It's amazing how thoughts may randomly pop into one's mind. We are further impressed when two or more of them have an interesting connection which gives us pause.
When the Christian apologist C. S. Lewis speaks of being a democrat (a small 'd' democrat, it should be noted) he says that it is because he distrusts his fellow men rather than believes in them. No one, himself included, he says, can be fully trusted to run other people's business, so it's better to diffuse power than allow its accumulation in one man or group.
Richard Mitchell, an outstanding yet little known writer on education issues famous for his works under the heading The Underground Grammarian, teaches that education is a preparation against the world more than for it. The world, so to speak, will mislead you, it will lie to you, so that the only decent education leads you to think for yourself as a check on the world's attempted ill effect upon you.
These are two quite interesting takes on things. They lead us to wonder whether there might be such things as negative virtues, ideas positive in themselves though emanating from negative perspectives. They are difficult to disagree with, yet display an understanding of the world and peoples around us in an unexpected fashion from unexpected sources. They certainly put ideas of democracy and education in a different light than in which they are generally seen. As such, they quite naturally lead us to think and wonder.
Do we hold the right view of education? Do we really understand democracy? Are the ideals we work towards with either actually the right approach towards these questions, or ought we consider the ideas of Lewis and Mitchel as more trustworthy, more likely to get us the types of democracy and education which will help our society the most? We think that, at the least, their ideas merit discussion.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Hobby Lobby and Religious Freedom
Hobby Lobby, a national chain of arts and crafts stores, has vowed not to cover health insurance for its employees so long as it must include coverage for the 'morning after' pill which induces abortions. The Obama Administration has said that the company will face fines of $1.3 million dollars per day so long as it does not fulfill all obligations of Obamacare. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, refused an injunction for Hobby Lobby or its sister chain, Mardel Inc, until legal actions on the question are settled.
So there you have it. The first salvo in the war for religious freedom, one of the freedoms which the Constitution is supposed to guarantee, the Constitution which the current President takes very lightly if he considers it at all, has been fired. It will be a long and costly war in terms of human cost.
The Catholic Church has already issued stern warnings that the battles may well include open defiance of the Obama Administration and the federal government, up to and including civil disobedience. We may have to go to jail in standing up for our beliefs.
The lesson here is that the left does not respect the rights of anyone not in its camp. You have the moral right to the morning after pill, so much so that someone else must pay for it if, as the direct result of your own indifference over your own actions, you find yourself in a position which you don't like. This is the worst kind of hubris: that someone else must cover your irresponsibility.
To you Catholics who voted for the man behind this atrocity against human rights: are you happy now? Or is your conscience clear on the point that its perfectly all right to force views on others when they are at odds with your President? Have you forgotten that you're not a Democrat first, nor a Republican first; not even an American first? You're a Catholic first, and must act accordingly. Will you now go to jail for your faith, seeing as you support a leader who spits at your faith?
Be that as it may, we see very clearly this morning that of the five freedoms, religious freedom means the least. Our nation, founded upon that principle almost more than any of the other freedoms, turns its back on its primary founding ideal. Woe to you, especially those of you who should have known better, that put the United States on the road to the tyranny of the majority. The blood of future Americans is on your hands.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Even Men can Understand Women's Rights!
It is often heard, from women who support birth control, that they don't see where a celibate clergyman ought to be judge to the issue because they can't really understand woman's rights. Yet those same women won't denounce a celibate clergyman who agrees with them on the grounds they're men.
Similarly, they say that men shouldn't legislate about banning abortion, because they can't really understand what that might mean to women. But they don't hold the same point with male lawmakers who vote for abortion rights, even though they presumably can't understand woman's needs either. Indeed, whenever a man supports a so-called woman's right in a way which women (or, should we say, liberal women) like, he is not condemned. But why should male affirmation mean any more than male denial if men cannot possibly understand a woman's position?
Two things come up here. One is that it is arrogant to assert that men cannot understand a woman's rights merely because they're men. Women sure don't mind respecting a man's opinion if it coincides with theirs; dismissing male opinion as automatically wrongheaded if it disagrees with a woman's is, simply, hubris.
Two, it is more likely that someone not directly involved in an issue would be more readily impartial than someone who wants a certain outcome. We have umpires and referees in sports precisely because, although they may not be the actual players, they are expected and indeed are more likely to be impartial than the players. An umpire says safe or out independent of the player, who would more likely rule his own way given the chance.
This isn't to say that all umpires are right and all players wrong each and every time. But it is to say that objective right is something anyone can grasp if they want it. Whether the rule maker or opinion giver is male or female means nothing to right and wrong about anyone or anything.
Similarly, they say that men shouldn't legislate about banning abortion, because they can't really understand what that might mean to women. But they don't hold the same point with male lawmakers who vote for abortion rights, even though they presumably can't understand woman's needs either. Indeed, whenever a man supports a so-called woman's right in a way which women (or, should we say, liberal women) like, he is not condemned. But why should male affirmation mean any more than male denial if men cannot possibly understand a woman's position?
Two things come up here. One is that it is arrogant to assert that men cannot understand a woman's rights merely because they're men. Women sure don't mind respecting a man's opinion if it coincides with theirs; dismissing male opinion as automatically wrongheaded if it disagrees with a woman's is, simply, hubris.
Two, it is more likely that someone not directly involved in an issue would be more readily impartial than someone who wants a certain outcome. We have umpires and referees in sports precisely because, although they may not be the actual players, they are expected and indeed are more likely to be impartial than the players. An umpire says safe or out independent of the player, who would more likely rule his own way given the chance.
