The last day of the year is typically supposed to be a year in review kind of thing for all of us political and social commentators, right? Well, then, perhaps the most significant Detroit area event, if one can reasonably call something spread out over an entire year an event, is all that rain we endured. Yes, friends, Detroit's wettest year ever was 2011, with a chance to add a little more to that record before the year expires in about 16 hours as we write.
Weather, generally, is only a significant news story when it is extreme, such as hurricanes, massive floods, or droughts. But this surely qualifies, doesn't it? Detroit streets and homes were frequently flooded. All that precipitation had its effect on business too: plumbers report a better business climate this year as a direct result of the rain. Flooded basements mean clogged drains, a sure shot in the arm for local plumbers hit as hard by Michigan's poor economic climate (notice the bit of a pun there? rain...economic climate?) as everyone else.
Who do we blame? We have to blame someone, you know; nothing ever just happens. It must somehow be a result of all that global warming hullabaloo which we hear about incessantly. Or not. When asked why all the rain this year, a spokesman for the National Weather Service, David Kook, said, "I haven't a clue." Take that, all you who seek climate Armageddon under every rock.
It just happened. Things just happen sometimes, folks. And that's what the Detroit area faced this year. One big, wet weather fluke.
Stay tuned for 2012. The weather almost certainly will not be such big news in the new year. But just case, perhaps check rowboat prices during today's year end sales.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Friday, December 30, 2011
The Height of Hypocrisy
All too often, when we find ourselves in disagreement with our political and philosophical fellows (which seems, indeed, all too often) it is suggested, why can't we all just get along?, and further, why can't we just agree to disagree? Well, because that's just talk, and talk is cheap.
We should, of course, strive to get along with everyone we meet no matter where we find ourselves on the issues. We can get along even when significant differences are involved, so long as the debate is kept civil. But as to agreeing to disagree? That is simply a tool which the left uses in an attempt to shut the right up, because on the issues with which we disagree, quite often the laws and society are already on their side. It is easy to say let's just agree to disagree when you have what you want in place.
So, how about we change the law and make abortion illegal and then agree to disagree? Why not enact a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman and then agree to disagree? Ahem, my dear conservatives, that's because we really don't want to agree to disagree. We want you to accept our judgment, and check yours at the voting booth curtain or courthouse door.
They look down their noses from such tall pedestals that they will not even consider that maybe, just maybe, what they ask for is selfish and inane. Such is the height of liberal hypocrisy.
We should, of course, strive to get along with everyone we meet no matter where we find ourselves on the issues. We can get along even when significant differences are involved, so long as the debate is kept civil. But as to agreeing to disagree? That is simply a tool which the left uses in an attempt to shut the right up, because on the issues with which we disagree, quite often the laws and society are already on their side. It is easy to say let's just agree to disagree when you have what you want in place.
So, how about we change the law and make abortion illegal and then agree to disagree? Why not enact a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman and then agree to disagree? Ahem, my dear conservatives, that's because we really don't want to agree to disagree. We want you to accept our judgment, and check yours at the voting booth curtain or courthouse door.
They look down their noses from such tall pedestals that they will not even consider that maybe, just maybe, what they ask for is selfish and inane. Such is the height of liberal hypocrisy.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Wasteful Spending
They're everywhere. They can be found all over Detroit, and more are appearing all the time. Our old road markers are being erased and new solid white lines are taking their place, narrowing lanes for vehicular traffic as they are marked. We are seeing in Detroit the installation of dedicated bike lanes on our city streets.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with that on its own terms, so far as it goes. Bicyclists have as much right to the road as cars and trucks. Oh, there are reasons which we find shallow for encouraging riding bikes over using our cars: all the environmental overstatements or the hue and cry over burning fossil fuels come to mind immediately. Even the idea of the government encouraging bike riding for the sake of exercise we find to be beyond the province of our elected and bureaucratic officials, though we will concede such as better for any given human being than the other claptrap. Still, isn't it fair to ask, exactly why is this being done?
There simply are few bikes on Detroit streets as it is. Perhaps they mean to encourage bike riding by having the visible lanes installed. But, again, bikes could use the roads anyway, and we can't see where such antics would particularly tempt more folks to get out the old two wheeler. Especially on routes such as 14th Street and Rosa Parks Boulevard, where there are simply few riders. Yet each have bike lanes now.
There certainly doesn't appear to be an increase in cyclists on Michigan Avenue, where the lanes first came to our notice several months ago. We should, maybe, point out here that we at the Wayne County Conservative Examiner's Office are avid bike riders. We are on the byways of Detroit frequently. But we rarely see other such enthusiasts as we bandy about town.
What we are taking a very roundabout way of saying is that, with all the difficulties governments at all levels are having with cash flow, why all this splurging on bike lanes which almost certainly will not result in more bike riding? To increase awareness of those who do ride? To, once more, increase ridership? That hardly seems likely or necessary. It would seem that we are seeing money spent pointlessly, and at a time when money is tight and existing cyclists don't seem to care to use bike lanes anyway.
Yet our friends wonder why conservatives are so against government spending.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with that on its own terms, so far as it goes. Bicyclists have as much right to the road as cars and trucks. Oh, there are reasons which we find shallow for encouraging riding bikes over using our cars: all the environmental overstatements or the hue and cry over burning fossil fuels come to mind immediately. Even the idea of the government encouraging bike riding for the sake of exercise we find to be beyond the province of our elected and bureaucratic officials, though we will concede such as better for any given human being than the other claptrap. Still, isn't it fair to ask, exactly why is this being done?
There simply are few bikes on Detroit streets as it is. Perhaps they mean to encourage bike riding by having the visible lanes installed. But, again, bikes could use the roads anyway, and we can't see where such antics would particularly tempt more folks to get out the old two wheeler. Especially on routes such as 14th Street and Rosa Parks Boulevard, where there are simply few riders. Yet each have bike lanes now.
There certainly doesn't appear to be an increase in cyclists on Michigan Avenue, where the lanes first came to our notice several months ago. We should, maybe, point out here that we at the Wayne County Conservative Examiner's Office are avid bike riders. We are on the byways of Detroit frequently. But we rarely see other such enthusiasts as we bandy about town.
What we are taking a very roundabout way of saying is that, with all the difficulties governments at all levels are having with cash flow, why all this splurging on bike lanes which almost certainly will not result in more bike riding? To increase awareness of those who do ride? To, once more, increase ridership? That hardly seems likely or necessary. It would seem that we are seeing money spent pointlessly, and at a time when money is tight and existing cyclists don't seem to care to use bike lanes anyway.
Yet our friends wonder why conservatives are so against government spending.
Monday, December 26, 2011
OWS and Arrogance
I appreciate that you took the time to post. But, with all due respect, almost all of what you say is hyperbole. All this ranting against the rich...yet no mention of all the philanthropic endeavors of the wealthy. In Detroit alone, we have many things named after those wealthy patrons who donated much of their time and money to doing good works for the poor and middle class. The names Ford, Karmanos, Taubman, Ilitch, and many more grace our city because of the deep generosity of those families. This is true in all major cities of our nation, and I wouldn't be surprised one bit if it were true of most of the cities of the world.
While I also do not doubt that there are selfish rich people (just as there are selfish folks of every stripe) it seems that a great many of them, at least, do use what they have for the betterment of the greater society. To dismiss them all as evil, as the Occupy adherents appear to do, reeks of something worse than whatever evils it is the rich supposedly do. It reeks of jealousy, whose stench is in many ways more foul than the presumed arrogance and greed of the rich.
We are reminded too of a comment we overheard from a plumbing contractor: 'I ain't never been hired by a poor man.' We need people of accumulated wealth, capital, who are able to give working men and women gainful employment through investment and philanthropy.
Besides, if we went all out into a command economy, which is exactly what we would have should the government steal (yes, steal) the money from the rich, well, we've seen how that works out. We've seen Soviet five year plans stretched to seven in the hopes of achieving certain goals. We've seen people lined up for hours on the mere rumor of bread or shoes coming to the local store. How does that help the poor?
We haven't even gotten to your 99% yet. Why do you think they all support Occupy? We don't; most of our friends don't, and none of us are wealthy. Quite frankly, what the Occupy Movement is most guilty of is hubris. That, dear friend, is about as selfish as you can get.
While I also do not doubt that there are selfish rich people (just as there are selfish folks of every stripe) it seems that a great many of them, at least, do use what they have for the betterment of the greater society. To dismiss them all as evil, as the Occupy adherents appear to do, reeks of something worse than whatever evils it is the rich supposedly do. It reeks of jealousy, whose stench is in many ways more foul than the presumed arrogance and greed of the rich.
We are reminded too of a comment we overheard from a plumbing contractor: 'I ain't never been hired by a poor man.' We need people of accumulated wealth, capital, who are able to give working men and women gainful employment through investment and philanthropy.
Besides, if we went all out into a command economy, which is exactly what we would have should the government steal (yes, steal) the money from the rich, well, we've seen how that works out. We've seen Soviet five year plans stretched to seven in the hopes of achieving certain goals. We've seen people lined up for hours on the mere rumor of bread or shoes coming to the local store. How does that help the poor?
We haven't even gotten to your 99% yet. Why do you think they all support Occupy? We don't; most of our friends don't, and none of us are wealthy. Quite frankly, what the Occupy Movement is most guilty of is hubris. That, dear friend, is about as selfish as you can get.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Christmas Eve
Tonight is the night. God, who loved the world so much, sends his Son into the world as the weakest thing possible: a child, an infant, a mere baby. He could have sent hordes of angels or simply taken the just to Heaven and obliterated the evildoers. Yet He didn't...because all human life is sacred and He wanted all to have a shot at salvation.
Stop shopping. If you don't have what you need by now, everything will still be alright. Stop putting up decorations. The house looks fine. Stop trying to save the world: you won't. Don't worry about the food: there's plenty in the larder, undoubtedly enough that you ought to give some to the needy. And not just the old can of asparagus at the back of the shelf. Something instead which the poor and hungry would appreciate as you would.
Don't fret if you don't see everyone, each family member and friend dear to you, at Christmas or at all during the holidays. If they don't appreciate you by now, or you them, it doesn't matter anyway. They know this about you as well.
Stop saving the economy and start saving yourself from all which ails the world. Do what you can, and none of it in excess, and wish everyone a Merry Christmas.
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.
Stop shopping. If you don't have what you need by now, everything will still be alright. Stop putting up decorations. The house looks fine. Stop trying to save the world: you won't. Don't worry about the food: there's plenty in the larder, undoubtedly enough that you ought to give some to the needy. And not just the old can of asparagus at the back of the shelf. Something instead which the poor and hungry would appreciate as you would.
Don't fret if you don't see everyone, each family member and friend dear to you, at Christmas or at all during the holidays. If they don't appreciate you by now, or you them, it doesn't matter anyway. They know this about you as well.
Stop saving the economy and start saving yourself from all which ails the world. Do what you can, and none of it in excess, and wish everyone a Merry Christmas.
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Air Jordan Explodes on the scene
A young man was arrested for inciting a riot at the Southland Mall early today. A crowd of about 300 had broke into the Mall well before it opened, but at least the situation didn't spin out of control. In Seattle, police need pepper spray to disperse a crowd there. What is the connection between these two incident?
The people involved wanted to buy the very newest Air Jordan sneakers.
This is exactly the type of absurd and insane behavior which is the direct result of the sin of consumerism. They're Air Jordans, for crying out loud. The Nike Air Jordan XI Concord! We have to have them! Now!
Ahem. No, you don't. They're shoes, and that's all. Mere things which have reached the point of status symbol simply because a famous athlete's name is attached to them. You don't need them, especially when your friends and neighbors and several local police departments are necessary to step in to quell a disturbance. In that case, you've merely a selfish and stupid oaf.
People worry all the time about the plight of the United States. The President is too strong, the Congress is too strong, the courts are too strong; so is the military and the corporate giants. Yet we never seem to worry that our country is more likely to fall because of loose or nonexistent morals, the type of which lead us to break into private property to be first in line for a pair of stupid gym shoes. The breakdown of the body politic will be the result of the unbridled passion of the individual concerned with getting things before somebody else does. It's the kind of thing which has taken over Christmas season, to the happiness of only those who make and sell stuff.
Apparently he who dies with the most toys wins after all. In the United States of America anyway.
The people involved wanted to buy the very newest Air Jordan sneakers.
This is exactly the type of absurd and insane behavior which is the direct result of the sin of consumerism. They're Air Jordans, for crying out loud. The Nike Air Jordan XI Concord! We have to have them! Now!
Ahem. No, you don't. They're shoes, and that's all. Mere things which have reached the point of status symbol simply because a famous athlete's name is attached to them. You don't need them, especially when your friends and neighbors and several local police departments are necessary to step in to quell a disturbance. In that case, you've merely a selfish and stupid oaf.
People worry all the time about the plight of the United States. The President is too strong, the Congress is too strong, the courts are too strong; so is the military and the corporate giants. Yet we never seem to worry that our country is more likely to fall because of loose or nonexistent morals, the type of which lead us to break into private property to be first in line for a pair of stupid gym shoes. The breakdown of the body politic will be the result of the unbridled passion of the individual concerned with getting things before somebody else does. It's the kind of thing which has taken over Christmas season, to the happiness of only those who make and sell stuff.
Apparently he who dies with the most toys wins after all. In the United States of America anyway.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Bill James and Society
It is fascinating where certain interesting ideas may be found. The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract is must reading for any baseball wonk, almost entirely (surprise, surprise) for its in depth analysis of the game and its players. Still, that doesn't mean that every scrap of value found within it is restricted to interpretations of the true American National Pastime.
Mr. James at one point laments the rise of professionalism in our nation over the last fifty years or so, indeed comparing it to the many other -isms which have infected our body politic. Sportswriters and reporters have become journalists, whereas at one time they had the simpler jobs of reporting the news or sports, with someone to answer to if they didn't stick to those specific jobs. But James takes it further: teachers have become educators who teach to tests rather than teach the subject at hand. Cops have become police officers, garbage collectors sanitation workers, and so on.
The result is that we now have self aggrandized professionals in all fields, but to what point? James opines rather well that legal professionals delivered us the O. J. Simpson verdict, but not justice. On other fronts, he says, journalism has made reporting on news and athletic events adversarial rather than benign. Doctors evolving into physicians and nurses into health care professionals have driven the cost of an aspirin in a hospital to $35 while doctors used to make house calls. You get the point.
While we cannot agree with him on every particular (health care costs have went up for reasons beyond and better than a simple change of attitude, even if you believe they have gone father than reason might allow, and reporters are almost naturally adversarial) his general point is well founded. Why do we see teachers so differently lately? At one point, they had the rather straightforward job of making kids sit down, shut up, and pay attention, while expecting and getting the general support of the community. Now, we demand results from them, codified and quantified based on all kinds of data which the general public doesn't understand yet supports in the cause of education. Why can't we be happy that the kids end up with a high school diploma? Surely most of those earned over the course of American history have been reasonably granted?
Why can't cops catch the bad guys and lawyers by turn prosecute or defend them? What are we really seeking when we make things into more than they are? The net result seems to be displayed through that incident with Barbara Boxer awhile back. You know, the one where she asked to be called "Senator" rather than "Ma'am" because she earned it? Instead of becoming the professionals we claim we are, we instead begin to be arrogant about what we in fact perceive ourselves to be.
We do not mean herein to pick on Senator Boxer in particular. Really, we don't; nor do we wish to disparage the jobs which are done every day and well by all the good teachers and cops and doctors and nurses out there in our land. But the sanctification of what, in the final analysis, we as individuals do for a living cannot help us to truly appreciate the necessary jobs being done for us and by us each and every day. It seems that we've lost something of our innocence, indeed of our humility, when we demand a certain grovelling before us as we earn our daily bread.
We hate to say that all a teacher is is a teacher, or that all a doctor is is a doctor. Yet we cannot escape the feeling that a real teacher or a real doctor should feel that way. It is one thing for the general society to venerate any given individual's very good and very much needed work, indeed up to and including that of, say, trash collector (Would you do that? Pick up others' garbage? Then respect the ones who do). But for the professional to demand that treatment, quite frankly, reeks of a lack of professionalism.
