During a sometimes heated, sometimes congenial meeting of the minds yesterday, Republican members of Congress and President Barack Obama bantered about the state of the union. Who came out on top is a matter of personal view, it seems, but one glaring and hypocritical moment stands out from the rest. That was when the President lectured the GOP on the idea of working together.
Apparently Mr. Obama feels that Republicans were wrong in voting as a bloc against him. Yet this conveniently ignores that the Democrats voted almost as one (they certainly did in the Senate) in forcing through a health care measure. The question becomes: who's the hypocrite?
Is it really bad form when the opposition opposes? Especially when we are dealing with an issue as critical to our future as a massive intrusion of the government into our daily lives, is it fair to assert that one side is merely obstructing when they in fact are addressing things according to the will of many (if not most) Americans? Who are the real leaders, those attempting to force their will on the nation, or those speaking for her?
It is immoral to ask people to support things which they cannot in good conscience do. And it is petty to accuse them of partisanship when it is the partisanship of your own party which has caused all the drama of the last year. Bad show, Mr. President. Bad show.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Don't change just to change
The title says it all: I see no point in changing anything just to change. It borders on senseless, quite frankly, and arguably childish.
There's nothing wrong with it per se either, I'll concede. Still, that being the case, why do it at all is a fair question to ask.
Expand your horizons, perhaps? What if the horizon isn't all that clear? Besides, it becomes fair to ask in answer to that, what's wrong with I'm doing now? I realize that either question calls for a certain amount of extrapolation, as it's ultimately all in the details. But remember the question is why change simply to change?
When we took the kids out for ice cream I virtually always got black cherry. Why? I like it. Why try something new when you can get what you know you like.
Am I being obstinate? Perhaps; but aren't you being equally obstinate in trying to get me to change? I mean, what's it to you? It's not like I'm doing anything immoral (on the ice cream question, of course). Further, as I have the right in that sphere to order what I want, what argument can you possibly have against me?
It might be nice to change. Okay, but it might be nice to get what I want too. It's almost a moral wash; wait, no it isn't. It's my right to do what I want among legitimate moral choices. What you think I should do merits nothing for your position. It's only you being bossy.
Maybe I should have labeled this becoming a curmudgeon part eight. But so be it. Leave me alone where I've the right be left alone; that's all I ask.
There's nothing wrong with it per se either, I'll concede. Still, that being the case, why do it at all is a fair question to ask.
Expand your horizons, perhaps? What if the horizon isn't all that clear? Besides, it becomes fair to ask in answer to that, what's wrong with I'm doing now? I realize that either question calls for a certain amount of extrapolation, as it's ultimately all in the details. But remember the question is why change simply to change?
When we took the kids out for ice cream I virtually always got black cherry. Why? I like it. Why try something new when you can get what you know you like.
Am I being obstinate? Perhaps; but aren't you being equally obstinate in trying to get me to change? I mean, what's it to you? It's not like I'm doing anything immoral (on the ice cream question, of course). Further, as I have the right in that sphere to order what I want, what argument can you possibly have against me?
It might be nice to change. Okay, but it might be nice to get what I want too. It's almost a moral wash; wait, no it isn't. It's my right to do what I want among legitimate moral choices. What you think I should do merits nothing for your position. It's only you being bossy.
Maybe I should have labeled this becoming a curmudgeon part eight. But so be it. Leave me alone where I've the right be left alone; that's all I ask.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Once Again: Pro-Choice Means Pro-Abortion
Controversy is stirring again over Super Bowl ads, but this time over an issue rarely if ever associated with things football. Former University of Florida Quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother will appear in a pro-life ad sponsored by Focus on the Family, and the pro-abortion crowd can't stand it. The question is, why?
If they are really in favor of choice, then someone espousing their choice should not make a ripple with them. They're simply doing what is right for them, aren't they? Further, what's so insulting about someone publicly explaining their actions at their discretion? If all it is is their choice, why get upset about it at all?
Yet we don't hear that. We don't hear the silence that we ought to hear if the pro-choice crowd were true to their word. What we hear are sneering comments about about how Pam Tebow was only exercising her choice. That CBS should not air such commercials during a football game. We hear sportswriters whining that athletes shouldn't mix politics and sports, ignoring the issue of why a sportswriter should care about an athlete's personal view anyway. It's absurd.
But the bottom line is this: they would not care one lick about this except that pro-choice means pro-abortion. It means that the pro-abortion crowd realizes in their hearts if not in their heads that the stances are one and the same. You simply cannot logically be in favor of someone having an option to do something unless you think that option morally acceptable.
Pro-choice means pro-abortion. There is no other way to view the matter.
If they are really in favor of choice, then someone espousing their choice should not make a ripple with them. They're simply doing what is right for them, aren't they? Further, what's so insulting about someone publicly explaining their actions at their discretion? If all it is is their choice, why get upset about it at all?
Yet we don't hear that. We don't hear the silence that we ought to hear if the pro-choice crowd were true to their word. What we hear are sneering comments about about how Pam Tebow was only exercising her choice. That CBS should not air such commercials during a football game. We hear sportswriters whining that athletes shouldn't mix politics and sports, ignoring the issue of why a sportswriter should care about an athlete's personal view anyway. It's absurd.
But the bottom line is this: they would not care one lick about this except that pro-choice means pro-abortion. It means that the pro-abortion crowd realizes in their hearts if not in their heads that the stances are one and the same. You simply cannot logically be in favor of someone having an option to do something unless you think that option morally acceptable.
Pro-choice means pro-abortion. There is no other way to view the matter.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The Spirit of 94!
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who masterfully ran the campaign which vaulted Republicans into control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years, has proposed a similar approach to the upcoming November elections. He suggests these priorities:
1. Jobs, jobs, jobs.
2. Balance the budget.
3. An American energy plan.
4. Appropriations reform.
5. Litigation reform.
6. Real health reform.
7. Every child gets ahead.
8. Protect religious liberty.
9. Protect Americans, not the rights of terrorists.
10. Defending America is job one for government.
Not a bad list, to be sure, yet there are areas and ways in which he should be careful. If he means we must create an environment where jobs are created through market forces, that's good. If he means government stimulus jobs programs, which is doubtful, that's bad. The same with energy plans: if they are of the kind and type which promote private initiative via the market, good. If they promote untested 'green' ideas, that's bad.
