised, Abraham had many descendants that became the nation of Israel (I Kings 4:20-21).
- After the exodus from Egypt, and the death of Moses, the Israelites conquered the land of Canaan (same general geographical location as present day Israel), most of the same land promised to it as part of Abraham's original covenant (Joshua, Judges, etc.).
- Israel, after ruled by a series of Judges (i.e., Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, etc.) sought her first King (I Samuel 8).
- After King Saul, David, whom God considered "a man after [His] own heart" ruled Israel during a high point of prosperity and expansion (II Samuel 2:1-4).
- David's son, King Solomon, carried the mantle of his father which including the construction of the first temple (I Kings 4).
- After King Solomon's death, the nation of Israel began a gradual distancing of herself from God; this included the division of the country into a northern and southern kingdom (I Kings 11-14).
In Daniel chapter one, one reads how, through his obedience to God, Daniel rose to a position of respect and authority in Nebuchadnezzar's administration.
Chapter two starts with Nebuchadnezzar being deeply troubled from a dream. Here is the first insight into Nebuchadnezzar's impulsive instability. He summoned all the Babylonian wise men to interpret the dream. Likely to prevent fraudulent speculations, the caveat was that the winner must also recall an accurate account of the dream. To facilitate urgency and inspiration, King Nebuchadnezzar decreed that if the assembled group did not perform successfully, he would "cut [them] into pieces" and turn their houses into "piles of ruble" (Daniel 2:5).
No one knew the dream so, of course, no interpretation was possible. The king stated that all the wise men should be put to death, which included Daniel, who in turn asked the king for time to consider the dream and its meaning. Daniel then, with his friends, sought God's divine intervention.
The next day, Daniel went to the king with the requested revelation. He acknowledged God as the source . He described the dream. He explained that, in it, Nebuchadnezzar saw a statue whose components consisted of respective precious metals:
- A head of gold
- A chest of silver
- A midsection of bronze
- Legs of iron
- Feet of iron mixed with clay
- Chest of Silver = Medo-Persian Empire
- Midsection of Bronze = Greek Empire
- Legs of Iron = Roman Empire
The most important part of the dream, and its interpretation, as it relates to the series, "The World Is Crazy: Now What?", is the dream's finale. Daniel told the king how, after seeing the statue, he then saw a Rock, uncut with human hands, strike the statue in the feet, destroying it. The rock then morphed into a great mountain and expanded throughout the entire earth.
Daniel reveled that the rock was from God. It was the establishment of His never-ending kingdom.
The rock, not cut by human hands (see John 1:1-2), of which Daniel spoke was the same Rock that Jesus mentioned as being the cornerstone of The Church. It was (will be) Jesus Himself, and He will put an end to worldly powers (see Revelation 19).
This passage, Daniel chapter two, laid out the rest of the storyline. In it, God revealed that there would be five great world powers prior to the return of Christ (the 2nd Advent), a time when all would be made right again, an event anticipated and prophesied over thousands of years in numerous scripture passages. Like knowing the final score without watching the game, it shows how governments will rise, and powers will fall, but in the end and as referenced by Rev. Dave Clardie when describing a minister's comments who emerged from an underground church at the fall of the Soviet Union, "God Wins!"
Read the previous posts in this series:
1) The World Is Crazy: Now What?
2) Cue The Lights
3) The Antagonist
4) Sturm und Drang
5) Enters Stage Right: Israel
6) An Interlude
Sunday, March 22, 2009
An Interlude
All the world's a masquerade
Made up of fools and philosophers.
Were it to rain on our charade, all washes away,
Except our true colors.
If any people bothered looking for truth,
Please, STOP THE WORLD from spinning 'round.
Instead we choose to follow footsteps of fools,
Please, STOP THE WORLD from spinning 'round.
If nothing's new under the sun for me and you
Won't somebody please...
STOP THE WORLD
STOP THE WORLD
I WANNA GET OFF...
If we forget yesterday,
We're bound to repeat it tomorrow...
Made up of fools and philosophers.
Were it to rain on our charade, all washes away,
Except our true colors.
If any people bothered looking for truth,
Please, STOP THE WORLD from spinning 'round.
Instead we choose to follow footsteps of fools,
Please, STOP THE WORLD from spinning 'round.
If nothing's new under the sun for me and you
Won't somebody please...
STOP THE WORLD
STOP THE WORLD
I WANNA GET OFF...