This isn't to say that all umpires are right and all players wrong each and every time. But it is to say that objective right is something anyone can grasp if they want it. Whether the rule maker or opinion giver is male or female means nothing to right and wrong about anyone or anything.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Keep it Local
One of the most basic axioms a conservative should have in his arsenal is known as the Principle of Subsidiarity. Plainly stated, it says that things should be done on the most local level possible. Why? Because that it the surest way to get necessary things accomplished in the most efficient manner.
The closer we are to a problem the better we ought to be able to understand it. We will see it more clearly, and indeed, particularly with issues and events nearby, we will likely have a greater interest in it. Schools, for example, should by and large be run within the local community because it is the locals who have the greatest interest in the education of their kids. Their kids are the ones who are generally going to hang around and run things when the current generation cannot anymore.
As a rule, the closer to a problem the less money which must be spend alleviating it. This is in part due to localized control, again as issues should be seen more clearly but also as there would be no added layers of bureaucracy which would otherwise have to be paid for by the electorate. Perhaps this is why, try as she might, Washington cannot get a grip on poverty: too much money which is supposed to help the poor in fact keeps bureaucrats at a desk.
There are of course many factors to consider when deciding what job should be done where in a national scheme. A nation as a whole must take up the defense of its people: could Detroit reasonably be expected to ward off an attack by a large foreign power on its own? If we were to leave Detroit to its own devices (a prospect many folks out there may not mind, but let's set aside jokes right now) we would hardly be a nation in the best sense of the word.
As a rule, conservatives would argue that few powers would be nationwide in scope. Military protection, the necessary and proper federal judicial arrangements, coinage, and issues of commerce (to varying degrees) come first to mind. State power would be wider than that of municipalities, perhaps, while communities would see to the bulk of day in and day out tasks: police and fire protection, trash pickup, and to the schools, among other chores.
It goes without saying that the most localized control we can have is to go right down to the individual. The more that an individual can do for himself, to pay for and nurture by himself, the better quality product he will generally have. What was the first part of the famous Milton Friedman quote? When a person is paying for something directly and for himself, he will demand the best price and the best quality. This goes for nearly all the everyday things human beings require: food, clothes, shelter, and education.
We could go on all day discussing particulars, but you get the point. Local control is the best remedy for most ills. It is a point which should be discussed, if you'll excuse the irony, on a wider scale.
The closer we are to a problem the better we ought to be able to understand it. We will see it more clearly, and indeed, particularly with issues and events nearby, we will likely have a greater interest in it. Schools, for example, should by and large be run within the local community because it is the locals who have the greatest interest in the education of their kids. Their kids are the ones who are generally going to hang around and run things when the current generation cannot anymore.
As a rule, the closer to a problem the less money which must be spend alleviating it. This is in part due to localized control, again as issues should be seen more clearly but also as there would be no added layers of bureaucracy which would otherwise have to be paid for by the electorate. Perhaps this is why, try as she might, Washington cannot get a grip on poverty: too much money which is supposed to help the poor in fact keeps bureaucrats at a desk.
There are of course many factors to consider when deciding what job should be done where in a national scheme. A nation as a whole must take up the defense of its people: could Detroit reasonably be expected to ward off an attack by a large foreign power on its own? If we were to leave Detroit to its own devices (a prospect many folks out there may not mind, but let's set aside jokes right now) we would hardly be a nation in the best sense of the word.
As a rule, conservatives would argue that few powers would be nationwide in scope. Military protection, the necessary and proper federal judicial arrangements, coinage, and issues of commerce (to varying degrees) come first to mind. State power would be wider than that of municipalities, perhaps, while communities would see to the bulk of day in and day out tasks: police and fire protection, trash pickup, and to the schools, among other chores.
It goes without saying that the most localized control we can have is to go right down to the individual. The more that an individual can do for himself, to pay for and nurture by himself, the better quality product he will generally have. What was the first part of the famous Milton Friedman quote? When a person is paying for something directly and for himself, he will demand the best price and the best quality. This goes for nearly all the everyday things human beings require: food, clothes, shelter, and education.
We could go on all day discussing particulars, but you get the point. Local control is the best remedy for most ills. It is a point which should be discussed, if you'll excuse the irony, on a wider scale.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Monday, December 24, 2012
Who is the Real Extremist?
Recent polling by the cable news network CNN indicates that a majority of Americans see the Republican Party as extreme. The same data says that 57% of Americans see the Democrats as mainstream. What does this say about us as a nation?
One commenter, on an article about this phenomenon on the Huffington Post, said that it reflects the fact that people want government out of their lives. Yet if that were the case, why are so many Americans against Obamacare, a plan which infuses government into the average American's life more than anything the GOP ever proposed? If the poll reflects anything, it reflects that Americans are confused. Or, worse, it reflects a general apathy.
We fear the latter. How can anyone argue seriously that the Democratic Party is the party of individual rights when we have Obamacare and TSA searches? How can anyone seriously argue that the Democrats are the party of the person when they say that Americans can be hunted down without regard to their rights as American citizens? Does the average American not know about Obama's disregard of Constitutional rights? If not, they should read this: http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/obama-crushes-civil-liberties-like-bush-never-did/
Of course, the logical answer is that the average American doesn't know about these things. And they don't care. They have their football and various entertainments. So long as what Obama does doesn't seem to affect them directly, or if it is in areas where they see a 'right' such as mandated health care (even should it violate the conscience of an individual), then so be it. Besides, we may need an abortion some day, should our free will dalliances result in a human life which would get in the way of our free will dalliances.