'Every child gets ahead' sounds too much like 'No child left behind', and we see what a debacle that has become. We need to get the federal government out of the education business, period.
The bottom line is simple: flesh it out. Show some details, and we'll go from there. But it is good to see the GOP recognizing that it must energize the electorate by appeal to it, and that the best way to do that is a return to the solid, hard core values of mainstream America.
The Spirit of 94: pass it on!
1. Jobs, jobs, jobs.
2. Balance the budget.
3. An American energy plan.
4. Appropriations reform.
5. Litigation reform.
6. Real health reform.
7. Every child gets ahead.
8. Protect religious liberty.
9. Protect Americans, not the rights of terrorists.
10. Defending America is job one for government.
Not a bad list, to be sure, yet there are areas and ways in which he should be careful. If he means we must create an environment where jobs are created through market forces, that's good. If he means government stimulus jobs programs, which is doubtful, that's bad. The same with energy plans: if they are of the kind and type which promote private initiative via the market, good. If they promote untested 'green' ideas, that's bad.
'Every child gets ahead' sounds too much like 'No child left behind', and we see what a debacle that has become. We need to get the federal government out of the education business, period.
The bottom line is simple: flesh it out. Show some details, and we'll go from there. But it is good to see the GOP recognizing that it must energize the electorate by appeal to it, and that the best way to do that is a return to the solid, hard core values of mainstream America.
The Spirit of 94: pass it on!
Monday, January 25, 2010
Government Financed Elections
Many people believe that the federal government ought to finance, at the least, the presidential elections. The idea seems to be based on fairness: whoever is running deserves to be viewed on equal terms with every other major candidate. This attitude begs several questions, not the least of which is that of whether the government ought to elect itself.
That is exactly what we get when Washington funds elections. If government is where the campaign cash comes from, then the government is electing itself. Yet that does not elicit the fear and hang wrangling which comes when folks think about corporations giving money to those running for public office. It would be safer if private giving fueled elections because then it would be true free speech and expression at work rather than the government telling us who merits election through its funding.
Where would government financing elections come from? Our taxes. Well, why should any given individual's tax money go towards a candidate he doesn't like? At least if FedEx gives cash to a presidential wannabe they aren't taking the money from me. Yes, theoretically that money comes from a fund where, what, three bucks, of an individual's taxes are set into at his discretion. But that's paper ploy: if the feds pay for an election the money will come from wherever it must. That may not really be the point anyway. It is an affront to an individual's dignity to have his government support candidates he would not support on his own. That isn't fairness. It's insulting.
Another question which grows out the fairness concept is one of presumption: who says all ideas and all candidates merit equal consideration? This is an issue beyond whoever's money is involved. Yet if we should mandate government funding of elections we would be mandating cash for, perhaps, ill thought out if not downright poor, stupid, or evil ideals. Again, it would be better to let the private citizenry fund office seekers.
That we should be careful about corporations giving money to candidates is certainly an, ahem, fair concern. But we should be more wary of government playing the game. Washington is a greater threat to our rights than Exxon.
That is exactly what we get when Washington funds elections. If government is where the campaign cash comes from, then the government is electing itself. Yet that does not elicit the fear and hang wrangling which comes when folks think about corporations giving money to those running for public office. It would be safer if private giving fueled elections because then it would be true free speech and expression at work rather than the government telling us who merits election through its funding.
Where would government financing elections come from? Our taxes. Well, why should any given individual's tax money go towards a candidate he doesn't like? At least if FedEx gives cash to a presidential wannabe they aren't taking the money from me. Yes, theoretically that money comes from a fund where, what, three bucks, of an individual's taxes are set into at his discretion. But that's paper ploy: if the feds pay for an election the money will come from wherever it must. That may not really be the point anyway. It is an affront to an individual's dignity to have his government support candidates he would not support on his own. That isn't fairness. It's insulting.
Another question which grows out the fairness concept is one of presumption: who says all ideas and all candidates merit equal consideration? This is an issue beyond whoever's money is involved. Yet if we should mandate government funding of elections we would be mandating cash for, perhaps, ill thought out if not downright poor, stupid, or evil ideals. Again, it would be better to let the private citizenry fund office seekers.
That we should be careful about corporations giving money to candidates is certainly an, ahem, fair concern. But we should be more wary of government playing the game. Washington is a greater threat to our rights than Exxon.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
The Citizens United Case
The Supreme Court ruled recently that corporations could donate whatever money they wanted to political campaigns. This has the left on its heels, and has some pundits calling the Roberts Court, which is essentially conservative, hypocrites. But what is really at work here?
In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said "...(corporations) are not members of our society. They cannot vote or run for office." Certainly they cannot vote or hold office; but it becomes fair to ask, if they are in fact not part of our society, why they should be taxed? If they are not part of society then, arguably, at least, they have no obligation to it. But more, that's a rather unilateral and arbitrary position to take. Why should they not be seen as members of the community? Corporations, businesses, nonprofits: these are all moral persons. If they weren't, we could not engage them when they act immorally. They can be sued if circumstances warrant. Why can't they give to political campaigns which support them?
The real trouble which the liberals have with rulings such as these is itself political. They can't raise the same money as right wing causes because they don't have the same type or amount of support in the areas of society which have money. Outside of Hollywood types and the Kennedys, there are few leftists with large amounts of money. The only way the left can affect society is by controlling the political process, which includes keeping right wing cash in the pockets of the holders rather than see it spent against them.
There are two ways we can make election money less relevant to the process. First, if you are worried about foreign influence in our campaigns, as some fear, then ban foreign contributions. Then, lessen government's influence on society. Go back to the Constitution and get Washington out of the way so that people can live their lives without so much interference.