By and large, true professionals command the respect they deserve. They command it precisely because they stick to their jobs rather than trumpet about them. They tend to know their place, and to know that they are not irreplaceable. They know their jobs are bigger than they ever will be. They do them in that light: as best they can without ever thinking they are better than anyone else because of it.
Be appreciative of all the things others done for you. Be humble about what you do for them. If there is a better prescription for a better world, we do not know what it is.
Mr. James at one point laments the rise of professionalism in our nation over the last fifty years or so, indeed comparing it to the many other -isms which have infected our body politic. Sportswriters and reporters have become journalists, whereas at one time they had the simpler jobs of reporting the news or sports, with someone to answer to if they didn't stick to those specific jobs. But James takes it further: teachers have become educators who teach to tests rather than teach the subject at hand. Cops have become police officers, garbage collectors sanitation workers, and so on.
The result is that we now have self aggrandized professionals in all fields, but to what point? James opines rather well that legal professionals delivered us the O. J. Simpson verdict, but not justice. On other fronts, he says, journalism has made reporting on news and athletic events adversarial rather than benign. Doctors evolving into physicians and nurses into health care professionals have driven the cost of an aspirin in a hospital to $35 while doctors used to make house calls. You get the point.
While we cannot agree with him on every particular (health care costs have went up for reasons beyond and better than a simple change of attitude, even if you believe they have gone father than reason might allow, and reporters are almost naturally adversarial) his general point is well founded. Why do we see teachers so differently lately? At one point, they had the rather straightforward job of making kids sit down, shut up, and pay attention, while expecting and getting the general support of the community. Now, we demand results from them, codified and quantified based on all kinds of data which the general public doesn't understand yet supports in the cause of education. Why can't we be happy that the kids end up with a high school diploma? Surely most of those earned over the course of American history have been reasonably granted?
Why can't cops catch the bad guys and lawyers by turn prosecute or defend them? What are we really seeking when we make things into more than they are? The net result seems to be displayed through that incident with Barbara Boxer awhile back. You know, the one where she asked to be called "Senator" rather than "Ma'am" because she earned it? Instead of becoming the professionals we claim we are, we instead begin to be arrogant about what we in fact perceive ourselves to be.
We do not mean herein to pick on Senator Boxer in particular. Really, we don't; nor do we wish to disparage the jobs which are done every day and well by all the good teachers and cops and doctors and nurses out there in our land. But the sanctification of what, in the final analysis, we as individuals do for a living cannot help us to truly appreciate the necessary jobs being done for us and by us each and every day. It seems that we've lost something of our innocence, indeed of our humility, when we demand a certain grovelling before us as we earn our daily bread.
We hate to say that all a teacher is is a teacher, or that all a doctor is is a doctor. Yet we cannot escape the feeling that a real teacher or a real doctor should feel that way. It is one thing for the general society to venerate any given individual's very good and very much needed work, indeed up to and including that of, say, trash collector (Would you do that? Pick up others' garbage? Then respect the ones who do). But for the professional to demand that treatment, quite frankly, reeks of a lack of professionalism.
By and large, true professionals command the respect they deserve. They command it precisely because they stick to their jobs rather than trumpet about them. They tend to know their place, and to know that they are not irreplaceable. They know their jobs are bigger than they ever will be. They do them in that light: as best they can without ever thinking they are better than anyone else because of it.
Be appreciative of all the things others done for you. Be humble about what you do for them. If there is a better prescription for a better world, we do not know what it is.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Troy Done Well
Troy, Michigan, has declined to accept funding from the US Government to build a mass transit center within its boundaries. Led by Mayor Janice Daniels, the city government decided that the project would be a waste of federal dollars.
The counter argument, that someone else is just going to get the funding anyway, is exactly the kind of argument which has helped federal spending jump by the billions and trillions of dollars which is has in the last 70 years, and particularly in the last ten. That the Mayor and City Council of Troy are not accepting the cash shows the foresight necessary to reign in Washington: it doesn't matter that the money might be given to someone else. Someone has to stand up and say, no thanks.
It's time to call such projects what they are: pork barrel ideas intending to buy votes by appearing to shore up the economy. This isn't about mass transit except by a very small margin. It's about buying elections with taxpayer money. Especially as the kinds of workers who would almost surely vote for the Democrats currently in our nation's Capitol, it becomes fair to ask whose votes are being bought? Why spread the wealth anyway to folks who are already knee Democrats?
This is an attempt to garb the elusive middle vote, those relatively few who sometimes sway elections. Also, to shore up the President's chances of reelection in what promises to be a swing state. It's a political move which has been met with principled opposition.
Americans don't want mass transit anyway, as a group. They want to drive their cars. So let them, and indeed encourage them by not spending their money so readily for self purposes. The city of Troy has done a courageous thing, and deserves credit for it.
The counter argument, that someone else is just going to get the funding anyway, is exactly the kind of argument which has helped federal spending jump by the billions and trillions of dollars which is has in the last 70 years, and particularly in the last ten. That the Mayor and City Council of Troy are not accepting the cash shows the foresight necessary to reign in Washington: it doesn't matter that the money might be given to someone else. Someone has to stand up and say, no thanks.
It's time to call such projects what they are: pork barrel ideas intending to buy votes by appearing to shore up the economy. This isn't about mass transit except by a very small margin. It's about buying elections with taxpayer money. Especially as the kinds of workers who would almost surely vote for the Democrats currently in our nation's Capitol, it becomes fair to ask whose votes are being bought? Why spread the wealth anyway to folks who are already knee Democrats?
This is an attempt to garb the elusive middle vote, those relatively few who sometimes sway elections. Also, to shore up the President's chances of reelection in what promises to be a swing state. It's a political move which has been met with principled opposition.
Americans don't want mass transit anyway, as a group. They want to drive their cars. So let them, and indeed encourage them by not spending their money so readily for self purposes. The city of Troy has done a courageous thing, and deserves credit for it.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
The Occupiers Grow Desperate
Do we need any more proof that the Occupy Wall Street group (if they can truly be called that) is little more than a se3lf-indulgent rabble? The attitude recently displayed in New York shows their true colors as nothing before had done.
The crowd essentially demanded that it be allowed to occupy a piece of private property, a vacant lot owned by Trinity Episcopal Church, as a new place to, well, occupy. The authorities and the Church leaders rightly rejected it. The Church did it more out of an odd kind of respect, saying that there spot wasn't good as there were not sufficient facilities available to a bunch of people. The police saw it as trespassing and acted that way.
The Occupiers are clearly not interested in anything other than themselves. Taking over private property without the consent of the owners cannot be viewed as a legitimate form of protest but, rather, as a desperate attempt to get back in the limelight. Such actions do not help the poor, the repressed, or the 99% they arrogantly claim to represent. But it does give them just a little more screen, print, and Internet time.
So be it. As long as they pay the fine on their out of jail. We're sure that cash strapped municipalities can use the shot in the arm.
The crowd essentially demanded that it be allowed to occupy a piece of private property, a vacant lot owned by Trinity Episcopal Church, as a new place to, well, occupy. The authorities and the Church leaders rightly rejected it. The Church did it more out of an odd kind of respect, saying that there spot wasn't good as there were not sufficient facilities available to a bunch of people. The police saw it as trespassing and acted that way.
The Occupiers are clearly not interested in anything other than themselves. Taking over private property without the consent of the owners cannot be viewed as a legitimate form of protest but, rather, as a desperate attempt to get back in the limelight. Such actions do not help the poor, the repressed, or the 99% they arrogantly claim to represent. But it does give them just a little more screen, print, and Internet time.
So be it. As long as they pay the fine on their out of jail. We're sure that cash strapped municipalities can use the shot in the arm.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Rogue Canadians?
We would have never expected a day on which Canada would been snarled at on the world scene. But as our northern neighbours have rejected the Kyoto Protocols on climate change, well, one would then suppose that the environmentalist left would not take it gracefully.
Canada has been regarded as an 'international climate scofflaw' and is now an 'insignificant' player over climate change. Thus speaketh one Alden Meyer of an allegedly scientific group, bemoaning Canada's rejection of Kyoto.
The first question which comes to mind is, if Canada is all that you say, Mr. Meyer, why is its reversal on Kyoto an issue? It would seem that criticism is not relevant if Canadian actions so unimportant. Still, Meyer further disparaged Canada's action by saying it is an aberration, implying that the international fight against global warming (for that's what it's really about anyway; climate change is merely a sanitized call as its advocates try to sound less shrill) is advancing just fine.
Perhaps that point will help us to understand the true issue at hand. In speaking as a demagogue, Meyer might be actually be demonstrating his fear over the question. He may fear, the whole radical environmentalist left indeed may secretly be panicking, that it is not an aberration. What Canada has done in pulling out of the Kyoto agreements may in truth signal that the world is slowing awakening to the idea that global warming and climate change, outside of natural rhythms in our weather, is a non-issue.
If that is the case, then we commend Canada for the move. It would then strike us as Canadian world leadership rather than any shirking of responsibility. To be sure, there may be political issues within that country which have powered Ottawa to alter its stance. We are not expert enough on Canadian politics to address that point. But as climate change questions are ultimately political anyways, we are not concerned over what exactly led to Canada's decision.
We must look with skepticism upon any call for any worldwide laws and ordinances on any issue. Especially when it comes to any given nation handing over some its powers to anyone else. Particularly when the evidence is scant (there is no radical climate change happening, folks) a calm ear needs to hear questions on the issue and a calm mind consider them. Anytime someone says that something must be done NOW, as the rabid environmentalists do, we cannot take their position seriously. If as such Canada has gone rogue, she deserves nothing but praise.
Canada has been regarded as an 'international climate scofflaw' and is now an 'insignificant' player over climate change. Thus speaketh one Alden Meyer of an allegedly scientific group, bemoaning Canada's rejection of Kyoto.
The first question which comes to mind is, if Canada is all that you say, Mr. Meyer, why is its reversal on Kyoto an issue? It would seem that criticism is not relevant if Canadian actions so unimportant. Still, Meyer further disparaged Canada's action by saying it is an aberration, implying that the international fight against global warming (for that's what it's really about anyway; climate change is merely a sanitized call as its advocates try to sound less shrill) is advancing just fine.
Perhaps that point will help us to understand the true issue at hand. In speaking as a demagogue, Meyer might be actually be demonstrating his fear over the question. He may fear, the whole radical environmentalist left indeed may secretly be panicking, that it is not an aberration. What Canada has done in pulling out of the Kyoto agreements may in truth signal that the world is slowing awakening to the idea that global warming and climate change, outside of natural rhythms in our weather, is a non-issue.
If that is the case, then we commend Canada for the move. It would then strike us as Canadian world leadership rather than any shirking of responsibility. To be sure, there may be political issues within that country which have powered Ottawa to alter its stance. We are not expert enough on Canadian politics to address that point. But as climate change questions are ultimately political anyways, we are not concerned over what exactly led to Canada's decision.
We must look with skepticism upon any call for any worldwide laws and ordinances on any issue. Especially when it comes to any given nation handing over some its powers to anyone else. Particularly when the evidence is scant (there is no radical climate change happening, folks) a calm ear needs to hear questions on the issue and a calm mind consider them. Anytime someone says that something must be done NOW, as the rabid environmentalists do, we cannot take their position seriously. If as such Canada has gone rogue, she deserves nothing but praise.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Christopher Hitchens
Christopher Hitchens, the self proclaimed antitheist, has died of cancer. Outspoken and prolific, he never spared anyone his thoughts, to the point of attacking Mother Teresa on the grounds her work encouraged rather than assuaged poverty. What do you do about a man like that on the news of his death?
Exactly what Mother Teresa's own Missionaries of Charity announced from India that they would do. You pray for him.
It doesn't matter whether he or his family would want it. We, as Christians, have to presume that he and they need it, and that it will help Hitchens and his family and friends. There is no other charitable and loving option.
We do not mull over his writings. There is always the temptation to do that after the passing of such a admittedly colorful personage, but what he said as he lived here no matter how we might not care for it doesn't matter today. A human being has left us: a human being who needs us more now that he may have ever imagined.
What he said and did has been and will be debated for a very long time. But the time now is to pause, put our heads on straight, and be right by his soul. The same God who created us created him, and we cannot disparage God's creation at such important points in their lives as when they are moving onto the next stage.
Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual life shine upon him. We must say it, pray it, and mean it.
Exactly what Mother Teresa's own Missionaries of Charity announced from India that they would do. You pray for him.
It doesn't matter whether he or his family would want it. We, as Christians, have to presume that he and they need it, and that it will help Hitchens and his family and friends. There is no other charitable and loving option.
We do not mull over his writings. There is always the temptation to do that after the passing of such a admittedly colorful personage, but what he said as he lived here no matter how we might not care for it doesn't matter today. A human being has left us: a human being who needs us more now that he may have ever imagined.
What he said and did has been and will be debated for a very long time. But the time now is to pause, put our heads on straight, and be right by his soul. The same God who created us created him, and we cannot disparage God's creation at such important points in their lives as when they are moving onto the next stage.
Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual life shine upon him. We must say it, pray it, and mean it.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Michigan and Charter Schools
The Michigan House of Representatives has passed a bill which would take the cap off of charter schools in the state. Passage is expected in the State Senate, perhaps as early as today. Governor Rick Snyder is likely to sign it when presented to him.
This is precisely the sort of special interest breaking law which Michigan needs. For after all, public education, no matter how its supporters wish to paint it, is a special interest, and an arrogant one at that. Why is it that parents with no option except the local public school must be forced into it? The is a question which must be asked of even the well performing, richer districts. Why ought the Grosse Pointes and Bloomfield Hills regions be able to make those who do not wish to, attend their schools?
It is a particularly galling that so many conservative citizens have bought into the perceived right to a public education. They forget, or, worse, ignore, that all public education funding ultimately means is that the bare majority can make everyone pay taxes for what they happen to want. If that leaves the unwilling unable to send their kids to a different school, then that's just their bad luck. We're the majority: we rule.
Such irrational sentiment can only be seen as blatant hypocrisy when the same conservatives argue for less government intrusion in other areas of their lives. If the government can control something as important as education, it seems there are few other areas where it can have no say.
Public education should be seen for what it is: no different than necessary social welfare programs. It should be paid for from the public coffers only for the families who could not otherwise afford it. Everyone else, like they do for their childrens' food and clothing and housing, should pay even for their education directly and completely by themselves. Any other approach to education is socialism, plain and simple.
One would think conservatives could recognize that.
This is precisely the sort of special interest breaking law which Michigan needs. For after all, public education, no matter how its supporters wish to paint it, is a special interest, and an arrogant one at that. Why is it that parents with no option except the local public school must be forced into it? The is a question which must be asked of even the well performing, richer districts. Why ought the Grosse Pointes and Bloomfield Hills regions be able to make those who do not wish to, attend their schools?
It is a particularly galling that so many conservative citizens have bought into the perceived right to a public education. They forget, or, worse, ignore, that all public education funding ultimately means is that the bare majority can make everyone pay taxes for what they happen to want. If that leaves the unwilling unable to send their kids to a different school, then that's just their bad luck. We're the majority: we rule.
Such irrational sentiment can only be seen as blatant hypocrisy when the same conservatives argue for less government intrusion in other areas of their lives. If the government can control something as important as education, it seems there are few other areas where it can have no say.
Public education should be seen for what it is: no different than necessary social welfare programs. It should be paid for from the public coffers only for the families who could not otherwise afford it. Everyone else, like they do for their childrens' food and clothing and housing, should pay even for their education directly and completely by themselves. Any other approach to education is socialism, plain and simple.
One would think conservatives could recognize that.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Open the Longest International Border in the World
We live next to a neighbor who cannot be seen as anything less than the greatest friend and ally that a nation such as the United States can have. Canada as a nation and Canadians as a people have been very good to us for the better part of our joint history. We trade more between the two of us than with anyone else. Yet how do we treat our friends in return?