If the GOP is seen as extreme, a debatable point given the general nature of polls and the fickleness of people, it is because of one of two things. If the Republicans aren't explaining themselves well enough, not taking the initiative they need to in showing the people what is right and what is wrong, then the fault is theirs. But if the trouble is with the American people themselves, if they have been seduced by the Democrats and their call for an easy life where decisions are made for them by the government, then the fault is with the people and not with what the GOP or the conservative movement or conservative philosophy. The responsibility then lies with the people. If that is the case, then the United States has not long to live. Indulgence to our basest instincts, to our personal selfishness, can only lead to our collapse as a nation.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
More Chicken Little
The sky is falling! The Mayan doomsday prophecy was correct after all, only it was a few days short. On January 1st, there will be hellfire and brimstone. We won't survive it. That's the day we fall off the fiscal cliff, from which we shall never recover.
But is that really all that likely to happen? Will there be a personal and national Armageddon in the United States?
It's doubtful, really. The fiscal cliff tales of woe seem to be manufactured frenzy more than a serious threat to our health and well being. Think about it for a moment: how often in our lives have we heard gloom and doom, only to wake up the next morning to face a new day the same as always?
Quite often, when you come to think of it. Usually, in fact. This is a new madness, and that's all. The media drives the panic. The very same media which calls the frantic gun buying since Sandy Hook acts of lunacy. They need to take a look in the mirror and draw a deep breath.
This is not to say that the automatic budget cuts and tax increases are not threats to our persons and our economy. They are in the long run, particularly the tax cuts which are set to expire. But has anyone taken a second to think about the big picture? Has anybody asked whether or not the new Congress in January might, just might, mind you, be able to do something about it? So what if the Bush tax cuts expire? Can't taxes be cut later on? Can't spending be re-instituted if necessary on January 3rd?
Call us pie in the sky if you like, but we are, have been, and always will be, skeptical of doomsday scenarios. They tend not to play out. We expect that they won't play out in this instance either.
Take a pill, breathe into a paper bag, do whatever you wish to calm yourself. The high temperature on January 1, 2013 will not be 1800 degrees. Being as we're in Detroit, they may not even making freezing.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
No Real Difference
We all knew it would happen. That is, any of us with a rational mind could see it coming. Now that abortion is so well ensconced as the law of the land, now women or couples (most likely women, because they hold the power within the issue) seek abortion simply because they don't like the sex of the child. Yet even the Republican controlled House couldn't see fit to stop the practice, and the feminists could care less, because to argue against such selective abortion would undermine the presumed right to one. Because if an abortion is okay, then the reason behind it is irrelevant.
Even if it's the selective abortion of girls. You know, the female humans who might take advantage of the procedure if they were allowed to be born (what a delightful irony that is; your own feminist mothers are taking away your rights, potential women!). The Chinese do it, because sons are seen as more valuable and, in a further condemnation of a world which sees birth control as a duty towards society and abortion merely an offshoot of that, wants to limit family size anyway to the point of enforced abortions. But again, if abortion is okay, what does that matter?
Even an aspect of the issue which libertarians might point towards, that forced abortions are bad because they violate personal rights, fails to show an adequate understanding of personal morality. They would, most libertarians would, anyway, allow selective sex abortions if unforced. The only difference between them and the Chinese is degree, and that ain't much. The tyranny of the individual is as bad as the tyranny of the state.
We are hard pressed to think of something more appalling than abortion simply because you don't like the gender of the child. Even abortion as abortion does not reek of, we will say it, the nonchalance of the evil involved when aborting simply because it's a girl when you want a boy, or vice versa. Abortion as abortion is simple murder. Selective sex abortion is worse than callous. It is social engineering writ small. It allows anyone who wants to be a little Hitler to be exactly that.
Yet we wonder what's wrong America, what's wrong with the world, today.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Gun Rights and Gun Control
Guns sales have spiked considerably since the attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School last week in Newtown, Connecticut. This is not surprising; gun sales have been considerable since the election of President Barack Obama in 2008. Many will see the tragedy, as they did Obama's election, as an excuse by gun control advocates to limit the availability of firearms in the United States.
No doubt that both events have and will serve that purpose to the left. But we do have to believe that gun rights advocates aren't helping their cause with what appears to be panic buying. It is something which may only cause quicker and deeper actions against firearms.
We are not bleeding hearts by any stretch of the imagination. Nor are we soft conservatives who don't believe in the Second Amendment. Still, the idea that we have to be armed seems a stretch of the imagination. Yes, guns are used for self protection by the civilized citizenry far more than for wanton violence. Yes, we have the right to be armed for protection even against government, should the need arise.
But do we need to appear as though we must be armed to the teeth in order to be safe either? How often have gun owners actually needed their guns for rational purposes? Yes, again, we accept the argument that criminals will become more bold with less chance that a homeowner has a gun in his house, or that the next target will not have a concealed weapon. We get it.
That doesn't mean that we should play into the hands of our adversaries. Especially, be fair, with the realization that direct personal attacks on law abiding citizens are rare and random. Why not sit a spell, take a breath, and at least see how things play out in the gun control arena before rushing out and loading up on weapons and ammunition? As it is, it makes the gun rights lobby look like exactly what it says it's not: a rabble ready to shoot first and ask questions later.