But that won't happen because the left are the true hypocrites. They want power over people and government is the only way to get it. They are the real despots; the next Hitler will be all for the environment. But as always with dictators, it is the people who will suffer.
In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said "...(corporations) are not members of our society. They cannot vote or run for office." Certainly they cannot vote or hold office; but it becomes fair to ask, if they are in fact not part of our society, why they should be taxed? If they are not part of society then, arguably, at least, they have no obligation to it. But more, that's a rather unilateral and arbitrary position to take. Why should they not be seen as members of the community? Corporations, businesses, nonprofits: these are all moral persons. If they weren't, we could not engage them when they act immorally. They can be sued if circumstances warrant. Why can't they give to political campaigns which support them?
The real trouble which the liberals have with rulings such as these is itself political. They can't raise the same money as right wing causes because they don't have the same type or amount of support in the areas of society which have money. Outside of Hollywood types and the Kennedys, there are few leftists with large amounts of money. The only way the left can affect society is by controlling the political process, which includes keeping right wing cash in the pockets of the holders rather than see it spent against them.
There are two ways we can make election money less relevant to the process. First, if you are worried about foreign influence in our campaigns, as some fear, then ban foreign contributions. Then, lessen government's influence on society. Go back to the Constitution and get Washington out of the way so that people can live their lives without so much interference.
But that won't happen because the left are the true hypocrites. They want power over people and government is the only way to get it. They are the real despots; the next Hitler will be all for the environment. But as always with dictators, it is the people who will suffer.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
The State of the Union: what can he say?
The annual State of the Union address is nearly upon us, and it will be interesting to see what President Obama has to say. More to the point, however, is the question of what can he say?
He has tried to pass extreme, and indeed draconian, health care legislation. But isn't that a losing point either way? He tried, and has so far failed? That's not a positive. Nor would having succeeded in passing it be good. How can one defend a bad idea and keep a straight face?
He has vastly increased our national debt. How can one defend that?
He has not closed the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Not that that was a good idea in itself, but to order a camp closed within a year and not getting it closed within that time frame? Bad form, Mr. President, and it shows a glaring lack of foresight.
He ran as a moderate yet governs as a far left autocrat. How inclusive can the Democrats and the Chief Executive claim to be when they refuse to offer a hand across the aisle on sweeping legislation? Especially as the majority of the nation doesn't like it.
Ever major political and social effort he has attempted has failed. Virginia? New Jersey? Massachusetts, anyone? He could not even secure the 2016 Olympics for Chicago, and the world is supposed to like him.
The state of the union is not good right now, and it doesn't appear as though it will change anytime soon. The spin wagon will have to work overtime on the matter to make anything smell like a rose.
The Spirit of 94! Make it happen.
He has tried to pass extreme, and indeed draconian, health care legislation. But isn't that a losing point either way? He tried, and has so far failed? That's not a positive. Nor would having succeeded in passing it be good. How can one defend a bad idea and keep a straight face?
He has vastly increased our national debt. How can one defend that?
He has not closed the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Not that that was a good idea in itself, but to order a camp closed within a year and not getting it closed within that time frame? Bad form, Mr. President, and it shows a glaring lack of foresight.
He ran as a moderate yet governs as a far left autocrat. How inclusive can the Democrats and the Chief Executive claim to be when they refuse to offer a hand across the aisle on sweeping legislation? Especially as the majority of the nation doesn't like it.
Ever major political and social effort he has attempted has failed. Virginia? New Jersey? Massachusetts, anyone? He could not even secure the 2016 Olympics for Chicago, and the world is supposed to like him.
The state of the union is not good right now, and it doesn't appear as though it will change anytime soon. The spin wagon will have to work overtime on the matter to make anything smell like a rose.
The Spirit of 94! Make it happen.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Drinking and Driving Laws
Great Britain has banned drinking games in bars. The State of Virginia and the City of Huntington Beach, California have done the same. Ontario, a Province in Canada, has put into law the rule that if your blood alcohol concentration is .05 to .08 (.08 being the legal limit for driving under the influence) you will still face serious consequences: you can be fined and your license suspended for three days.
There is no argument against drunk driving rules being strident. But it is left to wonder whether we are going too far: Ontario has said that if you plan on drinking, then don't plan on driving. It is fair to ask whether we may be infringing on individual rights too much in trying to discourage the consumption of alcohol. This is insulting, especially as there is no moral wrong involved in drinking alcoholic beverages.
Drinking games, to be sure, are at least borderline juvenile. Yet that does not seem reason enough to ban them. And while there must be clear legal guidelines as to what constitutes drunken driving, making it virtually a crime to drink then drive at all appears extreme. Individual responsibility is dying at the hands of the nanny state.
This is not to defend alcoholism or drunken behavior. By all means, throw the book at anyone driving dangerously impaired. But to essentially say than any ingestion of alcohol followed by driving is impaired driving strains credibility, and insults the individual. We need to take greater care when devising our laws. We need to remember that responsibility is ultimately in the person, not the state.
There is no argument against drunk driving rules being strident. But it is left to wonder whether we are going too far: Ontario has said that if you plan on drinking, then don't plan on driving. It is fair to ask whether we may be infringing on individual rights too much in trying to discourage the consumption of alcohol. This is insulting, especially as there is no moral wrong involved in drinking alcoholic beverages.
Drinking games, to be sure, are at least borderline juvenile. Yet that does not seem reason enough to ban them. And while there must be clear legal guidelines as to what constitutes drunken driving, making it virtually a crime to drink then drive at all appears extreme. Individual responsibility is dying at the hands of the nanny state.
This is not to defend alcoholism or drunken behavior. By all means, throw the book at anyone driving dangerously impaired. But to essentially say than any ingestion of alcohol followed by driving is impaired driving strains credibility, and insults the individual. We need to take greater care when devising our laws. We need to remember that responsibility is ultimately in the person, not the state.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Beginning of the End
Scott Brown became the first Republican senator elected from Massachusetts since 1972 with a stunning and eye opening victory over Martha Coakley in yesterday's special election. It should serve as a lesson for the Democrats, whose far left agenda has seriously dampened America's enthusiasm for their type of ill wrought change.