If we forget yesterday,
We're bound to repeat it tomorrow...
- From the track, "Stop the world", off the album III SIDES TO EVERY STORY by Extreme
I remember listening to this album when it was first released back in the fall of 1992. The funk groove of POLITICALAMITY. The climatic orchestral explosion sucked into a music box at the end of WHO CARES? It was today, seventeen years later as I walked in the brisk spring air alone with my thoughts, I could hear the chorus of one of my "less favorite" tracks, "STOP THE WORLD, STOP THE WORLD, I WANNA GET OFF."
In October of 2008, I began a series entitled "The World Is Crazy: Now What?". At that time, I was incredulous to the total disregard for truth, especially that of a historical nature. Being one who wants to know "what is" regardless of how it makes me feel, the daily idiocies were mind numbing.
It hit me; however, that "nothing's new under the sun", that men and women, much greater than I, throughout history have contemplated proper direction and perception when faced with the force of agendas that have trampled any exposed obstacles of truth. In that light, I wanted to chronicle what was really important, that which many have tried to discredit, but that which cannot and will not succumb to those who wish to mold the text books to serve their purpose.
Today, walking from sidewalk to sidewalk, I wandered in a perpetual state of disbelief. Every time I listen to the radio, pull of the news websites, I think oh my...oh my...wow. I have heard numerous media personalities say things like, "I never in my wildest dreams considered that I would be talking about this is the United States of America." It is surreal.
But as I walked, I wondered, "why am I surprised?" Before the election, we shouted, we clamored, we pleaded for people to do more thinking and less feeling. We enumerate all the things that were going to happen if the masses continued to blindly follow. Now that it is happening, I can't stop thinking, "this can't be happening, this can't be real." Seeing where this train is headed, all I could think was "STOP THE WORLD, I WANNA GET OFF."
***********************************
Having read nearly two-thirds of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, it is obvious why it is considered a classic, brilliantly conceived with political insights into past, present, and future. Why had I never read this before? It seems that everyone to whom I have mentioned it read it along with the other great novels in high school English class (i.e., The Scarlett Letter, The Great Gatsby). I'm sure I was supposed to read it too, but it may have cut into my "screw-off" time and was thus abandoned and forgotten.
Regardless, I picked it up from the library after hearing act after act of politicians referred to as "Orwellian". Now I know why.
Big Brother is alive and well. He has singled out talk radio hosts for talking. He has singled out news reporters for reporting. The Two Minutes Hate in the last week has targeted business executives at AIG. The Party has whipped the massess into an emotional frenzy to the point where families have had the fear for their safety.
Big Brother has its foot in the door now. He knew about the bonuses a long time ago. He knew they were written contracts and that they had to be paid. He saw the opportunity to rally the "proles" and the Outer Party to despise "Big Business", that it would be just the right tool to pry open the entry way.
Last night, I stopped at a point where Winston was reading "The Book" written by Goldstein that described the strategies and philosophies of The Party. It was especially all too familiar the concept of having a perpetual crisis so that those in power could retain power, that it was important to keep the lower and middle classes in fear.
Really, what I'm trying to say in all this, is that, while many are still lulled to a zombie-like state with nightly television, I am scared. Not in a manner that begets panic and flight, but one that causes sadness. I know where this ends, but I don't want to give up. It is a tragedy, when considering just the number of lives that have been sacrificed for this country and freedom.
Its like watching a loved one being eaten alive by cancer. You know she's going to a better place, but its still hard to see it happen.
Read the previous posts in this series:
1) The World Is Crazy: Now What?
2) Cue The Lights
3) The Antagonist
4) Sturm und Drang
5) Enters Stage Right: Israel
Read the next post in this series:
7) Program Notes
Monday, March 2, 2009
Commentary 20090302
"Obama Will Sign Spending Bill Despite Earmarks" - Fox News
Emanual says it is "inherited"? Last time I checked, it was his boss that is pressing the biggest spending bill in US history.
"Government Funds National Campaign to Promote Marriage" - Fox News
The worst economy since the Great Depression? Of course!! That's why there is money left over to fund programs like this. Yep, this is exactly what the founders had in mind, that the government exists to promote marriage. How exactly does that Separation of Church and State concept work?
"AIG Posts Record Loss, U.S. Pumps $30 Billion More" - Fox News
I stopped going to the gambling boat a long time ago. It hit me that only fools keep dumping money into such things...