We know that isn't true. But we harm rather help our cause to even appear that way. It's just something to think about before reacting in any manner which may be construed as knee jerk. The liberal knee jerks will only take advantage of us.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
The Real Lesson of Sandy Hook
We must not give in. There will be pressure to give in, to give away just a little bit more of our freedom, a tiny sliver, perhaps, in order to prevent the next Newtown, Connecticut tragedy. The pressure we be there, and it will be great. We must not give in.
If someone wants to kill, maim, or endanger a great population of people, if they are bound and determined to do great harm, then they will do it. They will do it however they can. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer; the Muslin extremists of September 11, 2001 used airplanes. Laws will not stop the insane. They simply will not.
But do you know what will be lost among the people as we write this? They will presume something which we have not said nor will we say. They will presume that we are talking about guns and gun crime.
We are not.
Do you believe for a moment that stricter gun control laws will prevent another horrible event such as the one our nation suffered Friday? To be sure, such actions may - only may, we tell you, and with serious reservations about that - somewhat affect things. Perhaps a mild offender against humanity will be thus restrained. A man with an itch to scratch. But will those determined to destroy every vestige of humanity within us be stopped at that? Will a man intending to destroy humanity stop at that?
He will not. He will do whatever he can to achieve his goals. And he will use whatever materials which are at his disposal to do so.
We are not dealing with rational people when we discuss the whats and whys of Sandy Hook Elementary. To consider them as though they were rational people will not protect us, or our children. They are irrational people, even should their actions be of the result of things not truly their fault. They may be insatiably selfish, or they may be evil; they may be truly insane. There may be many other things which we cannot fathom. Reason means nothing to their situations; yet non-reason means everything. We will not help ourselves by being unreasonable.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
The Day After
There is evil in the world, and sometimes great evil. The events at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut, prove that in a way which frightens us in a manner that is almost unspeakable.
The idea that our weakest yet most trusting citizens, our grade school children, can be subjected to such horrors is perhaps one of the most awful aspects of the school shootings. How can we explain such terrible things to those so young?
We really can't. There is no explanation for what happened yesterday. There may be reasons, but only bad ones at that. There simply isn't an answer to the question Why? Some will blame God; others, the lack of God. Others still may say merely that 'things happen'. At the end of the day we are right back to the problem of evil in the world. How do we handle that?
For starters, exactly as we are handling it now. We think of the kids, teachers, and families who are forever scarred by the tragedy and we help them however we can: prayers, aid, and sympathy. Then we remember the heroes who did what they could in light of such terrible circumstances: the teachers and administrators who did what they could to save who they could, by pulling students into classrooms or barring a classroom door with their body to keep the gunman out. Finally, we do what we can to help keep such attacks from happening in the future.
We do what we can; yet the specter of evil will always be present.
All we can ultimately do is rise above it. We Americans are quite good at that, when you think about. It's what's happening right now in response to the Sandy Hook tragedy. They will overcome it. We will overcome it. Why? Not because it's all that we can do, but because it's the right thing to do. Evil will never win so long as we rise against it, each and every time it rears its ugly head. We are doing it right now with our prayers, tears, and support for the people of Newton and particularly its children. We are defeating evil. And we will be stronger for the effort.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Catholics and the Right to Work
Now that a few hours have passed and Michigan is firmly a right to work state, let's take a quick look at the likely aftermath.
There will be lawsuits and rumors of lawsuits. Why? Because liberals love democracy, until it happens to be against them and their aims. Then they have to go the courts, which are the closest thing to a pure dictatorship which our nation supports. 2014 simply isn't near enough; we can't have patience and wait for an actual election, can we? That's just not right.
There will protests and threats of violence. There will be takeovers of public property simply to be disruptive. Why? Because the left hates civil debate and will do all it can to prevent it. Force is the only way to get things done, you know, and liberals are very good at that game. One word - Obamacare - proves that.
There will be union members such as teachers leaving their jobs to do union bidding. After all, they can't support the kids when greater issues are at stake. Why, they'll love the kids more if they are in a union. About all which can said about that is, if you got into education for yourself, you're in it for the wrong reasons. Period.
As a special aside, it would be interesting to know what Catholic union supporters think about all the stuff that happened in Lansing this past Tuesday. We all know, of course, that the Church has always supported unions. Or do we? Has the Church supported unions or has She in fact spoken out for the dignity of work and the dignity of the worker? That is hardly the same as speaking out for unions. It's more supporting the rights of the individual rather than the collective.
So where does that leave Catholic union members and supporters? Hopefully it will have them examining their consciences. The Church, after all, does not force anyone to join nor force them to act in certain ways or even to support Her and Her work. All of that, though, of course, encouraged, is voluntary. Think about that: an organization which is inspired by God does not demand that individuals join. Yet a purely human construct such as a union (or in the case of right to work laws, the mere idea of a union) feels it has the moral right to compel membership. If that is not hubris, we don't know what to call it.
In sort, all of the hubbub involved in making Michigan a right to work demonstrates precisely why it ought to be the 24th right to work state.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
The Right to Work
Union supporters in Michigan are determined that our state not become another right to work state. They took the Capitol in Lansing by storm yesterday to make their point. Such is not unexpected. Unions play to the grandstand, to the lowest common denominator. But we wonder what their real problem is with right to work laws.
Well, we don't, really. Unions lose their clout if they can't make people join them.