But more, and this should really put the fear of God in the party, it signals yet again the disgust with which our nation has begun to view them. And their leader. President Barack Obama is now batting .000 when he has placed his prestige on the line for a candidate or a cause. He could not get Democrats elected governor in New Jersey or Virginia, nor a Democrat crowned senator in that bluest of States, Massachusetts. Lest you think that is merely American anger at work, consider that on strikeout number four, his attempt to get Chicago the 2016 Summer Olympics, it was essentially the world, the world which is supposed to love him because it hates us, which turned him thumbs down on that one.
There is talk of parliamentary tricks and maneuvering to prevent Brown from taking his seat before the next critical vote on health care. The leftists on the Potomac would be smart to scrap the whole idea. To force it through now or to delay Senator-elect Brown his seat would only further anger an electorate determined to set this nation aright once more. The people are sick of politics as usual, and the whole health care debacle in the Senate (buying Nebraska's vote? That's bribery under a legal moniker, plain and simple) simply reeks of that.
Could this be the beginning of the end for the Obama Administration? Have the Democrats overstepped themselves and pushed their socialist view of the United States too far? Has their hypocrisy (increasing the debt by what, four times, after years of lambasting Bush's spending?) been exposed to our people for what it is: the politics of raw power and nothing more?
Stay tuned. But November 2010 is looking better all the time.
But more, and this should really put the fear of God in the party, it signals yet again the disgust with which our nation has begun to view them. And their leader. President Barack Obama is now batting .000 when he has placed his prestige on the line for a candidate or a cause. He could not get Democrats elected governor in New Jersey or Virginia, nor a Democrat crowned senator in that bluest of States, Massachusetts. Lest you think that is merely American anger at work, consider that on strikeout number four, his attempt to get Chicago the 2016 Summer Olympics, it was essentially the world, the world which is supposed to love him because it hates us, which turned him thumbs down on that one.
There is talk of parliamentary tricks and maneuvering to prevent Brown from taking his seat before the next critical vote on health care. The leftists on the Potomac would be smart to scrap the whole idea. To force it through now or to delay Senator-elect Brown his seat would only further anger an electorate determined to set this nation aright once more. The people are sick of politics as usual, and the whole health care debacle in the Senate (buying Nebraska's vote? That's bribery under a legal moniker, plain and simple) simply reeks of that.
Could this be the beginning of the end for the Obama Administration? Have the Democrats overstepped themselves and pushed their socialist view of the United States too far? Has their hypocrisy (increasing the debt by what, four times, after years of lambasting Bush's spending?) been exposed to our people for what it is: the politics of raw power and nothing more?
Stay tuned. But November 2010 is looking better all the time.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
We are a Christian Nation
The debate will never end, but one thing needs to be perfectly clear just the same: the United States is a Christian nation. It was founded by Christians on essentially Christian principles.
Freedom of religion? A Christian concept.
The majority of our Founders? Christian, or at least Deist.
The Declaration of Independence refers to 'Laws of Nature and Nature's God' entitling the people their right and concludes (in part) 'with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence'.
The money says In God We Trust.
There are prayers before sessions of Congress.
Presidents regularly end televised addresses 'and God Bless America'.
We could go on, but this is ample evidence.
Freedom of religion? A Christian concept.
The majority of our Founders? Christian, or at least Deist.
The Declaration of Independence refers to 'Laws of Nature and Nature's God' entitling the people their right and concludes (in part) 'with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence'.
The money says In God We Trust.
There are prayers before sessions of Congress.
Presidents regularly end televised addresses 'and God Bless America'.
We could go on, but this is ample evidence.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Benedict XVI and The Jewish Community
Pope Benedict XVI spoke at a synagogue in Rome Sunday in an effort to ease tensions between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people. The Jewish community has been critical of the Pope and the Church to varying degrees over the years. In particular, they feel that World War II Pontiff Pius XII did not do enough in saving Roman Jews and are uncomfortable with Benedict XVI speeding up the sainthood process for him. Further, they understandably do not like the current Pope having removed excommunication against a holocaust denier, and that Benedict has also revived a prayer calling for the conversion of the Jews.
These are difficult items to contend with. The dispute about what Pius XII did or did not do will likely never fully end; Catholics are content that he did much behind the scenes and others will not accept that explanation. Consequently, those people will never care for sainthood for the war Pope. It is at this point where our faith comes in: unless and until there is hard evidence that Pius XII did little, Catholics are in good conscience to hold that he did what he could.
As to removing excommunication, it should be noted that that is a measure only of how far the clerics in question accept the authority of Rome on religious matters. It does not deem their personal opinions valid. Still, it is understandable that the world community would be upset about the issue.
The real sticking point, however, may be in the prayers about conversion. Yet what can be said about such a thing which will not offend? Why would the Church not want prayers for conversion, not simply of the Jews but of any and all non Catholics? If you believe that you are a member of the one true Church, would you not want everyone to become part of it? Does not the Jewish faith, and Islam and Protestantism and any other creed which claims to hold a full knowledge of God and truth, want others to share in it and become full partners with them? Why hold the Catholic Church at arms length merely for wanting the same thing?
True brotherhood requires that all sides see all sticking points clearly and applies criticism fairly. For that goal, we should all pray.
These are difficult items to contend with. The dispute about what Pius XII did or did not do will likely never fully end; Catholics are content that he did much behind the scenes and others will not accept that explanation. Consequently, those people will never care for sainthood for the war Pope. It is at this point where our faith comes in: unless and until there is hard evidence that Pius XII did little, Catholics are in good conscience to hold that he did what he could.
As to removing excommunication, it should be noted that that is a measure only of how far the clerics in question accept the authority of Rome on religious matters. It does not deem their personal opinions valid. Still, it is understandable that the world community would be upset about the issue.