By making them wait unduly long in coming over to say hello, and maybe spend a few bucks while here.
This is an issue which is generally not seen or understood by most of the US. But there is a very real question of courtesy and common sense at stake, both with regard to individuals and businesses. It simply makes sense that we expedite travel between our countries. It is time that we seriously considered a complete opening of the longest border in the world.
Why shouldn't US and Canadian citizens pass freely between each other? We are surely as close as any given European Union country, and likely as not more friendly than a good number of them. Such an idea would free up resources on both sides for better use (we surely have more grief coming from our southern border) while allowing an easier flow of goods, both personal and commercial. An initiative such as this would surely aid free trade, particularly between major crossings such as we have here in Detroit. More than that, it would serve as a powerful sign that we trust each other in the manner which close friends ought.
The terrorism question will certainly come in up in any discussion about this problem. Yet how many suspected terrorists have been caught moving between or border? Or do we, and we should admit this only shamefully if it is true, believe that we don't really trust that Canada's other points of entry are not secure enough for the both of us? All that we really accomplish in thickening the border looking for sneaky evildoers is cause unwarranted trouble for ourselves and our neighbours.
That's hardly a welcome signal. If we are to be at all true to our deepest principles, then we need to show our Canadian brethren that we understand friendship and invite it. At some point, we simply must quit worrying about cloak and dagger threats and live up to our highest callings. Anything less than that and we are but quivering beneath the sheets.
Open the International Border. Let's begin living up to our principles rather than down to the despotism of the world's lowest thugs.
By making them wait unduly long in coming over to say hello, and maybe spend a few bucks while here.
This is an issue which is generally not seen or understood by most of the US. But there is a very real question of courtesy and common sense at stake, both with regard to individuals and businesses. It simply makes sense that we expedite travel between our countries. It is time that we seriously considered a complete opening of the longest border in the world.
Why shouldn't US and Canadian citizens pass freely between each other? We are surely as close as any given European Union country, and likely as not more friendly than a good number of them. Such an idea would free up resources on both sides for better use (we surely have more grief coming from our southern border) while allowing an easier flow of goods, both personal and commercial. An initiative such as this would surely aid free trade, particularly between major crossings such as we have here in Detroit. More than that, it would serve as a powerful sign that we trust each other in the manner which close friends ought.
The terrorism question will certainly come in up in any discussion about this problem. Yet how many suspected terrorists have been caught moving between or border? Or do we, and we should admit this only shamefully if it is true, believe that we don't really trust that Canada's other points of entry are not secure enough for the both of us? All that we really accomplish in thickening the border looking for sneaky evildoers is cause unwarranted trouble for ourselves and our neighbours.
That's hardly a welcome signal. If we are to be at all true to our deepest principles, then we need to show our Canadian brethren that we understand friendship and invite it. At some point, we simply must quit worrying about cloak and dagger threats and live up to our highest callings. Anything less than that and we are but quivering beneath the sheets.
Open the International Border. Let's begin living up to our principles rather than down to the despotism of the world's lowest thugs.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Poverty and Jealousy
The comedian and talk show host Bill Maher commented recently that he does not think it is the rich who create jobs. Indeed, the rich are the one who cut them: they close plants and move them out of the country. Yet this knee jerk approach begs certain questions.
It ignores the demands made by workers. Workers are every bit as capable as employers of selfishness and self centered behavior and, truth be told, money grubbing. It ignores the hypocrisy of the liberal rich: how far do you go, Mr. Maher, to insure that you get the most bang for your buck with your spending? A good guess is that you try to get the best prices you can, too.
It ignores the bold reality of the entire rich/poor dichotomy. As I was told once by one of the contractors I supply, "I ain't never been hired by a poor man".
Job creation by its nature comes from wealth. Jealousy of the wealthy is simply that: demands that they give more of themselves without a fair payback for their capital investments merely reflects that jealousy. Playing to public selfishness will not create a single job. It will only continue to add pressure to the wealthy to go elsewhere.
Wealth is not a vice, and poverty is no virtue. Until we realize as much, we will simply fail to serve society well.
It ignores the demands made by workers. Workers are every bit as capable as employers of selfishness and self centered behavior and, truth be told, money grubbing. It ignores the hypocrisy of the liberal rich: how far do you go, Mr. Maher, to insure that you get the most bang for your buck with your spending? A good guess is that you try to get the best prices you can, too.
It ignores the bold reality of the entire rich/poor dichotomy. As I was told once by one of the contractors I supply, "I ain't never been hired by a poor man".
Job creation by its nature comes from wealth. Jealousy of the wealthy is simply that: demands that they give more of themselves without a fair payback for their capital investments merely reflects that jealousy. Playing to public selfishness will not create a single job. It will only continue to add pressure to the wealthy to go elsewhere.
Wealth is not a vice, and poverty is no virtue. Until we realize as much, we will simply fail to serve society well.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Hawking is Simply Wrong
To deny the existence of a transcendental creator is just as much an act of faith as to affirm it.
- Ervin Laszlo
Stephen Hawking believes that God wasn't necessary to the creation of the universe. That's his prerogative, of course; he can believe what he wants. The only trouble we have with it is that, as great of a scientist as he may be, he tends to speak philosophically under the guise of science. That is a significant and telling mistake on his part.
He basically asserts that, as all things necessary for life were present at the dawn of time, a creator was not necessary for life and the expanding universe to occur. It all was bound to happen, or was the product of stupid chance.
The trouble is, that's not science: it's presumption. Imagine entering a room and seeing a pile of boards, screws, brackets, nails, and handles; screwdrivers, saws, hammers, and a measuring tape piled also to the side. You see everything, then turn around and leave.
Upon returning hours later, it's all gone as you remembered it. But a desk stands in the center of room. Did it simply materialize, or was it made with intent?
The simple fact is that nothing happens of its own volition. Such is a very basic philosophic axiom. If all the components of life, the universe, and everything were present before the big bang, it's because they were put there. It should then be no surprise that whatever big ball of matter (or whatever else might have been there) existed before time held all the necessary things which our universe and our lives require. Why wouldn't it? Life would be impossible without them.
The best Mr. Hawking can assert is that the needed materials were just there. And that's all science can say about the, hee, hee, matter. Anything beyond that is his own wishful thinking, his own fairy story. Indeed, his own non-scientific fairy story, for his position is not scientific but philosophical and speculative. Even holding out that he may be right, he must prove his allegations against God and man through purely rational rather than by infertile scientific means. Maintaining that's it's all science restricts, not expands, his point. It shows delusion, not intellect.
- Ervin Laszlo
Stephen Hawking believes that God wasn't necessary to the creation of the universe. That's his prerogative, of course; he can believe what he wants. The only trouble we have with it is that, as great of a scientist as he may be, he tends to speak philosophically under the guise of science. That is a significant and telling mistake on his part.
He basically asserts that, as all things necessary for life were present at the dawn of time, a creator was not necessary for life and the expanding universe to occur. It all was bound to happen, or was the product of stupid chance.
The trouble is, that's not science: it's presumption. Imagine entering a room and seeing a pile of boards, screws, brackets, nails, and handles; screwdrivers, saws, hammers, and a measuring tape piled also to the side. You see everything, then turn around and leave.
Upon returning hours later, it's all gone as you remembered it. But a desk stands in the center of room. Did it simply materialize, or was it made with intent?
The simple fact is that nothing happens of its own volition. Such is a very basic philosophic axiom. If all the components of life, the universe, and everything were present before the big bang, it's because they were put there. It should then be no surprise that whatever big ball of matter (or whatever else might have been there) existed before time held all the necessary things which our universe and our lives require. Why wouldn't it? Life would be impossible without them.
The best Mr. Hawking can assert is that the needed materials were just there. And that's all science can say about the, hee, hee, matter. Anything beyond that is his own wishful thinking, his own fairy story. Indeed, his own non-scientific fairy story, for his position is not scientific but philosophical and speculative. Even holding out that he may be right, he must prove his allegations against God and man through purely rational rather than by infertile scientific means. Maintaining that's it's all science restricts, not expands, his point. It shows delusion, not intellect.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Moderates
New polling suggests pretty heavily that the Democrats and President Barack Obama need the so-called moderate vote in order to win elections, while the GOP can rely on the conservative vote quite readily. This can be interpreted in several ways, but perhaps the most insightful is this: moderates aren't really moderates, as a group, but, rather, lean towards more traditional and familiar thoughts whenever in doubt.
That makes sense, in the end. For when there is a crisis, don't most people act based on what they know? When President Reagan was elected back in 1980 to stem the tide of Democratic and hence more liberal leadership, what was his appeal? To make America great again, based on the traditional American values of individualism and hard work. When the GOP ran the tide last November, what was the big question: nothing less than obtrusive, interfering government trampling the rights of the people.
The moderates responded as they knew how, by throwing out those who did not support real American values. That's why conservatives don't have to appeal too overtly to the presumed middle: they aren't actually in the center after all. They are in fact more moderate to conservative rather than being between the left and the right as they are generally portrayed.
Given the fact that so few people, about 20 percent or one in five, call themselves liberal, and it seems that what we truly have in our nation today is an overall aversion to liberalism. Even the presumed center appears to harbor similar doubts about the left, seeing as the Democrats need to get about 60% of the middle of the road vote to win major elections. It is a telling statistic, and does not bode well for any long term success for the party of Jefferson and Jackson.
Of course, the Democratic Party left the beliefs of those American stalwarts behind eons ago. But that is a tale for another time.
That makes sense, in the end. For when there is a crisis, don't most people act based on what they know? When President Reagan was elected back in 1980 to stem the tide of Democratic and hence more liberal leadership, what was his appeal? To make America great again, based on the traditional American values of individualism and hard work. When the GOP ran the tide last November, what was the big question: nothing less than obtrusive, interfering government trampling the rights of the people.
The moderates responded as they knew how, by throwing out those who did not support real American values. That's why conservatives don't have to appeal too overtly to the presumed middle: they aren't actually in the center after all. They are in fact more moderate to conservative rather than being between the left and the right as they are generally portrayed.
Given the fact that so few people, about 20 percent or one in five, call themselves liberal, and it seems that what we truly have in our nation today is an overall aversion to liberalism. Even the presumed center appears to harbor similar doubts about the left, seeing as the Democrats need to get about 60% of the middle of the road vote to win major elections. It is a telling statistic, and does not bode well for any long term success for the party of Jefferson and Jackson.
Of course, the Democratic Party left the beliefs of those American stalwarts behind eons ago. But that is a tale for another time.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
End School Bussing
Many districts in Michigan are undergoing continuing financial stress. Reductions in state aid are the main culprit, forcing districts to cut programs at various levels. The hue and cry is always loud and shrill. 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 general public must pay extra for what is essentially a middle class perk, and a somewhat limited perk when you consider the number of taxpayers without school age kids, is beyond reason.
Private school parents make the effort, as a rule. 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 general public must pay extra for what is essentially a middle class perk, and a somewhat limited perk when you consider the number of taxpayers without school age kids, is beyond reason.
Private school parents make the effort, as a rule. 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.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Brown Has the Right Idea on Detroit Budget Woes
Detroit City council President Pro Tem Gary Brown has offered to have his Council expenditures cut by one-third. He believes that his colleagues and the Mayor's office could stand to do the same. If his numbers are right, and so far his numbers appear to have been better than even the Mayor's, then Detroit would be looking at a savings of around $6 million. That's not something which in itself will keep the City from bankruptcy. But it is an interesting first step.
Detroit Council members get perks beyond what many similarly placed officials do in the country. They can get a city car or a stipend of $600 per month if they don't take one. The Detroit Council's budget takes more financing than those of most other major cities. To be fair, most of the members are willing to take a 10% hit to their budgets. Mr. Brown believes that that's not enough.
His will certainly be an uphill battle. Other Council members are balking, one, Andre Spivey, asserts that a strong local legislative branch of government will save more money6 in the long run. But if that really were the case it is fair to ask why don't we have savings now? Bickering, on the part of every part of Detroit City Government, is perhaps the biggest reason why the City is facing a state takeover. It's the content of the institutions of government and not the institutions themselves which are the problem.
It's a bold move for Councilman Brown, and an easy one too, seeing as he ought to be pretty well of considering his victorious whistle blower lawsuit with the City. Still, it has merit, and should be supported. You can't ask thousands of others to bite the bullet if you won't either.
Given the nature of Detroit politicians, and emergency manager is probably in our future. Yet if a few more people thought like Gary Brown, it might just be avoidable.
Detroit Council members get perks beyond what many similarly placed officials do in the country. They can get a city car or a stipend of $600 per month if they don't take one. The Detroit Council's budget takes more financing than those of most other major cities. To be fair, most of the members are willing to take a 10% hit to their budgets. Mr. Brown believes that that's not enough.
His will certainly be an uphill battle. Other Council members are balking, one, Andre Spivey, asserts that a strong local legislative branch of government will save more money6 in the long run. But if that really were the case it is fair to ask why don't we have savings now? Bickering, on the part of every part of Detroit City Government, is perhaps the biggest reason why the City is facing a state takeover. It's the content of the institutions of government and not the institutions themselves which are the problem.
It's a bold move for Councilman Brown, and an easy one too, seeing as he ought to be pretty well of considering his victorious whistle blower lawsuit with the City. Still, it has merit, and should be supported. You can't ask thousands of others to bite the bullet if you won't either.
Given the nature of Detroit politicians, and emergency manager is probably in our future. Yet if a few more people thought like Gary Brown, it might just be avoidable.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Christmas and John Lennon
During the Christmas season we hear ad infinitum all and every Christmas song imaginable. That's okay, of course. They are part of the holidays and many are well worth hearing, containing sentiments expressed well and to a good point.
Not all of them quite make that standard, however; even some of the better ones. John Lennon's Happy Xmas (War is Over) is one of those. It is a neat little tune, at times ethereal and perhaps even angelic. But the trouble with it is that it preaches to the choir just a bit too much, while more or less undermining the very sentiments it pretends to address.
War is over...if you want it. Well, of course the bulk of the Western world wants it. Indeed, most individuals in the world want it. Yet the problem with calling for the end of war is that it falls on too many deaf ears. So long as that's the case, so long as there are those who do in fact want it on some level, then we have little more than something too idealistic to be practical.
Especially when you attempt to combine Lennon's general philosophy with the apparent point of the song. One need only recall the words of another famous song of his to get that irony: Imagine there's no heaven...no religion. In short, he usually in his life appealed to sentiments contrary to Christmas. Without Heaven or Religion there would be no Christmas. Indeed, with nothing universal and eternal, the sentiments he expresses in his work are rendered meaningless. There can be no brotherhood of man worth salt without forever.
And Forever is precisely what the greatest Christmas songs call us towards. Family, friends, fellowship; these are eternal values. John Lennon ultimately only speaks in support of earthly ones. Values of the type he could not safely proclaim even or especially in the Gulag, or modern China or North Korea. Places, it must be noted, without heaven or religion. Places mired in earthly concerns.
In the end, what he preaches must be hollow. Or, and we should truly and fully hope and pray for this, the song shows he was in fact a better man than his professed creed. Because as it is, what he calls for is little more than comfort and self indulgence. Those feelings are not in the Christmas spirit.
Not all of them quite make that standard, however; even some of the better ones. John Lennon's Happy Xmas (War is Over) is one of those. It is a neat little tune, at times ethereal and perhaps even angelic. But the trouble with it is that it preaches to the choir just a bit too much, while more or less undermining the very sentiments it pretends to address.
War is over...if you want it. Well, of course the bulk of the Western world wants it. Indeed, most individuals in the world want it. Yet the problem with calling for the end of war is that it falls on too many deaf ears. So long as that's the case, so long as there are those who do in fact want it on some level, then we have little more than something too idealistic to be practical.