They don't seem very willing to answer certain questions. Questions such as, 'If unions are so good for workers, why must workers be compelled to join them?' Or, 'If unions are so good, why isn't it obvious that all workers would benefit from them?' Or, 'If this is all about the rights and dignity of the person, why not go all the way and let each person decide the matter for themselves?'
We fully realize that are difficulties involved in what would amount to mixed shops. Who negotiates for the non-union workforce within them? If the non-union employees get the same benefits as the unionized, ought not the unions be compensated?
We're not sure. If someone didn't ask you to speak for them yet gets similar pay and benefits, well, what of it? Did the union get them their job or give them their skills? This may at times be the case, but only after the union was in the position to grant such privileges. We know that the Ironworkers and the Electricians offer training programs sponsored by their unions, and, to be fair, that these programs are very good. Yet what if they hadn't been there to begin with? If someone got their job on their own, using their own skills and own wherewithal, what would they owe to a union?
Perhaps some workers will be taken unfair advantage of by their employers. No doubt this will and has at times happened; yet no doubt also that at times the union will take advantage of its members as well. That point strikes us as a moral wash. If you're to raise a boogeyman solely for the sake of raising him, then you must grant that he might turn either way. He might harm those he is presumed to protect as much as anything else. He may be that fabled wolf in sheep's clothing.
Then we have the matter of why ought the majority rule in the workplace? Why ought fifty percent plus one have the right to make everyone else do what they wish done? That's all democracy in general means, let alone in the particular cases such as union shops. Why ought Bob Smith join a union simply because John Jones think he should?
And there's the rub. Why must any given worker join a union simply because a majority, even a decided majority within one plant or one industry, thinks he should? That's nothing more than the tyranny of the majority. It is, at the risk of hyperbole, the Divine Right of Kings under another guise. We rule, you follow, and don't ask questions.
To be sure, we risk the tyranny of the minority should we go the other way. Why ought the minority hold the majority back? Certainly there are times when this is the case. We cannot have viable nations should the minority vote hold a true and absolute veto over all things faced by the body politic. But the minority, in the case of unionization anyway, is nothing like what we find on a national level. Only on the national level are we dealing with a nation as a whole, on issues of general consequence. In the cases of simple human employment, we are dealing with persons directly. We are dealing with issues of who can work where, and why.
That is the trump card. When we think of who should work where and why, we are in perhaps the most exact sense dealing with individual rights. Why should anyone be excluded from competition in a given workforce merely because the guild which presumes (and we must stress the term presumes) to speak for him claims the authority, on its own authority, to speak for the person?
Saturday, December 8, 2012
When Life Gives you Lemons
A Michigan farmer's market has turned away a twelve year old trying to sell his own chocolates. You will find an article about it here: http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012312070028&nclick_check=1 They say they have no room. The young entrepreneur's supporters basically feel he has been slighted. How should they feel?
They should feel that it's no big deal. So he can't sell his wares at the Meridian Township Farmer's Market. Does that mean he can't sell them anywhere? So one place says no; why not take it as a learning opportunity and go somewhere else and show those farmers something about the free market.
Yet rather than do that, we have sympathetic articles in the Detroit Free Press. Sure, he's a kid, and that makes it hard not to feel for him. That doesn't mean that the situation cannot be turned into a positive, especially as his own work ethic has apparently gained him a following as it is.
Rise above it, young man. Show them what you can do without them, Mr. William Zsigo. Show them, with what you've done so far, that you can and will do more. Perhaps this minor media campaign is part of that process, even beyond your control. Okay, then, move on. Show them that must deal with in one way or another. They'll learn to adapt themselves, or they'll garner more and greater adversity.
Or they'll get along and you'll both be fine. We'll even hazard to guess that, in response to the apparent outcry, that you will indeed find a place or places to peddle your wares. So don't worry about the Meridian Farmers' Market. Learn that, should you put all your eggs in one basket, you'll only paint yourself into a corner. Such a lesson would likely be tougher to swallow than one simple rejection.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Football is Too Brutal
It is said that football is now the American national pastime. Be that as it may, what does that say about us as Americans?
There are somewhere in the area of 2,000, two thousand, an outstanding number when you consider how relatively few men have played professional football, former NFL football players suing the National Football League for failure to address the physical and psychological damage the game has done to them. Many former football players have publicly stated that they will not encourage their sons to play football. Why? Because it is too brutal.
Too brutal. Yet we as a nation encourage this activity.
What does this say about us as that nation? It is not something we care to dwell upon. Should we dwell upon it, it might cause us to ask questions which we do not want to answer, let alone ask. Such questions which may cause us to ponder whether we ought to feel as we feel on Sunday afternoons in the fall in the good old U. S. of A.
We don't ask, because it will harsh our buzz. We just want to be entertained. If that means watching grown men possibly scaring themselves for life, even when freely choosing to do so, it's okay. We need that, it seems.
Do we also need former players so messed up that they will not watch the game, a la Mike Webster? Do we care about that? After all, they chose to go down that road. Is that our problem?
Yes, quite frankly, it is. When we as a society encourage young men to behave that way, it is our problem. Their lives are on us. Lives like these: http://www.gq.com/sports/profiles/200909/nfl-players-brain-dementia-study-memory-concussions?currentPage=2
We can regret them, of course. Yet we can do more. We can question whether we ought continue to support a mentality which says this okay. We can question whether our values need to be prioritized better. We can do that.
But we won't. We're Americans, after all. We don't need to question our motives. We're the best.
What is left, then, is the penultimate question: who will explain that to Mike Webster?
Monday, December 3, 2012
Women's Rights can be Understood by even Men!