The real sticking point, however, may be in the prayers about conversion. Yet what can be said about such a thing which will not offend? Why would the Church not want prayers for conversion, not simply of the Jews but of any and all non Catholics? If you believe that you are a member of the one true Church, would you not want everyone to become part of it? Does not the Jewish faith, and Islam and Protestantism and any other creed which claims to hold a full knowledge of God and truth, want others to share in it and become full partners with them? Why hold the Catholic Church at arms length merely for wanting the same thing?
True brotherhood requires that all sides see all sticking points clearly and applies criticism fairly. For that goal, we should all pray.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Mary's Last Recorded Words
In the readings at Catholic Mass today, we find the story of the wedding at Cana. It is there where Christ performed his first miracle: turning water into wine. Yet what is sometimes overshadowed by that event are the last recorded words of the Virgin Mary: "Do whatever He tells you."
It is difficult to image these words and their timing as inadvertent. Christ is at the beginning of His public ministry; they must be seen as a foreshadowing of things to come. "Do whatever He tells you."
A simple yet marvelous statement. If we were to honor it, we would do great things for the world.
It is difficult to image these words and their timing as inadvertent. Christ is at the beginning of His public ministry; they must be seen as a foreshadowing of things to come. "Do whatever He tells you."
A simple yet marvelous statement. If we were to honor it, we would do great things for the world.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Top Ten Novelty/Comedy Songs, con't.
5. They're Coming to take Me Away, a-ha - Napoleon XIV (1966)
-- What guy can't relate to his girl jilting him? Who wouldn't go crazy?
4. Poisoning Pigeons in the Park - Tom Lehrer (1959)
-- Hilarious. Who doesn't want to get rid of the pesky birds?
3. Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah - Allan Sherman (1963)
-- Camp was never like that, was it, kids?
2. King Tut - Steve Martin (1978)
-- A solid parody as the world went gaga over the touring treasures of the young pharaoh. It's Steve Martin at his sublime comic best.
1. Christmas at Ground Zero - Weird Al Yankovic (1986)
--An absurd juxtaposition of the holiday season and nuclear holocaust, this tune is demented and delightful at the same time. Weird Al is the undisputed king of sung comedy.
-- What guy can't relate to his girl jilting him? Who wouldn't go crazy?
4. Poisoning Pigeons in the Park - Tom Lehrer (1959)
-- Hilarious. Who doesn't want to get rid of the pesky birds?
3. Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah - Allan Sherman (1963)
-- Camp was never like that, was it, kids?
2. King Tut - Steve Martin (1978)
-- A solid parody as the world went gaga over the touring treasures of the young pharaoh. It's Steve Martin at his sublime comic best.
1. Christmas at Ground Zero - Weird Al Yankovic (1986)
--An absurd juxtaposition of the holiday season and nuclear holocaust, this tune is demented and delightful at the same time. Weird Al is the undisputed king of sung comedy.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Top Ten Novelty/Comedy Songs
10. Pretty Fly for a White Guy - The Offspring (1999)
-- Alternative Rock fans may not agree that it's novelty, but the band was obviously going for the funny. Plus, the song rocks!
9. White and Nerdy - Weird Al Yankovic (2006)
-- So our first two picks parody white guys; well, white guys and Christians are the last two groups for whom it's still PC to satirize. Besides, it shows that we conservatives appreciate humor even when aimed at us.
8. The Battle of Kookamunga - Homer and Jethro (1959)
-- The clown princes of country music score big with this takeoff of the Johnny Horton standard The Battle of New Orleans. Classic.
7. The Lumberjack Song - Monty Python's Flying Circus (1970)
-- I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay. Perfect absurdity.
6. I'm Against It - The Marx Brothers (1932)
-- Groucho at his best. It's a great right wing song too: whatever it is, I'm against it!
The top five tomorrow.
-- Alternative Rock fans may not agree that it's novelty, but the band was obviously going for the funny. Plus, the song rocks!
9. White and Nerdy - Weird Al Yankovic (2006)
-- So our first two picks parody white guys; well, white guys and Christians are the last two groups for whom it's still PC to satirize. Besides, it shows that we conservatives appreciate humor even when aimed at us.
8. The Battle of Kookamunga - Homer and Jethro (1959)
-- The clown princes of country music score big with this takeoff of the Johnny Horton standard The Battle of New Orleans. Classic.
7. The Lumberjack Song - Monty Python's Flying Circus (1970)
-- I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay. Perfect absurdity.
6. I'm Against It - The Marx Brothers (1932)
-- Groucho at his best. It's a great right wing song too: whatever it is, I'm against it!
The top five tomorrow.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Church and State
Much is said, probably too much in fact, about 'the wall of separation between church and state'. But the most common misconception is that it exists, so far as it does, more for the sake of our politics than religion as religion.
What effect can honest religious thought and action have on the government, other than make it better? Yet what effect can government have on religion other than make it worse? There are ideals from religion which could be adapted by government that would surely give us better leadership and laws: charity, respect for neighbors (even enemies), and a decent consideration for man and his place in the universe can only improve our lot in life. Government teaches us bureaucracy and what have you done for me lately. There's no lesson in that for the Church.
But more than anything, the separation keeps government from dictating to religion what it must do. It keep us safe from Washington dictating our conscience to us. It protects us from Big Brother. And why?
Because, in the long run, government is a threat to religion far more than religion to government. It cannot be any other way, because government is ultimately about power. Religion is ultimately about saving souls. Government at best can only see to day to day needs. Religion speaks to eternity.
What effect can honest religious thought and action have on the government, other than make it better? Yet what effect can government have on religion other than make it worse? There are ideals from religion which could be adapted by government that would surely give us better leadership and laws: charity, respect for neighbors (even enemies), and a decent consideration for man and his place in the universe can only improve our lot in life. Government teaches us bureaucracy and what have you done for me lately. There's no lesson in that for the Church.
But more than anything, the separation keeps government from dictating to religion what it must do. It keep us safe from Washington dictating our conscience to us. It protects us from Big Brother. And why?