Especially when you attempt to combine Lennon's general philosophy with the apparent point of the song. One need only recall the words of another famous song of his to get that irony: Imagine there's no heaven...no religion. In short, he usually in his life appealed to sentiments contrary to Christmas. Without Heaven or Religion there would be no Christmas. Indeed, with nothing universal and eternal, the sentiments he expresses in his work are rendered meaningless. There can be no brotherhood of man worth salt without forever.
And Forever is precisely what the greatest Christmas songs call us towards. Family, friends, fellowship; these are eternal values. John Lennon ultimately only speaks in support of earthly ones. Values of the type he could not safely proclaim even or especially in the Gulag, or modern China or North Korea. Places, it must be noted, without heaven or religion. Places mired in earthly concerns.
In the end, what he preaches must be hollow. Or, and we should truly and fully hope and pray for this, the song shows he was in fact a better man than his professed creed. Because as it is, what he calls for is little more than comfort and self indulgence. Those feelings are not in the Christmas spirit.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
The Latest from Iowa
Herman Cain is out of the race, and Newt Gingrich is moving up. Ron Paul finished second in the most recent Iowa Republican public opinion tally, while presumed man to beat Mitt Romney wound up third in the field. What does it all mean?
It means that you shouldn't put your money on someone named after a piece of baseball equipment.
Seriously, what does it mean? Really, especially when we are talking about something only two-ninths of the players use? Catchers and first basemen wear mitts; everyone else has a glove.
Okay, enough of the silly banter. Everyone knows that a glove has fingers while mitts have a spot for the thumb while everything else is extra padding.
Really, seriously now, what does it mean?
It means that Herman Cain had a message which resonated among the Republican field, yet he had too much baggage, fairly or unfairly, to continue his run. It also means that Ron Paul has followers who will go to the end of the Earth for him, but probably not enough for him to actually become the GOP standard bearer. It means that Newt Gingrich has been able to take advantage of his Johnny come lately status and has sprung to the top before Republicans, reporters, poll watchers, debate aficianados and plain old voters have had a chance to re-examine his views and his person. It means that Mitt Romney is still considered a player but folks are checking out other options while there seems to be time to do it.
And that's all it means. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else until the actual Iowa caucus. Until then, we got nuthin' except a mitt.
First base or catcher?
It means that you shouldn't put your money on someone named after a piece of baseball equipment.
Seriously, what does it mean? Really, especially when we are talking about something only two-ninths of the players use? Catchers and first basemen wear mitts; everyone else has a glove.
Okay, enough of the silly banter. Everyone knows that a glove has fingers while mitts have a spot for the thumb while everything else is extra padding.
Really, seriously now, what does it mean?
It means that Herman Cain had a message which resonated among the Republican field, yet he had too much baggage, fairly or unfairly, to continue his run. It also means that Ron Paul has followers who will go to the end of the Earth for him, but probably not enough for him to actually become the GOP standard bearer. It means that Newt Gingrich has been able to take advantage of his Johnny come lately status and has sprung to the top before Republicans, reporters, poll watchers, debate aficianados and plain old voters have had a chance to re-examine his views and his person. It means that Mitt Romney is still considered a player but folks are checking out other options while there seems to be time to do it.
And that's all it means. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else until the actual Iowa caucus. Until then, we got nuthin' except a mitt.
First base or catcher?
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Live Orthodoxly!
Embracing change is easy. Embracing Orthodoxy is the real challenge.
-a paraphrase of Mr. G. K. Chesterton
We hear it all the time, don't we, fellow conservatives? We hear the importance of embracing change, of being willing to change, of the need to alter our beliefs and desires to the will and whim of the current society. That's all we need to do is embrace the change which the modern society wishes us to do.
If they meant for us to change in the sense of becoming truly better persons, of changing from bad habit to good, of learning to like what we ought and dislike what we ought, of becoming more truly and charitable and kind, there would be no problem. But they don't mean that. They mean, 'accept our ways of thinking and acting'. Or, more precisely, accept the change we want imposed on you.
But the trouble with accepting change as change, merely because it is what modern society may want rather than what may really help both the individual and the world at large, is that it will lead us we know not where. For change as change is insultingly simple. Do nothing, reflect on nothing, question nothing, and change will occur. There's no effort involved.
Yet embracing Orthodoxy, and we capitalize it on purpose, accepting and living by proper traditions, now that's the challenge. That's where we grow and nurture our selves and our souls. That's how we create better people and a better world. By living right according to the just precepts which have been with us since the dawn of time we improve. Change is all right, yes, if done to that purpose.
Otherwise, it will happen anyway. But would you rather do what you can to control change, or merely be stuck in its tight and unwieldy (and worldly) groove, as Mr. Chesterton also suggests? For you will lose control of yourself by merely agreeing to eternally change. Yet tradition works. That's how it became traditional in the first place.
-a paraphrase of Mr. G. K. Chesterton
We hear it all the time, don't we, fellow conservatives? We hear the importance of embracing change, of being willing to change, of the need to alter our beliefs and desires to the will and whim of the current society. That's all we need to do is embrace the change which the modern society wishes us to do.
If they meant for us to change in the sense of becoming truly better persons, of changing from bad habit to good, of learning to like what we ought and dislike what we ought, of becoming more truly and charitable and kind, there would be no problem. But they don't mean that. They mean, 'accept our ways of thinking and acting'. Or, more precisely, accept the change we want imposed on you.
But the trouble with accepting change as change, merely because it is what modern society may want rather than what may really help both the individual and the world at large, is that it will lead us we know not where. For change as change is insultingly simple. Do nothing, reflect on nothing, question nothing, and change will occur. There's no effort involved.
Yet embracing Orthodoxy, and we capitalize it on purpose, accepting and living by proper traditions, now that's the challenge. That's where we grow and nurture our selves and our souls. That's how we create better people and a better world. By living right according to the just precepts which have been with us since the dawn of time we improve. Change is all right, yes, if done to that purpose.
Otherwise, it will happen anyway. But would you rather do what you can to control change, or merely be stuck in its tight and unwieldy (and worldly) groove, as Mr. Chesterton also suggests? For you will lose control of yourself by merely agreeing to eternally change. Yet tradition works. That's how it became traditional in the first place.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Should Suh Face Criminal Prosecution?
The great Ndamukong Suh debate is on. Well, it really hasn't ended since Thanksgiving, and it really didn't begin then anyway. NFL players think he's a dirty player, no one has rushed to defend his actions during the third quarter of the Lions 27-15 Thanksgiving Day loss to the Green Bay Packers, the Packers don't think his punishment was harsh enough, and Suh has appealed the suspension. But we wonder whether it should end anyway with mere sanction by the National Football League and its fans and pundits?
What he did on the fields would be considered assault if it happened on the streets or at a neighborhood bar or business. Why should the civil authorities not be able to charge an athlete with a crime even when the act occurs in the arena?
No one buys Suh's it happened in the heat of the moment defense. No one accepts that he might have been goaded into his stomp. But as most assaults happen in the heat of the moment as well, and most assaulters are prone to argue they had reason to attack, well, the guy who acted from his bar stool would not be safe from criminal prosecution under similar circumstances, would he? Why should an NFL lineman on a football field?
Does the law end at the sidelines? Should it? We believe that it is time to consider those questions, and to perhaps use the long arm of the law to reign in on field atrocities. The athletic arena cannot be a shield for actions which would get anyone arrested.
What he did on the fields would be considered assault if it happened on the streets or at a neighborhood bar or business. Why should the civil authorities not be able to charge an athlete with a crime even when the act occurs in the arena?
No one buys Suh's it happened in the heat of the moment defense. No one accepts that he might have been goaded into his stomp. But as most assaults happen in the heat of the moment as well, and most assaulters are prone to argue they had reason to attack, well, the guy who acted from his bar stool would not be safe from criminal prosecution under similar circumstances, would he? Why should an NFL lineman on a football field?
Does the law end at the sidelines? Should it? We believe that it is time to consider those questions, and to perhaps use the long arm of the law to reign in on field atrocities. The athletic arena cannot be a shield for actions which would get anyone arrested.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Science and Goodness
One of the great debates between the Christian and the scientist is the degree to which we are animal or spiritual. Many scientists wish us to be wholly scientific in our approach to humanity and understanding of ourselves. It is really a rather shallow outlook on human nature or, even, the necessary consequences of a purely scientific view of who we are.
Science has apparently discovered the part of our brain which helps us to recognize justice. It asserts, at least in some quarters, that goodness is innate within us physically. Yet it ignores the very real point that whether good occurs in us naturally is an entirely different question from the judgment of 'what is good?' or the expectation that people will do good.
How do we know what is good except to be able to judge it in our individual and societal actions? Or are our scientifically minded friends suggesting that we just 'do things' and they happen to be good? Either way, any judgment about good, any assertion that 'this is good' cannot come wholly or entirely from within ourselves; there are too many of us with too many of our own nuanced ideas of good and bad.
Or are you saying that everyone from childhood, without guidance of any kind (parental, societal, or spiritual) will necessarily elect to do good? No Lord of the Flies scenarios possible? It begs the question of why people (and it should be obvious that all people do bad things sometimes regardless of physical construction) do bad things. Why does the thief steal, if he knows in his heart and head that it's wrong? Further, what's free will, if we are born with, say, no choice but to do good?
It should surprise no one that we are hard wired to recognize justice; we are, at the end of the day, physical as well as spiritual creatures. It should not be shocking news that a just and all knowing God in the very act of creation would make our physical selves able to recognize spiritual, eternal, and absolute truths, truths outside our own will, thus enabling us to see (so to speak) justice. That science has discovered as much enhances rather than detracts from our knowledge of God. It strengthens, not weakens, our relationship with Him. It makes our spiritual side and our physical side properly complimentary. It raises us from the mere animal into a higher plane of existence.
Science does not tell us who we are in our entirety. It only sets us on that road. How far we trail along that path is ultimately up to us. And the questions we discover along that way will not be empirical.
Science has apparently discovered the part of our brain which helps us to recognize justice. It asserts, at least in some quarters, that goodness is innate within us physically. Yet it ignores the very real point that whether good occurs in us naturally is an entirely different question from the judgment of 'what is good?' or the expectation that people will do good.
How do we know what is good except to be able to judge it in our individual and societal actions? Or are our scientifically minded friends suggesting that we just 'do things' and they happen to be good? Either way, any judgment about good, any assertion that 'this is good' cannot come wholly or entirely from within ourselves; there are too many of us with too many of our own nuanced ideas of good and bad.
Or are you saying that everyone from childhood, without guidance of any kind (parental, societal, or spiritual) will necessarily elect to do good? No Lord of the Flies scenarios possible? It begs the question of why people (and it should be obvious that all people do bad things sometimes regardless of physical construction) do bad things. Why does the thief steal, if he knows in his heart and head that it's wrong? Further, what's free will, if we are born with, say, no choice but to do good?
It should surprise no one that we are hard wired to recognize justice; we are, at the end of the day, physical as well as spiritual creatures. It should not be shocking news that a just and all knowing God in the very act of creation would make our physical selves able to recognize spiritual, eternal, and absolute truths, truths outside our own will, thus enabling us to see (so to speak) justice. That science has discovered as much enhances rather than detracts from our knowledge of God. It strengthens, not weakens, our relationship with Him. It makes our spiritual side and our physical side properly complimentary. It raises us from the mere animal into a higher plane of existence.
Science does not tell us who we are in our entirety. It only sets us on that road. How far we trail along that path is ultimately up to us. And the questions we discover along that way will not be empirical.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Say, Merry Christmas!
A recent poll presumes to show that more Americans, by a slight and ever narrowing margin, prefer, or are at least okay with, a Merry Christmas greeting over a more generic Happy Holidays. But why ought there be any worry over such a relatively minor distinction?
Even when we say Happy Holidays there's no reasonable way to dispute that what we mean is Merry Christmas. There would be no greetings at all without a holiday season having grown around Christmas. Indeed, it mocks the holiday spirit itself if not the very idea of a broader human kinship when we start to think that it's all right to sweep a part of the beliefs of a very large part of our populace under the rug. If tolerance and respect for all cultures is what we should strive towards, then it is more than fair to ask the rest of the folks to respect Christians and their holiday by accepting a heartfelt Merry Christmas greeting.
It would seem that a person of a non-Christian faith, or of no faith at all, if truly comfortable in their belief, would have no issue with hearing Merry Christmas if it were directed at them. True, we frequently hear the old liberal argument that such things seem to force a belief on others. Yet how deep is their faith, how truly do they hold whatever personal beliefs they claim to regard as the final answer to life's questions, if a mere two word sentence leaves them quaking in their boots? If their creed is that shallow or their will so weak, they have deeper issues than what a simple Merry Christmas should bring on.
Meanwhile, and at the risk of being labeled a Limbaugh or Hannity (which would cause no uproar here as we don't mind people knowing who we are or what we favor) by those seeking to inflame those who do not share our beliefs, why ought Christians tolerate second class citizenship? Why can't our culture be included among all those other cultures which we are supposed to (and generally do) tolerate?
So go on, and tell people Merry Christmas. If they are insulted by that, we will have learned all about them which we need to know.
Even when we say Happy Holidays there's no reasonable way to dispute that what we mean is Merry Christmas. There would be no greetings at all without a holiday season having grown around Christmas. Indeed, it mocks the holiday spirit itself if not the very idea of a broader human kinship when we start to think that it's all right to sweep a part of the beliefs of a very large part of our populace under the rug. If tolerance and respect for all cultures is what we should strive towards, then it is more than fair to ask the rest of the folks to respect Christians and their holiday by accepting a heartfelt Merry Christmas greeting.
It would seem that a person of a non-Christian faith, or of no faith at all, if truly comfortable in their belief, would have no issue with hearing Merry Christmas if it were directed at them. True, we frequently hear the old liberal argument that such things seem to force a belief on others. Yet how deep is their faith, how truly do they hold whatever personal beliefs they claim to regard as the final answer to life's questions, if a mere two word sentence leaves them quaking in their boots? If their creed is that shallow or their will so weak, they have deeper issues than what a simple Merry Christmas should bring on.
Meanwhile, and at the risk of being labeled a Limbaugh or Hannity (which would cause no uproar here as we don't mind people knowing who we are or what we favor) by those seeking to inflame those who do not share our beliefs, why ought Christians tolerate second class citizenship? Why can't our culture be included among all those other cultures which we are supposed to (and generally do) tolerate?
So go on, and tell people Merry Christmas. If they are insulted by that, we will have learned all about them which we need to know.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Detroit Needs Urban Farms
Urban farming may be getting a push from the State legislature in Lansing today. Sponsored by state Senators Virgil Smith, D-Detroit, and Joe Hune, R-Whitmore Lake, a bill would grant the City of Detroit an exemption from Michigan's Right to Farm Act which would allow the city to regulate internal agriculture. It would give Detroit the necessary powers to regulate through zoning and other means, whatever new farms which may pop up.
In a time when Detroit needs close jobs, this might be a decent tonic to help the city's chronic unemployment. Some sources, Michigan State University and the SHAR foundation to name two, believe that commercial agriculture could provide around 30,000 jobs and up to seventy percent of the city's food.
Such numbers sound a little rosy. But the fact is that Detroit has a significant amount of already open land which could easily be converted to agriculture. The very idea or urban farming too is an exciting, outside the box approach to aiding a town set back on it heels in years. Why not grow things? That has to be better than maintaining huge open lots for no productive reason.
There will be problems, of course. When thinking about farms, odors quite naturally come to mind. Yet that is part of the reason to give Detroit a more direct power of local agriculture. It would allow the city the legal ability to respond to citizen complaints should they arise. That itself may open a few jobs, in terms of the necessary inspectors to oversee the proposed farming areas. Done rightly, it ought to even increase the city's tax base, through new sources of income taxes based on the new jobs, as well as the higher taxes which developed property of any type should come from productive land. Land the city gets next to nothing if anything at all for now. Further, it's a green idea. There's nothing at all wrong with that when it serves a good purpose.
We complain fairly often about feel good legislation being only that: something which both sides of the aisle can support in the vainglorious cause of bipartisanship. Yet this is the kind of feel good lawmaking which genuinely merits support across the board. Urban farming would be good for Detroit. It's good to hear Lansing working proactively for the city, if only just this once.