It is often heard, from women who support birth control, that they don't see where a celibate clergyman ought to be judge to the issue because they can't really understand woman's rights. Yet those same women won't denounce a celibate clergyman who agrees with them on the grounds they're men.
Similarly, they say that men shouldn't legislate about banning abortion, because they can't really understand what that might mean to women. But they don't hold the same point with male lawmakers who vote for abortion rights, even though they presumably can't understand woman's needs either. Indeed, whenever a man supports a so-called woman's right in a way which women (or, should we say, liberal women) like, he is not condemned. But why should male affirmation mean any more than male denial if men cannot possibly understand a woman's position?
Two things come up here. One is that it is arrogant to assert that men cannot understand a woman's rights merely because they're men. Women sure don't mind respecting a man's opinion if it coincides with theirs; dismissing male opinion as automatically wrongheaded if it disagrees with a woman's is, simply, hubris.
Two, it is more likely that someone not directly involved in an issue would be more readily impartial than someone who wants a certain outcome. We have umpires and referees in sports precisely because, although they may not be the actual players, they are expected and indeed are more likely to be impartial than the players. An umpire says safe or out independent of the player, who would more likely rule his own way given the chance.
This isn't to say that all umpires are right and all players wrong each and every time. But it is to say that objective right is something anyone can grasp if they want it. Whether the rule maker or opinion giver is male or female means nothing to right and wrong about anyone or anything.
Similarly, they say that men shouldn't legislate about banning abortion, because they can't really understand what that might mean to women. But they don't hold the same point with male lawmakers who vote for abortion rights, even though they presumably can't understand woman's needs either. Indeed, whenever a man supports a so-called woman's right in a way which women (or, should we say, liberal women) like, he is not condemned. But why should male affirmation mean any more than male denial if men cannot possibly understand a woman's position?
Two things come up here. One is that it is arrogant to assert that men cannot understand a woman's rights merely because they're men. Women sure don't mind respecting a man's opinion if it coincides with theirs; dismissing male opinion as automatically wrongheaded if it disagrees with a woman's is, simply, hubris.
Two, it is more likely that someone not directly involved in an issue would be more readily impartial than someone who wants a certain outcome. We have umpires and referees in sports precisely because, although they may not be the actual players, they are expected and indeed are more likely to be impartial than the players. An umpire says safe or out independent of the player, who would more likely rule his own way given the chance.
This isn't to say that all umpires are right and all players wrong each and every time. But it is to say that objective right is something anyone can grasp if they want it. Whether the rule maker or opinion giver is male or female means nothing to right and wrong about anyone or anything.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Ty Cobb and Reality
We want to be remembered. But after that, we want the folks we admire to be remembered. And that, perhaps, speaks more of us than we may imagine.
The wish always survives. People will speak of it well after we're gone. In Detroit, we wish that Tyrus Raymond Cobb should be thought of as the greatest baseball player ever. But more than that, we wish that he was a better man than much of history portrays him.
This sort of enigma plagues us. We want our heroes to be larger than life; that much is understandable. Why worship them otherwise? Yet life gets in the way. We hear things, we read things, and even our conscience tells us we should think one way rather than another. Still, we want, very much in fact, to think another way.
The fact of the matter is we want heroes. Really, we need heroes. We need people to aspire towards. We need to know that there are others who care for others more than we do. So we overlay our needs across the imperfect.
So, enter Ty Cobb. The dirtiest player in all of baseball history. No one seems to dispute that. Yet there are many stories coming out which attempt to tell an alternate tale.
There's no point to going into the bad now. Cobb is dead and gone, and the dead deserve their good name. He was philanthropic in his private life, a demon on the diamond. An enigma; something we simply don't get. We wish that we were like the former. Yet we want to be the latter, even knowing there's something wrong with that.
We are of two such minds in America today. Does it drive us, inspire us, or condemn us? Does it make us all that we can be, or less than we should be?
Just asking.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
True Free Speech
We Americans boast routinely about free speech, being so proud of the right that we put it smack at the top of the Bill of Rights. So, perhaps, it should be. But there are unfortunately degrees to which it must be seen negatively.
There are folks who opine that free speech means the right to say offensive things. They forget that there are two ways in which someone is offended: either when the listener is a fool, or when the speech in question is genuinely offensive.
No one has a moral right to voice offensive remarks solely for the sake of making offense; that is simply rudeness at best and insulting and vulgar at worst. To say that they have such a right under the guise of free speech is really only to hide irresponsible behavior behind a pretty face. As rights only grow from responsibilities, it is reasonable to argue that the right to speak freely comes from the obligation to speak truthfully, in the reasonable interests of ourselves and the general society, and considerately, so far as circumstances may allow.
Still, the only way to really stifle morally offensive speech is censorship, and the problem with censorship is that it is only good when good people are in charge. When bad people hold the reigns, then good and necessary free speech will be prohibited. It is a risk we cannot take.
In the end, though, no one has the right to say offensive things, but merely the practical option of expressing them freely. No one has the right to be wrong in the truest sense of the term, but only the free will to be in the wrong. Until we understand that, we really won't understand the importance of a well regulated freedom at all.
Rights must be viewed in their proper perspective. They are not, not a one of them, open ended and subject to mere personal interpretation. We may treat some select few of them as absolute, but only due to abject necessity. Actions which beg the true nature of free speech do not promote but instead denigrate the right. They make us less than we can be and less than we should be. We should be good and decent people.