"Critics Question Obama's 'Fuzzy Math'" - Fox News
This is surreal...
Emanual says it is "inherited"? Last time I checked, it was his boss that is pressing the biggest spending bill in US history.
"Government Funds National Campaign to Promote Marriage" - Fox News
The worst economy since the Great Depression? Of course!! That's why there is money left over to fund programs like this. Yep, this is exactly what the founders had in mind, that the government exists to promote marriage. How exactly does that Separation of Church and State concept work?
"AIG Posts Record Loss, U.S. Pumps $30 Billion More" - Fox News
I stopped going to the gambling boat a long time ago. It hit me that only fools keep dumping money into such things...
"Critics Question Obama's 'Fuzzy Math'" - Fox News
This is surreal...
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Logic Part I
As was promised about five, six months ago, the subject of logic will now be addressed. It must happen now because understanding future posts will require that a reader can grasp this concept.
In an effort to comprehend the upside down nature of current events, it has occurred to me that those who feel far outweigh those who think. That is not to say that those who feel are less intelligent. It is more a reference to the wind that they have chosen to direct their sails.
So many people get out of bed knowing the way they want things to be, and then proceed to color their day with propaganda, filtering out those things that "don't fit". Few are those who wake up knowing how they want things, and then seek to find "what is".
Logic is void of wants. It is not affected by emotion. It cares nothing for feelings. This may be why it is so unpopular; however, by definition only chaos will ensue when it is abandoned.
Logic seeks to determine one of two things: Is it true, or is it false? That is it. Quite simple.
2 + 2 = 4 True or false? Obviously, true!! This is logic.
Another example: 2+2=5 True or false? Obviously false!! This is logic.
So far, so good? Let's keep going.
In order to determine the validity of conclusions, it is often necessary to combine other known truths or premises. This is often done in a syllogism:
Major Premise: All insects have six legs
Minor Premise: My pet grasshopper, "Hops", is an insect
Conclusion: Hops has six legs
"Hops" has six legs is valid conclusion, assuming that both premises where true. This is where things get a bit tricky. The Minor Premise, unless I'm a liar, is true. The major premise, however, begs the question, "Do all insects have six legs?"
Well, yes, that is one of the defining characteristics of an insect. But is it possible that, in a sick and twisted moment, someone pulled one of Hops' legs off, and that since he is a tough little grasshopper, he has pressed on with only five legs? In this case, the conclusion would have been false because the Major Premise was not true. Some insects may have had their legs pulled off by Sid from Toy Story, so while the conclusion would most likely be true with most grasshoppers, it was not for poor Hops.
Let's do one more:
Major Premise: Drinking regular soda always causes one to gain weight.
Minor Premise: I'm drinking regular soda.
Conclusion: I'm going to gain weight.
The conclusion is true if the premises are true. One could debate the Major Premise; however, for the sake of argument, let's assume that it is true.
But I don't want to gain weight!! Okay, then stop drinking regular soda.
But I don't want to drink diet soda!! Okay, then your going to gain weight.
But I don't want...
STOP IT!!!! You can't have both!! It doesn't matter what you want. How you feel doesn't change reality and truth. Regular soda contains lots of sugar that is metabolized into fat. Your wants are contradictory, they are not logical!!
What is frustrating is that those of us who want to know "what is", and are not afraid to declare it are often subject to Ad Hominem (i.e., name calling) attacks. We are labeled as hateful and mean.
So you think I'm fat? I didn't say anything about your weight, I merely pointed out a logical solution to your problem.
So you're trying to tell me what to do? I don't care what you do; I'm just saying that you can't loose weight and drink regular soda at the same time so please stop complaining about being overweight while you are sucking down a Pepsi!!!
I'm getting a bit off-track. This is supposed to be "educational". I will stop for now, and let the reader absorb the following points:
1) Logic is a means to determine what is true and what is false
2) Logic is callous, it does not care about feelings or wants. By definition, what is true is true and what is false is false. One's emotion cannot change reality.
Stay tuned for Logic Part II: Logical Fallacies.
In an effort to comprehend the upside down nature of current events, it has occurred to me that those who feel far outweigh those who think. That is not to say that those who feel are less intelligent. It is more a reference to the wind that they have chosen to direct their sails.
So many people get out of bed knowing the way they want things to be, and then proceed to color their day with propaganda, filtering out those things that "don't fit". Few are those who wake up knowing how they want things, and then seek to find "what is".