In a time when Detroit needs close jobs, this might be a decent tonic to help the city's chronic unemployment. Some sources, Michigan State University and the SHAR foundation to name two, believe that commercial agriculture could provide around 30,000 jobs and up to seventy percent of the city's food.
Such numbers sound a little rosy. But the fact is that Detroit has a significant amount of already open land which could easily be converted to agriculture. The very idea or urban farming too is an exciting, outside the box approach to aiding a town set back on it heels in years. Why not grow things? That has to be better than maintaining huge open lots for no productive reason.
There will be problems, of course. When thinking about farms, odors quite naturally come to mind. Yet that is part of the reason to give Detroit a more direct power of local agriculture. It would allow the city the legal ability to respond to citizen complaints should they arise. That itself may open a few jobs, in terms of the necessary inspectors to oversee the proposed farming areas. Done rightly, it ought to even increase the city's tax base, through new sources of income taxes based on the new jobs, as well as the higher taxes which developed property of any type should come from productive land. Land the city gets next to nothing if anything at all for now. Further, it's a green idea. There's nothing at all wrong with that when it serves a good purpose.
We complain fairly often about feel good legislation being only that: something which both sides of the aisle can support in the vainglorious cause of bipartisanship. Yet this is the kind of feel good lawmaking which genuinely merits support across the board. Urban farming would be good for Detroit. It's good to hear Lansing working proactively for the city, if only just this once.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
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.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Democracy and Capitalism
Democracy is the worst political system...except for all the other political systems.
Capitalism is the lousiest economic system...outside of all the other economic systems.
Why are they the best, yet the worst? Because they are based on human freedom and dignity. People have a great capacity for good, but a terrible propensity to do ill. Freedom unfortunately feeds both these notions. Freedom is why we see people carrying pepper spray on a shopping trip, but giving to charities. And protesting for their rights.
Of course, we can, do, and should restrict freedom when mere free will leads to dangerous excess, such as carrying pepper spray on a shopping trip. The world won't end because of Black Friday and the troubles in Egypt won't end simply because we or the Egyptian protesters like democracy so much. Free will gets in the way of that too, sadly, and it isn't likely the situation will be particularly stable anytime soon.
But what else are we to do? Encourage whoever is in power in Cairo to play nice, and exhort Christmas shoppers to be more considerate of everyone else milling about the mall. These are not what many of us may want, but, again, what are we to do beyond hoping and praying that it all works out. Because at the end of the day, we have two of the lousiest operating systems of human creation, and nothing else will do.
Capitalism is the lousiest economic system...outside of all the other economic systems.
Why are they the best, yet the worst? Because they are based on human freedom and dignity. People have a great capacity for good, but a terrible propensity to do ill. Freedom unfortunately feeds both these notions. Freedom is why we see people carrying pepper spray on a shopping trip, but giving to charities. And protesting for their rights.
Of course, we can, do, and should restrict freedom when mere free will leads to dangerous excess, such as carrying pepper spray on a shopping trip. The world won't end because of Black Friday and the troubles in Egypt won't end simply because we or the Egyptian protesters like democracy so much. Free will gets in the way of that too, sadly, and it isn't likely the situation will be particularly stable anytime soon.
But what else are we to do? Encourage whoever is in power in Cairo to play nice, and exhort Christmas shoppers to be more considerate of everyone else milling about the mall. These are not what many of us may want, but, again, what are we to do beyond hoping and praying that it all works out. Because at the end of the day, we have two of the lousiest operating systems of human creation, and nothing else will do.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Suh, Egypt, and Black Friday
Ndamukong Suh just doesn't get it. He is an egregious example of what's wrong not just with football as it's now played but of what's wrong with the City of Detroit itself. It's called arrogance, plain and simple, and it has to stop.
He sounded an awful lot like another infamous Detroiter, Kwame Kilpatrick, after the game. No apology, no true acknowledgement that he was wrong, but only a shallow explanation about being held down. He didn't intend to kick the defender. Uh, then why did you in fact kick him?
He ought to be suspended, and the Detroit Lions need to examine the ways in which they've allowed yesterday's incident to happen and stop making excuses for Suh themselves. The City of Detroit too should look at how the man's actions make it look worse as well, and make a few changes for the better in the town's collective conscience. As to Ndamukong Suh, he needs to finally ask his mother whether he really is a dirty player.
Is it too early, in light of recent actions in Egypt, to say we told you so? Because the recent unrest suggests that installing a democratic government there aren't all coming up roses. Sometimes it is better to deal with the devil you know...but, to be fair, it is still very early in an ongoing process. We just wish it didn't look quite so much like chaos. It is difficult to trust the intentions of rioters and riot supressors in a part of the world so long dominated by authoritarian government.
Black Friday is once more upon us, that annual orgy of consumerist excess. But what we find rather galling this year is the advent of shop local Saturday following it. The idea itself is a good one: we should support our local merchants, our closest neighbors. But to see television ads encouraging local shopping on the day after you gorge yourself at the national chains seems rather patronizing. Spend the big bucks with us, the few dollars left over at the neighborhood appliance shop (if there is one) appears to be the mantra. Such gall makes us frown even more harshly at Black Friday.
Ah well. Until the morrow...
He sounded an awful lot like another infamous Detroiter, Kwame Kilpatrick, after the game. No apology, no true acknowledgement that he was wrong, but only a shallow explanation about being held down. He didn't intend to kick the defender. Uh, then why did you in fact kick him?
He ought to be suspended, and the Detroit Lions need to examine the ways in which they've allowed yesterday's incident to happen and stop making excuses for Suh themselves. The City of Detroit too should look at how the man's actions make it look worse as well, and make a few changes for the better in the town's collective conscience. As to Ndamukong Suh, he needs to finally ask his mother whether he really is a dirty player.
Is it too early, in light of recent actions in Egypt, to say we told you so? Because the recent unrest suggests that installing a democratic government there aren't all coming up roses. Sometimes it is better to deal with the devil you know...but, to be fair, it is still very early in an ongoing process. We just wish it didn't look quite so much like chaos. It is difficult to trust the intentions of rioters and riot supressors in a part of the world so long dominated by authoritarian government.
Black Friday is once more upon us, that annual orgy of consumerist excess. But what we find rather galling this year is the advent of shop local Saturday following it. The idea itself is a good one: we should support our local merchants, our closest neighbors. But to see television ads encouraging local shopping on the day after you gorge yourself at the national chains seems rather patronizing. Spend the big bucks with us, the few dollars left over at the neighborhood appliance shop (if there is one) appears to be the mantra. Such gall makes us frown even more harshly at Black Friday.
Ah well. Until the morrow...
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Thanksgiving 2011
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1789
Anyone who claims that we weren't founded on Christian principles, read these words well and carefully. And have a wonderful and happy Thanksgiving in that light.
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1789
Anyone who claims that we weren't founded on Christian principles, read these words well and carefully. And have a wonderful and happy Thanksgiving in that light.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Of Course the Super Committee Failed.
So, the Super Committee failed to come to agreement on future budget cuts. That's not exactly a big surprise. The whole thing reeked of little more than a gimmick from the word go.
But it was a bi-partisan group designed to show that the whole of Washington is working together to solve the nation's budget woes, supporters will say. They ignore that it was never, nor could it have been, a true pi-partisan committee at all. It was made up of high level Democrats and Republicans, who acted as Democrats and Republicans tend to do. They disagreed. The result should not be shocking.
Now everyone's blaming everyone else for the failure, based on partisan grounds. This too should not cause gasps. It's what political opponents do.
The plain truth is that no one had any reason to expect that the Committee would work. It was simple grandstanding. The actual need to cut the budget in the future is just that: something to be done in the future. For now, the political powers in DC got what they all wanted: the appearance of working towards a solution, with the ability to blame the other guy when things didn't work out in the short run.
And that is precisely why the Super Committee was doomed from the start. We know from experience that Congress, outside of clear majorities in both Houses (and even then not necessarily), will generally not get things done until the last minute. Never mind that extended unemployment benefits beyond the end of this year, for a single issue example, are at risk with the Committee's failure to act. The end of this year is still six weeks away. That question and a good many others will almost certainly be addressed before everyone goes home for Christmas. They simply have to become short term objectives first.
Until then, watch CNN and Fox News, all you political wonks, for whatever it's worth. But kindly spare us beating your breasts over what is in truth of no note. We aren't at endgame. Nothing is going to happen yet, because it just doesn't have to. Period.
But it was a bi-partisan group designed to show that the whole of Washington is working together to solve the nation's budget woes, supporters will say. They ignore that it was never, nor could it have been, a true pi-partisan committee at all. It was made up of high level Democrats and Republicans, who acted as Democrats and Republicans tend to do. They disagreed. The result should not be shocking.
Now everyone's blaming everyone else for the failure, based on partisan grounds. This too should not cause gasps. It's what political opponents do.
The plain truth is that no one had any reason to expect that the Committee would work. It was simple grandstanding. The actual need to cut the budget in the future is just that: something to be done in the future. For now, the political powers in DC got what they all wanted: the appearance of working towards a solution, with the ability to blame the other guy when things didn't work out in the short run.
And that is precisely why the Super Committee was doomed from the start. We know from experience that Congress, outside of clear majorities in both Houses (and even then not necessarily), will generally not get things done until the last minute. Never mind that extended unemployment benefits beyond the end of this year, for a single issue example, are at risk with the Committee's failure to act. The end of this year is still six weeks away. That question and a good many others will almost certainly be addressed before everyone goes home for Christmas. They simply have to become short term objectives first.
Until then, watch CNN and Fox News, all you political wonks, for whatever it's worth. But kindly spare us beating your breasts over what is in truth of no note. We aren't at endgame. Nothing is going to happen yet, because it just doesn't have to. Period.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The GOP and Civil Rights
The minority vote is taken for granted by the Democratic Party. That's a shame, when you consider how badly that group has played minorities over the years.
Democrats want to take credit for all the advancements in civil rights in recent times, indeed for any and all forward movements on civil rights in our entire history. Yet at the least, the GOP deserves more consideration in what it has done in that area over time.
It was a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, who sent federal troops to insure that minorities were allowed in public high schools. Going back much further, a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, did the most to free the slaves. Say what you want about what he said at the time, his actions were what ended slavery.
How quickly too we forget the Dixiecrats, Democrats who opposed civil rights legislation. You know, the guys such as the late Robert Byrd, whose past the Democratic party has gone to great pains recently to ignore if not outright, ahem, whitewash? Not that it isn't good that he may have recanted later on in life, there is nonetheless his history of at least initially working against minorities.
It is interesting also to note that Republican support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was actually stronger than Democratic support. As a Party, the GOP voted for the Act by about an 80% - 20% margin; Democrats, while overall in favor of it, voted at about a 62% - 38% figure. Indeed, not enough Democrats in the Senate voted for the measure to have passed it on their power: only 46 Democratic senators voted aye. That means that it would not have passed the Senate without Republican support at a time the Democrats were the majority party by a tremendous number in that chamber, 67-33.
Why don't we hear about this in schools and the media? Because it's not history that they like. It makes conservatives in general and Republicans in particular look too good. So much for the objectivity of the journalists and educators.
When you throw in the fact that many minorities are social conservatives, one cannot help but conclude they need to rethink their ties to the Democratic Party. But when the race card gets played, well, we'll see who's actually played.
Democrats want to take credit for all the advancements in civil rights in recent times, indeed for any and all forward movements on civil rights in our entire history. Yet at the least, the GOP deserves more consideration in what it has done in that area over time.
It was a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, who sent federal troops to insure that minorities were allowed in public high schools. Going back much further, a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, did the most to free the slaves. Say what you want about what he said at the time, his actions were what ended slavery.
How quickly too we forget the Dixiecrats, Democrats who opposed civil rights legislation. You know, the guys such as the late Robert Byrd, whose past the Democratic party has gone to great pains recently to ignore if not outright, ahem, whitewash? Not that it isn't good that he may have recanted later on in life, there is nonetheless his history of at least initially working against minorities.
It is interesting also to note that Republican support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was actually stronger than Democratic support. As a Party, the GOP voted for the Act by about an 80% - 20% margin; Democrats, while overall in favor of it, voted at about a 62% - 38% figure. Indeed, not enough Democrats in the Senate voted for the measure to have passed it on their power: only 46 Democratic senators voted aye. That means that it would not have passed the Senate without Republican support at a time the Democrats were the majority party by a tremendous number in that chamber, 67-33.
Why don't we hear about this in schools and the media? Because it's not history that they like. It makes conservatives in general and Republicans in particular look too good. So much for the objectivity of the journalists and educators.
When you throw in the fact that many minorities are social conservatives, one cannot help but conclude they need to rethink their ties to the Democratic Party. But when the race card gets played, well, we'll see who's actually played.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Obama the Coward?
President Barack Obama certainly is a politician. Either that, or he's afraid of his own policies and/or core constituency. The latest example of this is the delaying of a decision on a proposed US/Canadian oil pipeline until after the 2012 elections. It is clearly a move designed to appeal to the environmentalists, who hailed the decision as one which will lessen the production of greenhouse gases.
Maybe so, maybe no. Either way, we all know that liberal environmentalists are against anything which actually helps human beings go about earning the daily bread, and that they are fanatical supporters of the President. By refusing to make a decision before the next major electoral cycle plays out, he's simply playing to them to ensure their vote. Should he be re-elected, it would not be a surprise if he quickly approved some sort of pipeline then, when he doesn't have to worry about pandering to his supporters.
Never mind that we could desperately use the jobs now, or that Canada might just sell the oil to Asia. It's all about putting off the tough decisions until after a referendum on his power. He did the same thing with Obamacare, making it so that the major provisions of the health care overhaul don't take effect until after November 2012 as well. By that point, he will either be given another term or have been tossed out. He would then be in the position of not having to worry about 2016 while reaping the praises of his primary Presidential act, or be able to catcall as his masterpiece is altered or abandoned.
The bottom line is that what we see in President Obama is someone who paints himself a true believer while putting off the actual effects of his creed until they can't hurt him, or, at least, not hurt him too bad. If you think that's chicken of him, you may just be on to something.
Maybe so, maybe no. Either way, we all know that liberal environmentalists are against anything which actually helps human beings go about earning the daily bread, and that they are fanatical supporters of the President. By refusing to make a decision before the next major electoral cycle plays out, he's simply playing to them to ensure their vote. Should he be re-elected, it would not be a surprise if he quickly approved some sort of pipeline then, when he doesn't have to worry about pandering to his supporters.
Never mind that we could desperately use the jobs now, or that Canada might just sell the oil to Asia. It's all about putting off the tough decisions until after a referendum on his power. He did the same thing with Obamacare, making it so that the major provisions of the health care overhaul don't take effect until after November 2012 as well. By that point, he will either be given another term or have been tossed out. He would then be in the position of not having to worry about 2016 while reaping the praises of his primary Presidential act, or be able to catcall as his masterpiece is altered or abandoned.
The bottom line is that what we see in President Obama is someone who paints himself a true believer while putting off the actual effects of his creed until they can't hurt him, or, at least, not hurt him too bad. If you think that's chicken of him, you may just be on to something.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Does Ron Paul Stand on Firmer Ground than Before?
Could Ron Paul actually become more than the GOP fringe candidate he is so often portrayed as being? Recent news articles seem to think so. The Associated Press, Fox News, and The Washington Post, among others, have recently issued stories which are sympathetic to the Paul campaign. There has even been out forth by a DC blogger a theory that Paul could be a force at the Republican Convention by winning only California and Texas. It can be found here: http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-washington-dc/shhhhhh-ron-paul-could-win-california-and-therefore-the-nomination
But can he actually be a difference maker? He has shot himself in the foot often enough, such as making the American Civil War an issue during the 2008 campaign. That question has been decided, Ron, and, quite frankly, it serves little purpose discussing it except in academia. Still, his small government, pro civil rights attitude is one which echoes within somewhere around 10 percent of the population. It wouldn't be terribly surprising for a more durable candidacy to jump out from such numbers: one in ten is nothing to sneeze at.