There are folks who opine that free speech means the right to say offensive things. They forget that there are two ways in which someone is offended: either when the listener is a fool, or when the speech in question is genuinely offensive.
No one has a moral right to voice offensive remarks solely for the sake of making offense; that is simply rudeness at best and insulting and vulgar at worst. To say that they have such a right under the guise of free speech is really only to hide irresponsible behavior behind a pretty face. As rights only grow from responsibilities, it is reasonable to argue that the right to speak freely comes from the obligation to speak truthfully, in the reasonable interests of ourselves and the general society, and considerately, so far as circumstances may allow.
Still, the only way to really stifle morally offensive speech is censorship, and the problem with censorship is that it is only good when good people are in charge. When bad people hold the reigns, then good and necessary free speech will be prohibited. It is a risk we cannot take.
In the end, though, no one has the right to say offensive things, but merely the practical option of expressing them freely. No one has the right to be wrong in the truest sense of the term, but only the free will to be in the wrong. Until we understand that, we really won't understand the importance of a well regulated freedom at all.
Rights must be viewed in their proper perspective. They are not, not a one of them, open ended and subject to mere personal interpretation. We may treat some select few of them as absolute, but only due to abject necessity. Actions which beg the true nature of free speech do not promote but instead denigrate the right. They make us less than we can be and less than we should be. We should be good and decent people.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
What is Truth?
Will somebody please tell me why I feel like a criminal? Will somebody please tell me why I feel that way simply as I approach my own border?
I am in Canada a lot. Quite often in fact. And yet, when I am returning home, crossing my own border, I am addressed as though I do not belong where I live.
I don't get it. I am an American citizen. I have proof of that. Yet I am treated as though I am not that. I do not know why.
Have we lost our way? Have I lost my way? What is it? Who is wrong?
I'm just asking. Yet I dread the answer. I would dearly love an intelligent answer.
Is there one?
Cooperative Learning is Wrong
Do you want to know what's wrong with American schools these days? Yes, quite a lot, and particularly with the public ones. Yet certain trends permeate the whole scheme of education in this country, and one in particular has come to mean more than most. And it can be summed up in two words.
Cooperative Learning.
This is a fancy name for group work. The kids are assembled together in small groups to do a project, often made up of smarter students along with, ah, challenged learners, and the magic happens. Everyone learns and everyone's happy.
Except that those of us who remember such group work projects remember well that that ain't the way it happens. The smarter ones drag along the rest, and the rest appreciate that they don't have to work as hard while earning (yeah, right) a better grade at our cost.
But wait! The education elite have discovered a way around that. Simply assign segments of the project to individuals within the group.
But how does that help? If it really does anything at all, it means that the better students risk not knowing the object of the project (sorry, silly Suessian slip of the tongue) in its entirety because some parts of it aren't their responsibility. Besides, hasn't that made the project individual rather than group anyway? Why bother then?
To cut straight to the chase, why is it that we expect students who presumably don't know anything about something to be able to master it on their own especially (as is often the case) when working with other students who don't care as much as they do? Why is a teacher present anyway if the pupils, or some of them, that is, are expected to do their job? Further, how much time is wasted on these projects? How much more material could be covered, and how much deeper would the understanding and appreciation of a subject be, with a traditional pedagogue at the front of a classroom keeping things moving?
The entire idea of group work is patently ridiculous. It eases the teacher's job more than anything else by blowing it off on twelve year olds. All that can do is inspire them to become teachers, where they can collect a paycheck at others' expense. All the while, we wonder where America's work ethic has gone.
It has done nothing but follow its teachers.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Is the Arab Spring Waning?
Egyptian leader Mohamed Morsi has taken Egypt upon himself. He has decreed new powers by which he claims he will be able to speed up the transition from the Mubarak regime into a democratic Egypt. Meanwhile, a civil war continues to rip apart Syria, and unrest threatens the peace in Gaza. All of this while the Middle East is still under the shadow of the vaunted Arab Spring which was supposed to move that area into the fold of supposedly enlighten democracies.
It's a dose of reality which, one would hope, might cause western liberals to rethink themselves and their positions. They simply don't want to accept that merely removing a dictator doesn't mean that better days are ahead. Indeed if history teaches us anything, it teaches that, far too often, it simply puts in place another dictator.
The supporters of the Arab Spring are little different than those who cheered the fall of the Shah of Iran in the late 1970s. But what was left in its wake? An Iran under a far greater tyranny which lasts until today. An Iran which, you may notice, was strangely unaffected by the protests within other Arabic nations.
So while there appears to have been some progress towards more democratic societies in the Middle East, the steps taken have been small and uncertain. And that's where there has been no widespread violence or upheaval. Only the richer nations seem to be weathering the storm well.
That says something, something the left and libertarians don't seem to recognize. There are two factors at play here. The first is that popular uprisings or popular movements generally only work out in the long run where there is a reasonably educated leadership. The transition from apartheid in South Africa to a reasonably stable democracy was fueled by a body politic which had leaders who respected the people and had some idea of how to lead and where to lead them. What they sought was accomplished over much time, and with the needed patience necessary to the long term health of the movement and its host nation as well. The second is that of prosperity. The Saudis and the Kuwaitis made reforms because, while the demand for change was extant, there was a corollary understanding that they were reasonably well off anyway. No one wanted to rock that boat too harshly, lest it list and eventually sink.