Because, in the long run, government is a threat to religion far more than religion to government. It cannot be any other way, because government is ultimately about power. Religion is ultimately about saving souls. Government at best can only see to day to day needs. Religion speaks to eternity.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Just an Empty Lot
I pass by the field which was Tiger stadium regularly, and I regularly sigh. What was once a grand baseball palace is now another Detroit vacant lot.
In all likelihood nothing will ever come of it. That's the City for you: all talk. Well, mostly talk: it amazes me that they cannot get an eyesore like the old train station on Vernor torn down despite its standing empty since the 80's, but they could get that ballyard razed within a decade of its closing.
I suppose it's all in their priorities. I think former mayor Kwame Kilpatrick wanted it gone so that he could seem an active leader or to keep in the favor of the Ilitch family; no second stadium means no competition for their Tigers. Any way you slice it, there's one less chunk of Americana.
Heavy sigh. We do not appreciate things they way we ought. Yet we wonder why there's little respect for people and things anymore. There's a lesson in there somewhere, but we'll never learn it.
In all likelihood nothing will ever come of it. That's the City for you: all talk. Well, mostly talk: it amazes me that they cannot get an eyesore like the old train station on Vernor torn down despite its standing empty since the 80's, but they could get that ballyard razed within a decade of its closing.
I suppose it's all in their priorities. I think former mayor Kwame Kilpatrick wanted it gone so that he could seem an active leader or to keep in the favor of the Ilitch family; no second stadium means no competition for their Tigers. Any way you slice it, there's one less chunk of Americana.
Heavy sigh. We do not appreciate things they way we ought. Yet we wonder why there's little respect for people and things anymore. There's a lesson in there somewhere, but we'll never learn it.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Paring Education Budgets
Many districts in Michigan are undergoing financial stress. Cuts in state aid are the main culprit, forcing districts to cut programs at various levels. But it seems that one easy area to cut, an area where there should be little fanfare let alone controversy, would be transportation. The school buses ought to be stopped.
There is no inherent reason why schools should have to pay to get students in the classroom. Parents are the ones primarily responsible to get their kids to class. Why the public must pay extra for what is essentially a middle class perk is beyond reason.
Private school parents make the effort, generally. Why can't those in the public education sector? Yes, yes, some moms and dads won't get their kids to school, but be honest: if their dedication to the enlightenment of their own kids is so small, those students need a lot more help than a bus ride. Besides, sacrificing true educational goals and programs just to get Johnny to school is asinine. What can eventually be left of the schools in that light?
The needs of the many at times outweigh the needs of the few. This is one of those times. Stop the buses. Make people take responsibility for their own progeny.
There is no inherent reason why schools should have to pay to get students in the classroom. Parents are the ones primarily responsible to get their kids to class. Why the public must pay extra for what is essentially a middle class perk is beyond reason.
Private school parents make the effort, generally. Why can't those in the public education sector? Yes, yes, some moms and dads won't get their kids to school, but be honest: if their dedication to the enlightenment of their own kids is so small, those students need a lot more help than a bus ride. Besides, sacrificing true educational goals and programs just to get Johnny to school is asinine. What can eventually be left of the schools in that light?
The needs of the many at times outweigh the needs of the few. This is one of those times. Stop the buses. Make people take responsibility for their own progeny.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
The Reid-Ometer
Harry Reid sure isn't getting much slack these days. Yes, he apologized and had the apology accepted by President Barack Obama for remarks he made about him before he came to support the chief executive in the last presidential election. But his woes run deeper than that.
The Nevada lawmaker is seen losing to any of the three Republicans vying for the chance to unseat him in November. And the racial remark (one wonders if a conservative candidate would get such a free pass had he uttered the words) is only one example of the type of comments Reid has been prone to make. Equating GOP opposition to health care with the obstructionists who promoted slavery gives us another view of how deep his feelings run about those not in his camp. Harboring hatred for you enemies does not draw a pleasant and caring image.
Being the Senate point man in the current political climate no doubt calls attention to him that he otherwise would not merit. But if what we are seeing is the real Harry Reid, then the bi-elections cannot come soon enough. Hopefully, it may be that the coming wave against him is a microcosm of what may expected in the fall against Democratic office holders in general.
It's no wonder they need to ram through a health care plan now. They won't have the chance in 2011.
The Nevada lawmaker is seen losing to any of the three Republicans vying for the chance to unseat him in November. And the racial remark (one wonders if a conservative candidate would get such a free pass had he uttered the words) is only one example of the type of comments Reid has been prone to make. Equating GOP opposition to health care with the obstructionists who promoted slavery gives us another view of how deep his feelings run about those not in his camp. Harboring hatred for you enemies does not draw a pleasant and caring image.
Being the Senate point man in the current political climate no doubt calls attention to him that he otherwise would not merit. But if what we are seeing is the real Harry Reid, then the bi-elections cannot come soon enough. Hopefully, it may be that the coming wave against him is a microcosm of what may expected in the fall against Democratic office holders in general.
It's no wonder they need to ram through a health care plan now. They won't have the chance in 2011.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Legislating Morals
It is often said, when discussing certain social issues, that we cannot legislate morals. Do you know the right response to that question?
In a word, poppycock. There is a better word, to be sure, but decorum will not allow its use here.
We can and we must legislate morals. Further, every decision ever made by every legislature, parliament, congress, diet, knesset, or whatever else you want to call it, was an action predicated on a moral decision. Making us drive on the right side of the street is based on the moral axiom that we require order. Forcing parents to send their kids to school, let alone feed and clothe them, is a moral choice that parents are obliged to do that for their progeny. Trying to force health care down our throats is a moral decision by the government that we need it, however erroneously felt.
We can and we must legislate morals. We do it all the time. The only real questions are which ones, and under what circumstances.
In a word, poppycock. There is a better word, to be sure, but decorum will not allow its use here.