Certainly, there are Republicans who wouldn't mind the party turning more libertarian. We could live with it ourselves, so long as the libertarianism was muted somewhat. It's all well and good to speak of individual rights, until and unless you begin speaking as though no moral judgments can be made about them. Same sex marriages are morally wrong and society should not condone them, for example. Then, too, it is silly to think that we have no true moral obligations beyond our own borders. A foreign policy driven by a certain altruism and real national and international concerns is not a terribly outlandish proposition. There's no need to wait until we face a direct and immediate threat to our nation before we take any action internationally.
We can't escape the feeling that the attraction of Ron Paul is yet rather shallow. A few extra political articles hardly make for real electoral success. But they are a step in the right direction, and the GOP could stand to learn a few lessons from the more libertarian minded among them. The fringes aren't always or of necessity wrong, and a strong Ron Paul campaign might actually lead the Republicans to offer real differences between themselves and the Democrats. Here's hoping that there is some truth to his candidacy gaining at least enough ground to actually affect the status quo.
But can he actually be a difference maker? He has shot himself in the foot often enough, such as making the American Civil War an issue during the 2008 campaign. That question has been decided, Ron, and, quite frankly, it serves little purpose discussing it except in academia. Still, his small government, pro civil rights attitude is one which echoes within somewhere around 10 percent of the population. It wouldn't be terribly surprising for a more durable candidacy to jump out from such numbers: one in ten is nothing to sneeze at.
Certainly, there are Republicans who wouldn't mind the party turning more libertarian. We could live with it ourselves, so long as the libertarianism was muted somewhat. It's all well and good to speak of individual rights, until and unless you begin speaking as though no moral judgments can be made about them. Same sex marriages are morally wrong and society should not condone them, for example. Then, too, it is silly to think that we have no true moral obligations beyond our own borders. A foreign policy driven by a certain altruism and real national and international concerns is not a terribly outlandish proposition. There's no need to wait until we face a direct and immediate threat to our nation before we take any action internationally.
We can't escape the feeling that the attraction of Ron Paul is yet rather shallow. A few extra political articles hardly make for real electoral success. But they are a step in the right direction, and the GOP could stand to learn a few lessons from the more libertarian minded among them. The fringes aren't always or of necessity wrong, and a strong Ron Paul campaign might actually lead the Republicans to offer real differences between themselves and the Democrats. Here's hoping that there is some truth to his candidacy gaining at least enough ground to actually affect the status quo.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Saturday Morning Musings
Stephen Hawking believes that the best hope for humanity is colonizing other worlds. We are likely heading for disaster in the next hundred years and need to plan ahead.
We're not saying that a disaster doesn't loom, but the physicist's prediction is hardly rocket science. The fact is that disaster is almost always just around the corner and has been during all of history. Simply because our capacity for destruction is worse now than ever (it seems a safe presumption that that is what Hawking fears) doesn't mean calamity is only possible these days. Besides, even with colonization we would still have to deal with the ages old human factor; we're as likely to destroy ourselves on Mars as here.
The real truth is that if human life is to continue we need to become moral people. Short of that, the future doesn't matter anyway.
Mitt Romney leads Michigan according to the polls and is considered to be the likely GOP nominee to run against President Barack Obama in November 2012. When we need an inspiring candidate, we get Mitt Romney. Where have you gone Ronald Reagan?
A Florida woman and three other families have camped out in front of a store nine days ahead of Black Friday. They, of course, wants to be sure she can get the goods she craves so badly. What is the, Occupy Best Buy? Pathetic.
It appears that Michigan will have added about 64,000 jobs in the state by the end of 2011. This would represent the first gain in jobs in more than ten years. But we're still way behind most of the country, and progress is projected to be slow here for at least the new couple of years. At least Snyder seems to have us headed in the right direction. Hopefully, anyway.
That's it, we got no more. Until tomorrow, that is.
We're not saying that a disaster doesn't loom, but the physicist's prediction is hardly rocket science. The fact is that disaster is almost always just around the corner and has been during all of history. Simply because our capacity for destruction is worse now than ever (it seems a safe presumption that that is what Hawking fears) doesn't mean calamity is only possible these days. Besides, even with colonization we would still have to deal with the ages old human factor; we're as likely to destroy ourselves on Mars as here.
The real truth is that if human life is to continue we need to become moral people. Short of that, the future doesn't matter anyway.
Mitt Romney leads Michigan according to the polls and is considered to be the likely GOP nominee to run against President Barack Obama in November 2012. When we need an inspiring candidate, we get Mitt Romney. Where have you gone Ronald Reagan?
A Florida woman and three other families have camped out in front of a store nine days ahead of Black Friday. They, of course, wants to be sure she can get the goods she craves so badly. What is the, Occupy Best Buy? Pathetic.
It appears that Michigan will have added about 64,000 jobs in the state by the end of 2011. This would represent the first gain in jobs in more than ten years. But we're still way behind most of the country, and progress is projected to be slow here for at least the new couple of years. At least Snyder seems to have us headed in the right direction. Hopefully, anyway.
That's it, we got no more. Until tomorrow, that is.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Free Will Doesn't make Actions Right
One of the most pervasive while also one of the most ridiculous arguments in favor of certain presumed freedoms is the one about consenting adults. Simply put, it makes moral a given action on the grounds that the folks involved are in agreement as to their joint participation. It is ultimately a wholly untenable position.
To begin with, if all that is required to make something ethically acceptable is the agreement of the parties involved, then we really ought to allow duels. The (presumably) two participants agreed to take shots at each other. So no matter how barbaric, as they freely entered into the contract we would have to let them fire away.
Absurd. Yet when applied to other moral questions, and prostitution for example is one key area where the adage is often used, it is something accepted as axiomatic. The truth is that you would be on stronger ground simply to argue that paying for sexual favors is not in itself wrong rather than to say it's okay because there was no coercion.
The mere fact that people are willing to sell themselves that way while there are also folks willing to buy the, ahem, product, in fact reeks of coercive effects on its own standing. One person wants money, the other wants something which money can buy. A certain coercive effect is in fact at work. Still, even setting that point aside begs the question. The best answer is that nothing is good solely because those involved want to to do it. The act in question must be good on its own stead lest those involved be acting on mere impulse or selfishness. Or, indeed, actual immorality.
This is not to say that a free will act without pressure isn't a factor in moral decision making. It goes without saying that for most personal acts to be moral they must be entered into with a reasonable amount of freedom. In marriage, for example, both the man and the woman involved must do so of their own consent. Yet a hypothetical marriage between a man and a woman both of whom are free to marry is itself already moral. We are in fact beyond the issue of the morality of the potential nuptials by the time the question of will enters the fray.
In short, when considering the rightness of something there are two questions at hand. The first and most important query is whether the act is morally right, seen objectively, on its own. The second is whether those involved are the proper parties to it. Their consent is never a point until after the moral correctness of the action is assured.
To begin with, if all that is required to make something ethically acceptable is the agreement of the parties involved, then we really ought to allow duels. The (presumably) two participants agreed to take shots at each other. So no matter how barbaric, as they freely entered into the contract we would have to let them fire away.
Absurd. Yet when applied to other moral questions, and prostitution for example is one key area where the adage is often used, it is something accepted as axiomatic. The truth is that you would be on stronger ground simply to argue that paying for sexual favors is not in itself wrong rather than to say it's okay because there was no coercion.
The mere fact that people are willing to sell themselves that way while there are also folks willing to buy the, ahem, product, in fact reeks of coercive effects on its own standing. One person wants money, the other wants something which money can buy. A certain coercive effect is in fact at work. Still, even setting that point aside begs the question. The best answer is that nothing is good solely because those involved want to to do it. The act in question must be good on its own stead lest those involved be acting on mere impulse or selfishness. Or, indeed, actual immorality.
This is not to say that a free will act without pressure isn't a factor in moral decision making. It goes without saying that for most personal acts to be moral they must be entered into with a reasonable amount of freedom. In marriage, for example, both the man and the woman involved must do so of their own consent. Yet a hypothetical marriage between a man and a woman both of whom are free to marry is itself already moral. We are in fact beyond the issue of the morality of the potential nuptials by the time the question of will enters the fray.
In short, when considering the rightness of something there are two questions at hand. The first and most important query is whether the act is morally right, seen objectively, on its own. The second is whether those involved are the proper parties to it. Their consent is never a point until after the moral correctness of the action is assured.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Spending in the Holiday Season
Consumerism, the great evil exemplified by the current madness rushing towards and known as Black Friday, is something generally associated with conservatism. Yet it is in fact a liberal trait.
To be sure, there's nothing wrong with buying things for others, or even for one's self as such. Clothes, food, even our recreation, are things which must be regularly purchased for various yet obvious reasons. The list is surely much longer, too, but again, you get the point.
It's when we begin to buy things simply to buy them that we start to slip into error, into the evil of pure selfishness. When we have to buy a new TV because the old one (still working well) is simply old, we have become consumerists. When we buy a Hummer when a van will do, we have become consumerists. When we make any purchase which is plainly conspicuous, we have become consumerists. It displays an excess of pampering, or worse, of egregious self indulgence.
That bigger, better, and newer isn't of itself wrong, true. Making purchases is something which, as with so much else, must be seen in context against the objective standards of right and wrong. There's nothing wrong with buying a tractor trailer rig if you're going into the shipping industry: a Chevy simply won't do the job. But if all you're doing is driving around to attend your daily needs, that Chevy should do just fine.
But to the point: consumerism is a liberal trait because it ultimately puts the state ahead of the individual for no good purpose other than the state. Why else would FDR, that old liberal, want to change Thanksgiving, except to lengthen the buying season? And at that, for the sake of the state in general, and his Presidency and popularity in particular. He wasn't interested in the person, but in himself and his government.
When we become preoccupied with buying things solely for the sake of the purchase, we are putting the nation ahead of the person. And that is the worst kind of consumerism, for it begins to make getting and buying into a patriotic mantra. When we become bad people, we become a bad nation.
To be sure, there's nothing wrong with buying things for others, or even for one's self as such. Clothes, food, even our recreation, are things which must be regularly purchased for various yet obvious reasons. The list is surely much longer, too, but again, you get the point.
It's when we begin to buy things simply to buy them that we start to slip into error, into the evil of pure selfishness. When we have to buy a new TV because the old one (still working well) is simply old, we have become consumerists. When we buy a Hummer when a van will do, we have become consumerists. When we make any purchase which is plainly conspicuous, we have become consumerists. It displays an excess of pampering, or worse, of egregious self indulgence.
That bigger, better, and newer isn't of itself wrong, true. Making purchases is something which, as with so much else, must be seen in context against the objective standards of right and wrong. There's nothing wrong with buying a tractor trailer rig if you're going into the shipping industry: a Chevy simply won't do the job. But if all you're doing is driving around to attend your daily needs, that Chevy should do just fine.
But to the point: consumerism is a liberal trait because it ultimately puts the state ahead of the individual for no good purpose other than the state. Why else would FDR, that old liberal, want to change Thanksgiving, except to lengthen the buying season? And at that, for the sake of the state in general, and his Presidency and popularity in particular. He wasn't interested in the person, but in himself and his government.
When we become preoccupied with buying things solely for the sake of the purchase, we are putting the nation ahead of the person. And that is the worst kind of consumerism, for it begins to make getting and buying into a patriotic mantra. When we become bad people, we become a bad nation.
Monday, November 14, 2011
MEA: One Arrogant Bunch
The simple, unmitigated arrogance of public educators in Michigan these days has once more been put on display. While Lansing considers legislation which would pay college tuition for privately and home educated students to take college courses, those who thrive at the public trough are once again screaming about the presumed unfairness of it all.
Doug Pratt of the Michigan Education Association (a union), complains, "Now we're going to put in a program that takes money away from neighborhood schools and provides it to help fund the college tuition of private-school and home-school students? It doesn't make sense." The local private schools aren't neighborhood schools, sir? The home schooled are not part of the neighborhood, sir? Hubris on your part, my friend. Hubris.
There is no such thing as public money, Mr. Pratt. It is my money and your money pooled (or worse: taken from the unwilling because a few more people want it done than don't) for the general interest. If the public education of children is in the general interest, then so is the privately taught and the home schooled. Why should your kids qualify for what is unarguably my money too while ours can't? Merely because they don't attend the right schools (that is, the schools which pay your teachers, and your teachers only?).
That is effrontery, and nothing less. You don't have the right to our cash, Mr. Pratt, and also the universal and arbitrary right to decide how it's spent. Yet he continues as if he does anyway, whining that it's just leading to back door vouchers which public opinion (he says) does not support. So, might makes right, Mr. Pratt? If enough people vote for something, anything, mind you, then real and actual right and wrong are out the window? Is that it? Because it sure sounds like it.
Public schools, and public school workers, attendees, supporters, and employees, need to seriously examine their motives. Theirs is a special interest, and nothing more, if they and only they have a claim to government funds (or, more correctly, funds redistributed by government). We say it that way, as too many conservatives have lost sight of conservatism on this very real moral issue. Public education is not an inviolate right. Education is a personal and parental responsibility first and foremost. To deny the same things public school students may qualify for to private and home schooled pupils solely because they are not public is insulting to non public school parents and students. They pay taxes too. It's their money as much as yours.
Doug Pratt of the Michigan Education Association (a union), complains, "Now we're going to put in a program that takes money away from neighborhood schools and provides it to help fund the college tuition of private-school and home-school students? It doesn't make sense." The local private schools aren't neighborhood schools, sir? The home schooled are not part of the neighborhood, sir? Hubris on your part, my friend. Hubris.
There is no such thing as public money, Mr. Pratt. It is my money and your money pooled (or worse: taken from the unwilling because a few more people want it done than don't) for the general interest. If the public education of children is in the general interest, then so is the privately taught and the home schooled. Why should your kids qualify for what is unarguably my money too while ours can't? Merely because they don't attend the right schools (that is, the schools which pay your teachers, and your teachers only?).
That is effrontery, and nothing less. You don't have the right to our cash, Mr. Pratt, and also the universal and arbitrary right to decide how it's spent. Yet he continues as if he does anyway, whining that it's just leading to back door vouchers which public opinion (he says) does not support. So, might makes right, Mr. Pratt? If enough people vote for something, anything, mind you, then real and actual right and wrong are out the window? Is that it? Because it sure sounds like it.
Public schools, and public school workers, attendees, supporters, and employees, need to seriously examine their motives. Theirs is a special interest, and nothing more, if they and only they have a claim to government funds (or, more correctly, funds redistributed by government). We say it that way, as too many conservatives have lost sight of conservatism on this very real moral issue. Public education is not an inviolate right. Education is a personal and parental responsibility first and foremost. To deny the same things public school students may qualify for to private and home schooled pupils solely because they are not public is insulting to non public school parents and students. They pay taxes too. It's their money as much as yours.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
You Can't Have What You Don't Want
Captain Ryan Jean of the US Army wants recognition of himself as a humanist lay leader. He, along with a few other soldiers, want essentially the same status as religious leaders of Christianity, Judaism and Islam have in the military. He wants the same rank (please forgive the pun) as his religious brethren.
So, then, is atheism a religion? We asked that question months ago in this very space and were harangued by atheists who asserted that atheism is not a religion. If it's not, then it doesn't merit recognition by the military or anyone else as equal to religion. If it is, then the various commenters way back when owe us a deeper explanation of what exactly atheism pretends to be.
The fact is that the idea of a humanist lay leader is without merit on its very face. Indeed, Capt. Jean's own words work against his cause and display it as pointless. When asked whether life had a long lasting purpose, he answered no. Still, he wants to be able to see to the spiritual needs of atheist soldiers.
What spiritual need could he possibly be addressing? According to atheists, you're born, you live for a time, then you die. You come into then go out of existence. What is there to live for? What kind of counseling can have any real value in that light? Particularly when you are in the military, it is fair to ask what are you fighting for? So that you might die that others might live? Why are those other lives worth defending? Simply because they're life? But they are just like you, brother atheist: worthless people with no long term value. Protecting them or their ideals is little more than silliness coming from a true atheist viewpoint. Arguing that they or their ideals are worth protection, worth fighting and dying for, is meaningless if there is no eternal merit in those people or their beliefs.