Logic is void of wants. It is not affected by emotion. It cares nothing for feelings. This may be why it is so unpopular; however, by definition only chaos will ensue when it is abandoned.
Logic seeks to determine one of two things: Is it true, or is it false? That is it. Quite simple.
2 + 2 = 4 True or false? Obviously, true!! This is logic.
Another example: 2+2=5 True or false? Obviously false!! This is logic.
So far, so good? Let's keep going.
In order to determine the validity of conclusions, it is often necessary to combine other known truths or premises. This is often done in a syllogism:
Major Premise: All insects have six legs
Minor Premise: My pet grasshopper, "Hops", is an insect
Conclusion: Hops has six legs
"Hops" has six legs is valid conclusion, assuming that both premises where true. This is where things get a bit tricky. The Minor Premise, unless I'm a liar, is true. The major premise, however, begs the question, "Do all insects have six legs?"
Well, yes, that is one of the defining characteristics of an insect. But is it possible that, in a sick and twisted moment, someone pulled one of Hops' legs off, and that since he is a tough little grasshopper, he has pressed on with only five legs? In this case, the conclusion would have been false because the Major Premise was not true. Some insects may have had their legs pulled off by Sid from Toy Story, so while the conclusion would most likely be true with most grasshoppers, it was not for poor Hops.
Let's do one more:
Major Premise: Drinking regular soda always causes one to gain weight.
Minor Premise: I'm drinking regular soda.
Conclusion: I'm going to gain weight.
The conclusion is true if the premises are true. One could debate the Major Premise; however, for the sake of argument, let's assume that it is true.
But I don't want to gain weight!! Okay, then stop drinking regular soda.
But I don't want to drink diet soda!! Okay, then your going to gain weight.
But I don't want...
STOP IT!!!! You can't have both!! It doesn't matter what you want. How you feel doesn't change reality and truth. Regular soda contains lots of sugar that is metabolized into fat. Your wants are contradictory, they are not logical!!
What is frustrating is that those of us who want to know "what is", and are not afraid to declare it are often subject to Ad Hominem (i.e., name calling) attacks. We are labeled as hateful and mean.
So you think I'm fat? I didn't say anything about your weight, I merely pointed out a logical solution to your problem.
So you're trying to tell me what to do? I don't care what you do; I'm just saying that you can't loose weight and drink regular soda at the same time so please stop complaining about being overweight while you are sucking down a Pepsi!!!
I'm getting a bit off-track. This is supposed to be "educational". I will stop for now, and let the reader absorb the following points:
1) Logic is a means to determine what is true and what is false
2) Logic is callous, it does not care about feelings or wants. By definition, what is true is true and what is false is false. One's emotion cannot change reality.
Stay tuned for Logic Part II: Logical Fallacies.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Commentary 20090225
"Obama Seeks $634M Over 10 Years to Revamp Health Care System" - Fox News
Great idea!!! Tax "the rich". This should stimulate the heck out of the economy because we all know that it is poor people run the companies that hire workers.
"Fact Check: Obama's Words on Home Aid Ring Hollow" - Fox News
Someone obviously missed the memo. It's not what he says, but how he says it!!
"MSNBC Introduction for Gov. Jindal: 'Oh God'" - Fox News
Liberal press? How absurd!
"Arrest Made in Home Foreclosure Civil Disobedience Program" - Fox News
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't ownership imply purchase and payment? If occupancy constitutes ownership, why not find a comfortable seat behind the wheel of a new Corvette.
Great idea!!! Tax "the rich". This should stimulate the heck out of the economy because we all know that it is poor people run the companies that hire workers.
"Fact Check: Obama's Words on Home Aid Ring Hollow" - Fox News
Someone obviously missed the memo. It's not what he says, but how he says it!!
"MSNBC Introduction for Gov. Jindal: 'Oh God'" - Fox News
Liberal press? How absurd!
"Arrest Made in Home Foreclosure Civil Disobedience Program" - Fox News
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't ownership imply purchase and payment? If occupancy constitutes ownership, why not find a comfortable seat behind the wheel of a new Corvette.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Commentary 20090221
"Poll: Obama More Popular Than Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr." - Fox News
"Whoever does not fall down and worship will immediately be thrown into a blazing furnace."