We can and we must legislate morals. Further, every decision ever made by every legislature, parliament, congress, diet, knesset, or whatever else you want to call it, was an action predicated on a moral decision. Making us drive on the right side of the street is based on the moral axiom that we require order. Forcing parents to send their kids to school, let alone feed and clothe them, is a moral choice that parents are obliged to do that for their progeny. Trying to force health care down our throats is a moral decision by the government that we need it, however erroneously felt.
We can and we must legislate morals. We do it all the time. The only real questions are which ones, and under what circumstances.
Friday, January 8, 2010
There is no real National Champion
They played a football game last night, but as to who won, who cares? Or, more correctly, who should care? Simply that a group of people trying to make money got together and declared one game a championship match does not make it so. Indeed, it reeks of that corporatism which is slowly destroying America as much as the increasingly slack morals we, as a nation, continue to tolerate.
Why must their be a national champion anyway? Especially in a sport such as college football, where leagues abound and local rivalries are what made the game popular in the first place. Why do we require the false unity of a single champion?
It isn't as though the best team actually wins all the time every time. Even in a true playoff scenario, the victor is often the team which gets on a hot streak. There is no reason to be impressed that one team won one game, particularly a game crowned as the end all be all on fairly arbitrary grounds.
The Ivy League has the right idea: play among ourselves and don't fret over what anyone else is doing. As it is, the average fan is simply being played by corporate greed. That's not sportsmanship. That's selfishness.
Why must their be a national champion anyway? Especially in a sport such as college football, where leagues abound and local rivalries are what made the game popular in the first place. Why do we require the false unity of a single champion?
It isn't as though the best team actually wins all the time every time. Even in a true playoff scenario, the victor is often the team which gets on a hot streak. There is no reason to be impressed that one team won one game, particularly a game crowned as the end all be all on fairly arbitrary grounds.
The Ivy League has the right idea: play among ourselves and don't fret over what anyone else is doing. As it is, the average fan is simply being played by corporate greed. That's not sportsmanship. That's selfishness.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Transgender Politics
President Obama has appointed a transgender woman, Amanda Simpson, to be a Technical Advisor at the Commerce Department. Is it a move designed to show his openness, to take swipe at traditionalists, or merely a reflection of his trying to demonstrate the big tent of the Democrats? Any way you slice it, the question cannot be answered to any real satisfaction.
Amanda Simpson made the 'transition' from male to female a few years back. Transition? Do we really change who we are through what are essentially mechanical operations? Did it ever occur to Simpson that maybe it isn't about who he thinks he is but about who he actually is? Born a man, the only logical conclusion is that he was intended to be male.
Why appoint such a person to a political position in the first place? This is a prime example of style over substance, almost as though the Obama Administration asked itself 'What can we do which is different?' Such an approach demonstrates that it is not what is best for the nation which the President seeks, but what will create for him a legacy.
The great Presidents do not think of leadership that way. They think about what needs to be done for the general benefit of their people. Ronald Reagan was the only chief executive in the last 50 years who understood that. He walked away from the table in Iceland because it was in the best interests of the United States and her citizens. The Bill Clintons and Barack Obamas we've dealt with lately seem to only desire recognition for their foresight.
As to Simpson, we can only hope that he that he realizes what he truly is: a political pawn being used by an administration increasingly on edge about its future. His appointment more likely is a ploy, an attempt at deflecting attention away from the President's woes, rather than a true reflection of character and acceptance.
Amanda Simpson made the 'transition' from male to female a few years back. Transition? Do we really change who we are through what are essentially mechanical operations? Did it ever occur to Simpson that maybe it isn't about who he thinks he is but about who he actually is? Born a man, the only logical conclusion is that he was intended to be male.
Why appoint such a person to a political position in the first place? This is a prime example of style over substance, almost as though the Obama Administration asked itself 'What can we do which is different?' Such an approach demonstrates that it is not what is best for the nation which the President seeks, but what will create for him a legacy.
The great Presidents do not think of leadership that way. They think about what needs to be done for the general benefit of their people. Ronald Reagan was the only chief executive in the last 50 years who understood that. He walked away from the table in Iceland because it was in the best interests of the United States and her citizens. The Bill Clintons and Barack Obamas we've dealt with lately seem to only desire recognition for their foresight.
As to Simpson, we can only hope that he that he realizes what he truly is: a political pawn being used by an administration increasingly on edge about its future. His appointment more likely is a ploy, an attempt at deflecting attention away from the President's woes, rather than a true reflection of character and acceptance.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Common Misconceptions
We are often told that you can't judge a book by its cover. Sorry, friends, but you almost always can. The whole point of a cover is to give a clue to a book's contents, and in real life, people generally are what you think they are through their actions and appearance.
We are told that the poor don't understand the concept of work, the idea of applying themselves in order to do better for themselves. Yet how quickly do the shovels come out and we find them aggressively going door to door offering to clear our walks after a snowfall.
It has been been said that a thief does not understand that stealing is wrong. Try stealing something of his; he'll get the point.
We were told in teacher college that all kids can learn and further, that all kids can be reached. But the problem is that many of them don't want either. Some simply will not learn or allow themselves to be touched by education. Not everyone can be helped.
We are told that high taxes will help us prosper. You know the response to that.
We are told that the poor don't understand the concept of work, the idea of applying themselves in order to do better for themselves. Yet how quickly do the shovels come out and we find them aggressively going door to door offering to clear our walks after a snowfall.
It has been been said that a thief does not understand that stealing is wrong. Try stealing something of his; he'll get the point.
We were told in teacher college that all kids can learn and further, that all kids can be reached. But the problem is that many of them don't want either. Some simply will not learn or allow themselves to be touched by education. Not everyone can be helped.
We are told that high taxes will help us prosper. You know the response to that.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Liberals on Obama: 2010 does not look good.
There have been many reports on the disappointment the liberals have felt over the Obama Presidency. He has turned into something of a hawk on Afghanistan while allowing his health care initiative to list in the ocean, for example. Given that congressional bi-elections tend to be lower key and that, generally, only those folks deeply interested and energized by politics as politics tend to make hay with them, it means that without a committed liberal push the Democrats are likely to lose ground this coming November.