Just as your own beliefs, atheist friends, are pointless and meaningless if you are right. How can you counsel a soldier, how can you inspire him or her to fight the good fight, Capt. Jean, when the first thing you must tell them if you're being true to your creed is that their efforts are without merit? That's more than simply lame counsel. It's self contradictory nonsense.
The Army once had a slogan, Be all that you can be. Applied to atheists, that's all they are. They are nothing more, and nothing less, than delusional if they believe their ideas worth fighting for.
So, then, is atheism a religion? We asked that question months ago in this very space and were harangued by atheists who asserted that atheism is not a religion. If it's not, then it doesn't merit recognition by the military or anyone else as equal to religion. If it is, then the various commenters way back when owe us a deeper explanation of what exactly atheism pretends to be.
The fact is that the idea of a humanist lay leader is without merit on its very face. Indeed, Capt. Jean's own words work against his cause and display it as pointless. When asked whether life had a long lasting purpose, he answered no. Still, he wants to be able to see to the spiritual needs of atheist soldiers.
What spiritual need could he possibly be addressing? According to atheists, you're born, you live for a time, then you die. You come into then go out of existence. What is there to live for? What kind of counseling can have any real value in that light? Particularly when you are in the military, it is fair to ask what are you fighting for? So that you might die that others might live? Why are those other lives worth defending? Simply because they're life? But they are just like you, brother atheist: worthless people with no long term value. Protecting them or their ideals is little more than silliness coming from a true atheist viewpoint. Arguing that they or their ideals are worth protection, worth fighting and dying for, is meaningless if there is no eternal merit in those people or their beliefs.
Just as your own beliefs, atheist friends, are pointless and meaningless if you are right. How can you counsel a soldier, how can you inspire him or her to fight the good fight, Capt. Jean, when the first thing you must tell them if you're being true to your creed is that their efforts are without merit? That's more than simply lame counsel. It's self contradictory nonsense.
The Army once had a slogan, Be all that you can be. Applied to atheists, that's all they are. They are nothing more, and nothing less, than delusional if they believe their ideas worth fighting for.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Examine Your Own Creed Before Judging Others
The issue of tolerance, or, perhaps, intolerance, has been brought to Detroit. At Ford Field, a prayer gathering has called for Detroit and indeed the entire United States to turn Jesus or else we're doomed.
That sentiment itself is of course quite true. But the manner in which it is often presented can and should be subject to question. As such, it explains the diverse peoples outside of Ford Field who protest the particular manner in which the group, the New Apostolic Reformation, and its leader Lou Engle, are representing the cause of Christ.
The NAR is accused of being racist, sexist, anti-gay rights, anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim, and intolerant. We see no need to go into the details of their harangues. You can probably imagine them well enough and they're likely as not all over the Internet anyway. However that may be, theirs is an organization which, other than on free speech grounds, it would be difficult to defend.
But the people against them must be aware of themselves and what they may stand for as well. One common lament against Mr. Engle and his followers is that they are not for 'inclusion' but hate. They do not promote tolerance, but hate.
Well, are the protesters really practicing inclusion and tolerance themselves? Do they, by simple argument, hate what was and is going on inside Ford Field? Otherwise, why not include and tolerate the New Apostolic Reformation? Ah, because the sign carriers are for inclusion and tolerance of the people and creeds they like. So they protest, many of them never questioning whether their heads are on straight either.
We are not defending Lou Engle or the NAR in any way, shape or form. Yet we cannot escape the feeling that many of those who speak against him speak with forked tongue themselves. They're for tolerance and inclusion...of what they like. But as for Engle and Company, they would not tolerate or include.
The point here is that we can and must judge the actions and intentions of people if we are to understand the world and really make it better. This must mean the tolerance and inclusion of certain ideas and ways as well as the intolerance and exclusion of ideas and attitudes contradictory to human good. Protests against bigots are all well and good when we are actually dealing with knee jerk and intellectually shallow bigots. But notice that that involves the judgment that such persons are wrong in their ways.
It also implies that we may judge your ways. And if you don't allow it, it you refuse to let others tend rational judgments about your ways and your means, then you are no different than those you refuse to tolerate. You may indeed be worse. You may be self centered and self aggrandizing bigots of the worst kind. You may be hypocrites.
That sentiment itself is of course quite true. But the manner in which it is often presented can and should be subject to question. As such, it explains the diverse peoples outside of Ford Field who protest the particular manner in which the group, the New Apostolic Reformation, and its leader Lou Engle, are representing the cause of Christ.
The NAR is accused of being racist, sexist, anti-gay rights, anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim, and intolerant. We see no need to go into the details of their harangues. You can probably imagine them well enough and they're likely as not all over the Internet anyway. However that may be, theirs is an organization which, other than on free speech grounds, it would be difficult to defend.
But the people against them must be aware of themselves and what they may stand for as well. One common lament against Mr. Engle and his followers is that they are not for 'inclusion' but hate. They do not promote tolerance, but hate.
Well, are the protesters really practicing inclusion and tolerance themselves? Do they, by simple argument, hate what was and is going on inside Ford Field? Otherwise, why not include and tolerate the New Apostolic Reformation? Ah, because the sign carriers are for inclusion and tolerance of the people and creeds they like. So they protest, many of them never questioning whether their heads are on straight either.
We are not defending Lou Engle or the NAR in any way, shape or form. Yet we cannot escape the feeling that many of those who speak against him speak with forked tongue themselves. They're for tolerance and inclusion...of what they like. But as for Engle and Company, they would not tolerate or include.
The point here is that we can and must judge the actions and intentions of people if we are to understand the world and really make it better. This must mean the tolerance and inclusion of certain ideas and ways as well as the intolerance and exclusion of ideas and attitudes contradictory to human good. Protests against bigots are all well and good when we are actually dealing with knee jerk and intellectually shallow bigots. But notice that that involves the judgment that such persons are wrong in their ways.
It also implies that we may judge your ways. And if you don't allow it, it you refuse to let others tend rational judgments about your ways and your means, then you are no different than those you refuse to tolerate. You may indeed be worse. You may be self centered and self aggrandizing bigots of the worst kind. You may be hypocrites.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Abstinance Works
A recent federal study, published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, suggests very heavily that abstinence only sex education programs actually work. They decrease the likelihood of teens become sexually active before they should. This is contrary to the liberal assumption that young people must be treated like rabbits, with no penchant for self-discipline at all.
It is interesting that such studies are even necessary. Like the study a few years back by educationists which concluded that students who study more learn more (gasp!), the common sense of the matter is so obvious that it is hard to believe anyone would think about the questions in a contrary or contradictory manner.
The fact is, anybody who accepts that there are such things as common sense and reason see things more clearly than those who need studies with various data tables normalized to certain base lines. When we have folks who do not believe in rationality, we get folks who ultimately have an agenda. In the case of sex education, we get liberals whose presumptions muddy their objectivity, like the environmentalists whose views are skewed by the thought that mere earth and animals and plants are superior to people, or the evolutionists whose scientific findings are clouded by their presumptions. With sex ed, we have folks who want promiscuity. Consequently, they presume it will happen, rather than afford others the dignity that they may actually be able to control themselves.
Such an approach insults our children in particular and our society in general. At the risk of overusing the term, common sense tells us that a structured, disciplined environment will, by and large (for we do recognize that simple human freedom will lead to errant behavior) give us a structured and disciplined society. People can be taught to behave in appropriate manners. If we are willing to concede that such personal control is possible.
It is an easy point to accept if you believe in the dignity of the individual. If you do not believe in that, then nothing is possible.
It is interesting that such studies are even necessary. Like the study a few years back by educationists which concluded that students who study more learn more (gasp!), the common sense of the matter is so obvious that it is hard to believe anyone would think about the questions in a contrary or contradictory manner.
The fact is, anybody who accepts that there are such things as common sense and reason see things more clearly than those who need studies with various data tables normalized to certain base lines. When we have folks who do not believe in rationality, we get folks who ultimately have an agenda. In the case of sex education, we get liberals whose presumptions muddy their objectivity, like the environmentalists whose views are skewed by the thought that mere earth and animals and plants are superior to people, or the evolutionists whose scientific findings are clouded by their presumptions. With sex ed, we have folks who want promiscuity. Consequently, they presume it will happen, rather than afford others the dignity that they may actually be able to control themselves.
Such an approach insults our children in particular and our society in general. At the risk of overusing the term, common sense tells us that a structured, disciplined environment will, by and large (for we do recognize that simple human freedom will lead to errant behavior) give us a structured and disciplined society. People can be taught to behave in appropriate manners. If we are willing to concede that such personal control is possible.
It is an easy point to accept if you believe in the dignity of the individual. If you do not believe in that, then nothing is possible.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Elections and Satire
The proposed Detroit City Charter revisions passed easily yesterday, in part (supposedly) as a backlash against corruption in city government. Now, among other things, the City Council will be elected in seven districts rather than having all nine elected citywide (two seats will still be chosen at large). Sadly, all that likely means is that corruption will be spread evenly across the town. As we've said before, if the citizens can't elect decent government as it is, then it doesn't really matter how we do it.
A French satirical newspaper had its offices bombed after an issue depicted Mohammed on the cover. He was depicted as saying '100 lashes if you don't die of laughter'. Haven't heard that news yet? It isn't surprising: the media are handling Islam with kid gloves. If Muslims are offended, even if only a handful as their supporters claim, silence must be kept. Yet one wonders how quickly it would be front page news if Christian reactionaries firebombed the offices of Family Guy in protest of that show's incessant attacks on their religion.
Representative Paul Scott has been recalled, thanks to the influence of the Michigan Education Association (a union). It seems the vote may have turned on the heavily union area in south Flint which is part of his district. Very well, then, all you radical recallers, you have your sacrificial lamb, and damn the cost for your selfishness. Now you'll have two elections in less than a year for the same spot, seeing as November 2012 isn't that far away. The taxpayers are the ones anteing up for you liberals. But that's all right, isn't it? It's what they're supposed to do.
Voters in nearby Ohio chose to exempt themselves from buying health insurance under Obamacare. It is not more than a protest vote, yet it still may be fodder for Republicans who want to repeal the proposed health care changes scheduled to take place after the 2012 elections. Health care is sure to be a major issue next year, and this vote can only serve to keep it in the public eye. Sometimes a little symbolism can go a long way.
A French satirical newspaper had its offices bombed after an issue depicted Mohammed on the cover. He was depicted as saying '100 lashes if you don't die of laughter'. Haven't heard that news yet? It isn't surprising: the media are handling Islam with kid gloves. If Muslims are offended, even if only a handful as their supporters claim, silence must be kept. Yet one wonders how quickly it would be front page news if Christian reactionaries firebombed the offices of Family Guy in protest of that show's incessant attacks on their religion.
Representative Paul Scott has been recalled, thanks to the influence of the Michigan Education Association (a union). It seems the vote may have turned on the heavily union area in south Flint which is part of his district. Very well, then, all you radical recallers, you have your sacrificial lamb, and damn the cost for your selfishness. Now you'll have two elections in less than a year for the same spot, seeing as November 2012 isn't that far away. The taxpayers are the ones anteing up for you liberals. But that's all right, isn't it? It's what they're supposed to do.
Voters in nearby Ohio chose to exempt themselves from buying health insurance under Obamacare. It is not more than a protest vote, yet it still may be fodder for Republicans who want to repeal the proposed health care changes scheduled to take place after the 2012 elections. Health care is sure to be a major issue next year, and this vote can only serve to keep it in the public eye. Sometimes a little symbolism can go a long way.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Elections 2011
Today is Election Day. Most areas of Michigan will have votes on this or that, from school boards to charter revisions. This is considered an off year election; there are areas which will have no voting at all. It is off year because there are no presidential or legislative races. In short, it's kind of the dull part of the cycle.
Many teachers in Michigan get the day off. That may be the biggest joke job perk in the world. It's done in order to help them vote and help others get elected. What that translates into is that it is assumed the teachers will work for the Democrats and liberal causes on the presumption that's where their passion lies. Quite frankly, they shouldn't get the day off without burning a personal or sick day. No one else does; there's no reason educators should get a free pass simply because of an election.
Let's be honest: no one's single vote really means that much. Few elections of any consequence are decided by such unimaginably slim margins, and those that are are probably so local as to be relatively meaningless. But vote anyway. The system won't work if you don't, and it goes without saying that there are worse systems which may creep in and take over if we don't use the ballot box for what we believe important. The slippery slope goes often unnoticed; treat your vote as though it means the entire election.
So speaking of elections, there are too many to comment on. We'll trust your judgment on your own local races. But in Detroit, we've decided to recommend a vote against the proposed Charter revisions, simply because they encourage city wide recycling. Yes, we mean that. Recycling is seriously overrated, and simply isn't worth the effort. It's feel good pulp which allows conservatives and liberals to appear to agree on something, yet it has no honest practical value. Vote against the Charter revisions on that issue alone.
Many teachers in Michigan get the day off. That may be the biggest joke job perk in the world. It's done in order to help them vote and help others get elected. What that translates into is that it is assumed the teachers will work for the Democrats and liberal causes on the presumption that's where their passion lies. Quite frankly, they shouldn't get the day off without burning a personal or sick day. No one else does; there's no reason educators should get a free pass simply because of an election.
Let's be honest: no one's single vote really means that much. Few elections of any consequence are decided by such unimaginably slim margins, and those that are are probably so local as to be relatively meaningless. But vote anyway. The system won't work if you don't, and it goes without saying that there are worse systems which may creep in and take over if we don't use the ballot box for what we believe important. The slippery slope goes often unnoticed; treat your vote as though it means the entire election.
So speaking of elections, there are too many to comment on. We'll trust your judgment on your own local races. But in Detroit, we've decided to recommend a vote against the proposed Charter revisions, simply because they encourage city wide recycling. Yes, we mean that. Recycling is seriously overrated, and simply isn't worth the effort. It's feel good pulp which allows conservatives and liberals to appear to agree on something, yet it has no honest practical value. Vote against the Charter revisions on that issue alone.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Black Thursday?
Thanksgiving is not far away now; two weeks from Thursday in fact. How many of us can already smell the turkey, the stuffing, the gravy and sweet potatoes, and...the sales?
Many stores have already announced that they simply cannot wait until the actual day after Thanksgiving, the aptly named Black Friday, to begin their Christmas sales. Many local stores, or, more precisely, the local outlets of national chains, have announced that they will open at midnight of Black Friday. We might suppose so that they can, with some smirky honesty, assert they have not encroached on the holiday. Still, some cannot wait that long. Great Lakes Crossing has said that their sale prices will go into effect at 9PM on Thanksgiving Day.
If we simply must appeal to secular attitudes, seeing as the secularists have pretty well made Christmas into a selfish orgy of shopping fanaticism anyway, is there at least some way we might make people believe again that it is all right to have a holiday or two not tied into our nation's economic success? Is not the human benefit in the way of rest and relaxation acceptable even to the nonreligious? Can we not have holidays be holidays anymore, simply so that we can see family and friends and just have a good time?
Anybody out seen Terry Gilliam's Brazil? How many of you who have actually get it? It's Christmas all the time in that movie world precisely so that the citizens will buy, buy, buy, because it's the only way they can keep the economy going. We're becoming like that, you know. Our lives are being run by how many things we have.
That's all we have at the end of the day, of course. Things. Our new TV is great for a few days, and then it's simply our TV. Same with our clothes and our cars and our almost everything else. Yet we rarely stop for a moment and consider that maybe, just maybe, we're being played.
This is not to say that shopping is bad or that buying and getting new things is bad. But it is to say that, when buying and getting becomes our focus, we might perhaps take a deep breath and a step back and ask how ourselves exactly how important mere things are. We need to tell ourselves: it's okay not to get the best TV at the best price. It's just a thing. It's okay if we help the general economy starting at 9AM on a Friday rather than let such insipid needs be fed while we're still on holiday. We'll be all right. We'll still have plenty of things at the end of the day.