- Daniel 3:6 (NIV)
ABC's Terry Moran: For Obama, Presidency Is a 'Step Down' - Newsbusters
"Therefore, as soon as they heard the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp and all kinds of music, all the peoples, nations and men of every language fell down and worshiped the image of gold..."
- Daniel 3:7 (NIV)
"Santelli's Tea Party" - CNBC
"At this time some astrologers came forward...They said to King Nebuchadnezzar, 'O king, live forever! You have issued a decree, O king, that everyone ...must fall down and worship the image of gold, and that whoever does not fall down and worship will be thrown into a blazing furnace. But there are some...who pay no attention to you, O king...'"
- Daniel 3:8-12 (NIV)
"Iran Blocks Web Sites Promoting Reformist Khatami" - Fox News
Are we really that far off?
"Socks, Feline Face of the Clinton White House, Dead at 18" - Fox News
How sad. May he rest in peace.
"Whoever does not fall down and worship will immediately be thrown into a blazing furnace."
- Daniel 3:6 (NIV)
ABC's Terry Moran: For Obama, Presidency Is a 'Step Down' - Newsbusters
"Therefore, as soon as they heard the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp and all kinds of music, all the peoples, nations and men of every language fell down and worshiped the image of gold..."
- Daniel 3:7 (NIV)
"Santelli's Tea Party" - CNBC
"At this time some astrologers came forward...They said to King Nebuchadnezzar, 'O king, live forever! You have issued a decree, O king, that everyone ...must fall down and worship the image of gold, and that whoever does not fall down and worship will be thrown into a blazing furnace. But there are some...who pay no attention to you, O king...'"
- Daniel 3:8-12 (NIV)
"Iran Blocks Web Sites Promoting Reformist Khatami" - Fox News
Are we really that far off?
"Socks, Feline Face of the Clinton White House, Dead at 18" - Fox News
How sad. May he rest in peace.
Snow
This morning. I woke up. I looked outside. About six inches of snow on the ground.
Got up. Went outside. Spent 10 minutes clearing snow from car. Tromped through large drifts. 15 degrees. 30/mph winds. Fingers turned white.
Thank you President Obama for "taking care of us" and addressing global warming. Thank you for packing the "Stimulus Package" full of soon-to-be taxpayer dollars (not yet, it's all credit right now) that will go to fight global warming. I'm sure that by this time next year, once you have "cooled the planet", I won't even need a car anymore.
We will all travel on dogsleds.
Should I buy one now, and then you will send me money later when I can't afford the payments, or should I save money to buy one later, and then have it taxed to pay for those who chose the antecedent?
Got up. Went outside. Spent 10 minutes clearing snow from car. Tromped through large drifts. 15 degrees. 30/mph winds. Fingers turned white.
Thank you President Obama for "taking care of us" and addressing global warming. Thank you for packing the "Stimulus Package" full of soon-to-be taxpayer dollars (not yet, it's all credit right now) that will go to fight global warming. I'm sure that by this time next year, once you have "cooled the planet", I won't even need a car anymore.
We will all travel on dogsleds.
Should I buy one now, and then you will send me money later when I can't afford the payments, or should I save money to buy one later, and then have it taxed to pay for those who chose the antecedent?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
And So It Continues...
"Democrats Consider Reviving 'Fairness Doctrine'" - Fox News
It's called the 1st Amendment...
"Oh, Gracious God", please tell me that this is the exception and not the norm!!!
"Student Group Wants to Rename High School After Obama" - Fox News
In light of the Fairness Doctrine, does this mean that the school across town will be named George W. Bush Elementary?
"Report: Woman Files Lawsuit Against Miley Cyrus For Offensive Gesture" - Fox News
I'm bald, would someone care to take a crack at me. I could use the money...oh wait...never mind. I forgot that the government is handing out free money...
...Tell me things are not upside down: The World Is Crazy: Now What?
It's called the 1st Amendment...
"Oh, Gracious God", please tell me that this is the exception and not the norm!!!
"Student Group Wants to Rename High School After Obama" - Fox News
In light of the Fairness Doctrine, does this mean that the school across town will be named George W. Bush Elementary?
"Report: Woman Files Lawsuit Against Miley Cyrus For Offensive Gesture" - Fox News
I'm bald, would someone care to take a crack at me. I could use the money...oh wait...never mind. I forgot that the government is handing out free money...
...Tell me things are not upside down: The World Is Crazy: Now What?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