To be sure, the party in power tends to lose out in the mid-term vote. But one wonders how far the pendulum may swing in light of the events of 2009. Other than what has been mentioned above, the economy is not showing any signs of significant improvement, and the fact that Democrats are using raw power to force through health car reforms which a solid majority of the nation opposes must be viewed with concern by the party elite. Given that liberals tend to be less inclined to turn personal views into political action and the recipe is there for electoral disaster along the lines of the fate suffered by the Clinton Administration in November 1994.
It is too early to tell, and unless and until the GOP can offer a compelling alternative we may end up with a situation on which neither side takes advantage. There are, after all, disappointed conservatives for whom there is distrust of the GOP. Ultimately it may come down to how individuals act and react. In that, let's hope for a few more unguarded salvos such as the recent talk of Harry Reid. You can insult people only so much before they react with impunity, Mr. Senator. Those who truly support slavery are those who want us to be slaves of government largesse.
To be sure, the party in power tends to lose out in the mid-term vote. But one wonders how far the pendulum may swing in light of the events of 2009. Other than what has been mentioned above, the economy is not showing any signs of significant improvement, and the fact that Democrats are using raw power to force through health car reforms which a solid majority of the nation opposes must be viewed with concern by the party elite. Given that liberals tend to be less inclined to turn personal views into political action and the recipe is there for electoral disaster along the lines of the fate suffered by the Clinton Administration in November 1994.
It is too early to tell, and unless and until the GOP can offer a compelling alternative we may end up with a situation on which neither side takes advantage. There are, after all, disappointed conservatives for whom there is distrust of the GOP. Ultimately it may come down to how individuals act and react. In that, let's hope for a few more unguarded salvos such as the recent talk of Harry Reid. You can insult people only so much before they react with impunity, Mr. Senator. Those who truly support slavery are those who want us to be slaves of government largesse.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Ultimately, environmentalists are nothing but obstructionists
There is a report on AOL this morning which demonstrates the irony involved among the various liberal movements. It is a rather delicious irony, too.
Proponents of solar power have been seeking permission to place solar panels in the California desert. Environmentalists, notably the Sierra Club, argue that the area selected is not good because it would threaten the habitats of the desert tortoise, the Western burrowing owl, and bighorn sheep.
The environmentalists like the idea, but explain that it is simply planned for a bad spot. Perhaps; yet why does it always seem as though no matter what other folks do environmentalists always find something to gripe about?
It's a sign of the schizophrenia of the left. They want solar power, until it threatens an animal habitat. They want wind power, until they discover that birds can get hurt when flying into the fan blades of a typical wind farm. They want a wide respect for human rights, until those rights clash with that old bugbear (and completely nonexistent axiom) animal rights.
People are more important than animals, and nature is remarkably resilient. Move the turtles and owls and sheep if you must, because if the area in question is a good place for the solar panels then setting them up for human use is more important than leaving the area alone for animal life. As animals, they don't know what they're missing or getting anyway. Yet real live human beings could miss out on real honest human needs.
If the choice is between animals and people, humanity holds the trump card. There's no sense in not playing the ace up your sleeve.
Proponents of solar power have been seeking permission to place solar panels in the California desert. Environmentalists, notably the Sierra Club, argue that the area selected is not good because it would threaten the habitats of the desert tortoise, the Western burrowing owl, and bighorn sheep.
The environmentalists like the idea, but explain that it is simply planned for a bad spot. Perhaps; yet why does it always seem as though no matter what other folks do environmentalists always find something to gripe about?
It's a sign of the schizophrenia of the left. They want solar power, until it threatens an animal habitat. They want wind power, until they discover that birds can get hurt when flying into the fan blades of a typical wind farm. They want a wide respect for human rights, until those rights clash with that old bugbear (and completely nonexistent axiom) animal rights.
People are more important than animals, and nature is remarkably resilient. Move the turtles and owls and sheep if you must, because if the area in question is a good place for the solar panels then setting them up for human use is more important than leaving the area alone for animal life. As animals, they don't know what they're missing or getting anyway. Yet real live human beings could miss out on real honest human needs.
If the choice is between animals and people, humanity holds the trump card. There's no sense in not playing the ace up your sleeve.
Friday, January 1, 2010
New Year's Resolutions for America
The American people need to resolve a few things in order that 2010 might be a great year. So without further ado, here is a start:
1. Everyone, be sure to let Congress know that you do not want any form of health care reform as proposed. Statistically, around 60% of the voters do not want it, so don't let the liberals jam it down your throat.
2. As a follow up, send all those dictatorial Democrats back home in November whether they vote for health care or not. Even if we successfully stop the reform bill, they're still dangerous.
3. Remember that everything the government does is a moral issue, so it's all right to legislate certain morals.
4. Don't let the Republican get away with not being Republican. There has to be one conservative party: make that the GOP.
5. And forget the big tent idea. Are we part of the liberal tent? No, because it isn't about inclusion. It's all about what's right and wrong.
6. Besides, they wouldn't let us in their tent anyway. Don't let the left wing tell you that we have to let them in ours. We are not obliged to consider bad ideas.
7. There is no seventh resolution.
That's good enough for a start. Let the year begin!
1. Everyone, be sure to let Congress know that you do not want any form of health care reform as proposed. Statistically, around 60% of the voters do not want it, so don't let the liberals jam it down your throat.
2. As a follow up, send all those dictatorial Democrats back home in November whether they vote for health care or not. Even if we successfully stop the reform bill, they're still dangerous.
3. Remember that everything the government does is a moral issue, so it's all right to legislate certain morals.
4. Don't let the Republican get away with not being Republican. There has to be one conservative party: make that the GOP.
5. And forget the big tent idea. Are we part of the liberal tent? No, because it isn't about inclusion. It's all about what's right and wrong.
6. Besides, they wouldn't let us in their tent anyway. Don't let the left wing tell you that we have to let them in ours. We are not obliged to consider bad ideas.
7. There is no seventh resolution.
That's good enough for a start. Let the year begin!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