Actually, we might have several more: the goodwill and good cheer of friends and the family. You know, the ethereal things which make for true humanity and true human happiness.
Many stores have already announced that they simply cannot wait until the actual day after Thanksgiving, the aptly named Black Friday, to begin their Christmas sales. Many local stores, or, more precisely, the local outlets of national chains, have announced that they will open at midnight of Black Friday. We might suppose so that they can, with some smirky honesty, assert they have not encroached on the holiday. Still, some cannot wait that long. Great Lakes Crossing has said that their sale prices will go into effect at 9PM on Thanksgiving Day.
If we simply must appeal to secular attitudes, seeing as the secularists have pretty well made Christmas into a selfish orgy of shopping fanaticism anyway, is there at least some way we might make people believe again that it is all right to have a holiday or two not tied into our nation's economic success? Is not the human benefit in the way of rest and relaxation acceptable even to the nonreligious? Can we not have holidays be holidays anymore, simply so that we can see family and friends and just have a good time?
Anybody out seen Terry Gilliam's Brazil? How many of you who have actually get it? It's Christmas all the time in that movie world precisely so that the citizens will buy, buy, buy, because it's the only way they can keep the economy going. We're becoming like that, you know. Our lives are being run by how many things we have.
That's all we have at the end of the day, of course. Things. Our new TV is great for a few days, and then it's simply our TV. Same with our clothes and our cars and our almost everything else. Yet we rarely stop for a moment and consider that maybe, just maybe, we're being played.
This is not to say that shopping is bad or that buying and getting new things is bad. But it is to say that, when buying and getting becomes our focus, we might perhaps take a deep breath and a step back and ask how ourselves exactly how important mere things are. We need to tell ourselves: it's okay not to get the best TV at the best price. It's just a thing. It's okay if we help the general economy starting at 9AM on a Friday rather than let such insipid needs be fed while we're still on holiday. We'll be all right. We'll still have plenty of things at the end of the day.
Actually, we might have several more: the goodwill and good cheer of friends and the family. You know, the ethereal things which make for true humanity and true human happiness.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
California Knows Everything
As if it isn't bad enough that the Federal Government has its hands in too many pies, now we have situations where one the states has taken it upon itself to get involved in enlightening the citizenry through badgering people about what it thinks important. It should be no surprise that that State is California.
While installing an in line ground fault interrupter on a piece of machinery, I found this warning wrapped around the cord:
WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive harm. Wash hands after handling.
On what grounds do they force this warning? California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment guideline states thus: “A person exposed to the chemical at the ‘no significant risk level’ for 70 years would not have more than a ‘one in 100,000’ chance of developing cancer as a result of that exposure.” Anything over that, say one extra case per 100,000 people over 70 years, means the tag has to be applied to the whatever it is at hand.
Doesn't this strike anyone as overkill? How am I supposed to feel about getting a scare that I have increased my chance of contracting cancer simply by putting a power cord on a machine? How do the people using equipment day after day react to the news that they are in such a slightly more hazardous situation than they could possibly have imagined? By what right does California think it can violate someone's comfort zone by insisting on a tag where no significant increase of contracting cancer exists?
We could dismiss it as simply the big dog of the nation throwing its weight around. But it's more than that: it serves as a reminder that government, any government, when its gets big enough feels it has the right to throw its weight around. California is darn near a nation unto itself anyway, and seeing as its infrastructure needs are well below what its citizens demand, one would think it would be more concerned with shoring up its physical plant than in promoting scare stories.
But, after all, its still a big brother government. What's not to love?
While installing an in line ground fault interrupter on a piece of machinery, I found this warning wrapped around the cord:
WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive harm. Wash hands after handling.
On what grounds do they force this warning? California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment guideline states thus: “A person exposed to the chemical at the ‘no significant risk level’ for 70 years would not have more than a ‘one in 100,000’ chance of developing cancer as a result of that exposure.” Anything over that, say one extra case per 100,000 people over 70 years, means the tag has to be applied to the whatever it is at hand.
Doesn't this strike anyone as overkill? How am I supposed to feel about getting a scare that I have increased my chance of contracting cancer simply by putting a power cord on a machine? How do the people using equipment day after day react to the news that they are in such a slightly more hazardous situation than they could possibly have imagined? By what right does California think it can violate someone's comfort zone by insisting on a tag where no significant increase of contracting cancer exists?
We could dismiss it as simply the big dog of the nation throwing its weight around. But it's more than that: it serves as a reminder that government, any government, when its gets big enough feels it has the right to throw its weight around. California is darn near a nation unto itself anyway, and seeing as its infrastructure needs are well below what its citizens demand, one would think it would be more concerned with shoring up its physical plant than in promoting scare stories.
But, after all, its still a big brother government. What's not to love?
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Whither Herman Cain?
Pity Herman Cain. He has now been officially baptized into presidential politics. He carries the stain of scandal which so many of his forebears have had clearly marked upon their earlier campaigns. As likely as not, he thought it had all gone away.
Unfortunately such things vaporize only to condense and form rain another day. When running for President of the United States especially, accusations will manage to seep out of the woodwork. Ask Bill Clinton.
To be sure, if Cain is guilty of any serious transgression it is only fair to consider as much when thinking about giving him a vote; there is no grounds for a Republican double standard on the question. We called out then candidate Clinton on it; we should not ignore it when a similar thing happens to one of our own. Still, if what happened long enough ago and repentance is clear, we shouldn't necessarily hold it against an office seeker either.
If the allegations are true then it hardly matters where they came from. It is interesting that Mr. Cain has accused Rick Perry of spreading the word in that it only increases the mudslinging; perhaps that is the intent of course. Making someone else the bad guy to take attention away from yourself is itself a staple of American campaigning.
What Cain should do is own up if the things he's accused of doing actually happened, to show integrity while also getting the issue of the table as best he can. Conversely, if they are indeed untrue or inflated, then shout it from the rooftops and don't point fingers. If nothing else, remember that Clinton's dalliances didn't seem to affect him.
In the meantime, welcome to the world of big time American politics, Herman Cain. But take care not to make things worse. It will only hurt you in the long run.
Unfortunately such things vaporize only to condense and form rain another day. When running for President of the United States especially, accusations will manage to seep out of the woodwork. Ask Bill Clinton.
To be sure, if Cain is guilty of any serious transgression it is only fair to consider as much when thinking about giving him a vote; there is no grounds for a Republican double standard on the question. We called out then candidate Clinton on it; we should not ignore it when a similar thing happens to one of our own. Still, if what happened long enough ago and repentance is clear, we shouldn't necessarily hold it against an office seeker either.
If the allegations are true then it hardly matters where they came from. It is interesting that Mr. Cain has accused Rick Perry of spreading the word in that it only increases the mudslinging; perhaps that is the intent of course. Making someone else the bad guy to take attention away from yourself is itself a staple of American campaigning.
What Cain should do is own up if the things he's accused of doing actually happened, to show integrity while also getting the issue of the table as best he can. Conversely, if they are indeed untrue or inflated, then shout it from the rooftops and don't point fingers. If nothing else, remember that Clinton's dalliances didn't seem to affect him.
In the meantime, welcome to the world of big time American politics, Herman Cain. But take care not to make things worse. It will only hurt you in the long run.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Society and Double Standards
Last Friday, Macomb Sheriff's Deputies arrested a 47 year old Harrison Township man on charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and child pornography charges. He was allegedly carrying on a sexual relationship with a 16 year old girl, and had child porn on his computer. Such things are, of course reprehensible, or worse. If guilty, he ought top have the proverbial book thrown at him. But the situation raises a question rarely if ever debated publicly: why are some forms of child pornography perverted while others are openly tolerated, and even encouraged?
No one seems to mind that Jodie Foster played a 12 year old child prostitute in Taxi Driver, or that Brooke Shields was messing around in The Blue Lagoon while she was 15. Never mind that movies involved mere acting: isn't something being acted out in whatever type of pornography may be your fancy? We can talk of body doublers too, but it doesn't alter the fact that what we are dealing with is meant to represent child porn. Aren't movies supposed to be taken at face value?
Nor can we dismiss such films as little more the prurient drivel: Taxi Driver made number 53 on the American Film Institute's list of the top 100 films of all time. So the question remains: by what standard are certain kinds of child pornography evil, while others are not?
Is it art? Then we ask a variation on the original question: what is the difference between mere art and perversion?
Is it for reality's sake? But it then becomes fair to ask whether movies are real. The answer is that, yes, they are, and there is a significant difference between, say, faking a shooting, and actually showing (or pretending to show) two teenagers getting it on. One extends the drama of a scene, and everyone knows it isn't really real. The other is meant to be 12 and 14 year olds at, well, play. Again, why are such things acceptable if a duly accredited movie studio portrays them, yet vile and contemptible if done more privately?
We propose that they are in fact no different. Further, that when society condones such characters and scenes, it condones child porn done rightly, so to speak.
As such, we should not be surprised when some people take it just a bit more literally and actually pursue child porn and inappropriate relationships with the young. They're wrong, yes, but they've also been at least arguably encouraged in their perversions. So long as such societal double standards exist, we will continue to see such travesties as 'actual' child porn more readily pursued. And that, quite frankly, is a shame on us.
No one seems to mind that Jodie Foster played a 12 year old child prostitute in Taxi Driver, or that Brooke Shields was messing around in The Blue Lagoon while she was 15. Never mind that movies involved mere acting: isn't something being acted out in whatever type of pornography may be your fancy? We can talk of body doublers too, but it doesn't alter the fact that what we are dealing with is meant to represent child porn. Aren't movies supposed to be taken at face value?
Nor can we dismiss such films as little more the prurient drivel: Taxi Driver made number 53 on the American Film Institute's list of the top 100 films of all time. So the question remains: by what standard are certain kinds of child pornography evil, while others are not?
Is it art? Then we ask a variation on the original question: what is the difference between mere art and perversion?
Is it for reality's sake? But it then becomes fair to ask whether movies are real. The answer is that, yes, they are, and there is a significant difference between, say, faking a shooting, and actually showing (or pretending to show) two teenagers getting it on. One extends the drama of a scene, and everyone knows it isn't really real. The other is meant to be 12 and 14 year olds at, well, play. Again, why are such things acceptable if a duly accredited movie studio portrays them, yet vile and contemptible if done more privately?
We propose that they are in fact no different. Further, that when society condones such characters and scenes, it condones child porn done rightly, so to speak.
As such, we should not be surprised when some people take it just a bit more literally and actually pursue child porn and inappropriate relationships with the young. They're wrong, yes, but they've also been at least arguably encouraged in their perversions. So long as such societal double standards exist, we will continue to see such travesties as 'actual' child porn more readily pursued. And that, quite frankly, is a shame on us.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Moderate: Because Being Liberal Hurts
Recent polling suggests pretty heavily that the Democrats and President Barack Obama need the so-called moderate vote in order to win elections, while the GOP can rely on the conservative vote quite readily. This can be interpreted in several ways, but perhaps the most insightful is this: moderates aren't really moderates, as a group, but, rather, lean towards more traditional and familiar thoughts whenever in doubt.
That makes sense, in the end. For when there is a crisis, don't most people act based on what they know? When President Reagan was elected back in 1980 to stem the tide of Democratic and hence more liberal leadership, what was his appeal? To make America great again, based on the traditional American values of individualism and hard work. When the GOP ran the tide last November, what was the big question: nothing less than obtrusive, interfering government trampling the rights of the people.
The moderates responded as they knew how, by throwing out those who did not support real American values. That's why conservatives don't have to appeal too overtly to the presumed middle: they aren't actually in the center after all. They are in fact more moderate to conservative rather than being between the left and the right as they are generally portrayed.
Given the fact that so few people, about 20 percent or one in five, call themselves liberal, and it seems that what we truly have in our nation today is an overall aversion to liberalism. Even the presumed center appears to harbor similar doubts about the left, seeing as the Democrats need to get about 60% of the middle of the road vote to win major elections. It is a telling statistic, and does not bode well for any long term success for the party of Jefferson and Jackson.
Of course, the Democratic Party left the beliefs of those American stalwarts behind eons ago. But that is a tale for another time.
That makes sense, in the end. For when there is a crisis, don't most people act based on what they know? When President Reagan was elected back in 1980 to stem the tide of Democratic and hence more liberal leadership, what was his appeal? To make America great again, based on the traditional American values of individualism and hard work. When the GOP ran the tide last November, what was the big question: nothing less than obtrusive, interfering government trampling the rights of the people.
The moderates responded as they knew how, by throwing out those who did not support real American values. That's why conservatives don't have to appeal too overtly to the presumed middle: they aren't actually in the center after all. They are in fact more moderate to conservative rather than being between the left and the right as they are generally portrayed.
Given the fact that so few people, about 20 percent or one in five, call themselves liberal, and it seems that what we truly have in our nation today is an overall aversion to liberalism. Even the presumed center appears to harbor similar doubts about the left, seeing as the Democrats need to get about 60% of the middle of the road vote to win major elections. It is a telling statistic, and does not bode well for any long term success for the party of Jefferson and Jackson.
Of course, the Democratic Party left the beliefs of those American stalwarts behind eons ago. But that is a tale for another time.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Paul Scott's Recall: Liberal Pettiness
All the time, all the effort, all the false angst and all the cash which has been and will be spent on the recall efforts, have led to what? Exactly one state lawmaker is being subjected to recall. This despite the backing of at least one major union, the Michigan Education Association (surprise, surprise) and the self righteous wailing of the those jealous that they are no longer in power precisely because their message has finally been seen for what it is: a con game based on failed big government theories.
Paul Scott, a Republican out of Grand Blanc, faces recall on November 8th. The most reliable polling shows him winning reasonably comfortably. Should that trend hold out, it will show all the more why the recallers were simply little more than rabble along the lines of the Occupiers. They aren't interested in what the people want. They are interested only in their narrow ideals.
Why is it that we never see conservatives in particular and Republicans in general seeking to recall elected officials? Simply because we believe in the power of the people and the power of democracy. We know and accept that elections happen routinely and regularly and that we can have our say then. We accept that, as one respondent to Rep. Scott's door to door campaigning said, that recalls are for criminals and slackers, not for those actually doing the job of a legislator.
The sweetest irony here is that if Scott is indeed recalled, it will only magnify the narrowness of the interests who will have won. If he loses his seat because of the MEA and the rabble, we will see all the more clearly that it would be a win of the special and not the general interest. It will merely serve to hurt the left even more in the 2012 elections. Not that we want Scott to lose, but merely that a Scott loss won't hurt the Michigan conservative movement all that much. It's a win/win for the right, and, played properly, a lose/lose for the left.
As the old saying goes, give them enough rope. November 2012 can't come quickly enough.
Paul Scott, a Republican out of Grand Blanc, faces recall on November 8th. The most reliable polling shows him winning reasonably comfortably. Should that trend hold out, it will show all the more why the recallers were simply little more than rabble along the lines of the Occupiers. They aren't interested in what the people want. They are interested only in their narrow ideals.
Why is it that we never see conservatives in particular and Republicans in general seeking to recall elected officials? Simply because we believe in the power of the people and the power of democracy. We know and accept that elections happen routinely and regularly and that we can have our say then. We accept that, as one respondent to Rep. Scott's door to door campaigning said, that recalls are for criminals and slackers, not for those actually doing the job of a legislator.
The sweetest irony here is that if Scott is indeed recalled, it will only magnify the narrowness of the interests who will have won. If he loses his seat because of the MEA and the rabble, we will see all the more clearly that it would be a win of the special and not the general interest. It will merely serve to hurt the left even more in the 2012 elections. Not that we want Scott to lose, but merely that a Scott loss won't hurt the Michigan conservative movement all that much. It's a win/win for the right, and, played properly, a lose/lose for the left.
As the old saying goes, give them enough rope. November 2012 can't come quickly enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