You can't just throw out a dictator without a solid alternative available. Even then, that alternative must be reasonable; can someone say Hitler? Far too many people have the idea that the solution to a dictator is merely his removal. We see in Egypt that that is nothing less than shortsighted. At worst, it will lead to a worse dictator, or even something worse than that. It could well lead to a civil war which will only put a nation light years behind attaining a true and good democracy.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Take Away Black Friday
Here it is again, the fabled Black Friday orgy of spending excess which comes right on the heels of a popular holiday. We feast one day, and spend like mad the next. What are really being thankful for, in that light?
It has been said ad infinitum the the commercialization of Christmas is a bad thing. It most certainly is, particularly for real Christians. Why should the second most important day in Christendom be hijacked for the sake of the economy? We ought to be insulted, not once, but twice: once, for the secular world co-opting the season, and two, for the hubris displayed by a world which doesn't want to hear about religion when religion is intent on making it a better place (which is what the truly religious seek) but is more than happy to invoke its call for generousity when it means lining tradesmens' pockets and adding sales taxes to the government coffers.
The best thing to do is to stop feeding the beast. Maybe we are at a point where we ought simply stop giving and receiving Christmas gifts. Not that giving gifts is wrong; but that can be done anytime and any place. Why not be generous all the time and not just when the powers that be (be they private or government) encourage it?
They should know we are Christians by our love, not our Christmas gift giving. It's just sad that too many folks, especially Christians, no longer see it that way.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Thanksgiving: We Are a Christian Nation
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.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
The Inconsolable Longing
C. S. Lewis speaks of something which, in German, is called Sehnsucht. He translates that as the inconsolable longing. It is a wish, says Wikipdeia, for we know not what. But we know not what, don't we? And it hurts very deeply, doesn't it?
I want what I cannot on this earth have. I want to be free and brave and bold and happy, all the things not really available on this world.
Lewis takes that a step farther. He argues, quite sensibly, I think, that we would not have such a feeling if it were not possible that such a feeling could not somehow, someday, be assuagued. We live and love today, in this world, under these circumstances. Yet we hope there is more. But more than hope; we know it is there.
That is why we so often feel sad. We have that knowledge that things ought to be better. We know that there has to be a somewhere where things are as they should be. We sense it; we feel it; we are, by a very taut cord, attached to it. It is there. It has Being.
And we are detached from it as long as we live on this world. Therein lies the pain, the yearning; the inconsolable longing. We know that it is possible, indeed, we know that it is likely (if we know anything at all) and true. We know that things are not as they should be. We know that someday we will, if we wish it yet only because we need it, and nothing more, be there with it. Things will be as they should be in the end.
The Press, the Public, and Religion
The media is always after us, eh? The election of 2012 has come and gone, and it still harps on Republicans. Every dog indeed has its day it seems.
Today the lapdogs of the Democrats are after Marco Rubio, and the best guess as to why is that he is a leading candidate for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2016. And the reason it is attacking him today is somewhat religious. He hedged on the question of exactly how old the universe might be.
No one knows, says Senator Rubio. It's a mystery. The Huffington Post cites this as an example of the 'balancing act' the GOP must endure in keeping its religious and conservative base active and interested. The religious fundamentalists within the Republican Party believe certain things. One of those things, presumably, is that God created everything in 6 days.
his is a prime example of the press attempting to paint Republicans as neanderthals while knowing nothing of actual religion. Surely everyone these days knows that the universe is expanding from the big bang all those billions of years ago. Science, their god, has said so. Anyone who disagrees is simply uneducated.
Well, here's a great way to address that question. Sidestep it as unimportant.
The universe is what it is. Creation has unfolded the way the Almighty has intended for it to unfold. After that, don't worry about it. Do what you are called to do today and don't be overly concerned about the rest. It is what it is, and the how and why we arrived here does not matter.
God does what God wills. There's no point to allowing ourselves to be tied up with questions which do not matter. He may have created the world in six days, six instants, or over billions of years. It doesn't matter. We are here because He put us here, and precisely how we came to be here is not at all important. What is important is what we do with the time He has given us. It is high time that Republicans 'got' this, and pursued the truth which our God has called us to pursue.
Science is a very weak god, when you give it a moment of thought. So give it that moment, or perhaps not even that, and move on. Think eternally, and all those questions of exactly how arrived here will be seen in their precise and best perspective. After that, the rest will fall into place.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Tomorrow You may Die
Have you ever seen the movie Brazil? It's a fascinating and very strange film; what else would you expect out of Monty Python animator turned director Terry Gilliam? He certainly gives you what you bargain for visually. But do you remember how it's always Christmas in that film world? It's that way because the government has become to big and clumsy, and as governments can't seem to manage economies very well (governments tend not to understand economics) that government made it Christmas all year. The intent was to encourage people to spend for the sake of the economy. It was all that government could think to do, everything else, as should be expected, having failed.
Enter Black Friday, that infamous day after Thanksgiving when shopping excess is supposed to be all the rage. But can the American buying public wait that long? That's a whole four days from now!
Never fear! There are billboards up already across the Detroit Metropolitan area advertizing that Black Friday prices are available now, this very day. There's no need to wait under Friday; shop now!
Granted, these adverts are placed by a private company without government coercion. That only makes our point off by degree, not substance. We must spend because we must help the economy, even with unimportant or knee jerk purchases, because we must help it. Besides, our government has in the past tried to steal the holiday season for that same nefarious purpose anyway. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that man of the people, wanted to manipulate their feelings and have Thanksgiving earlier simply to increase the Christmas shopping season. He had to try something: his other policies weren't working. Thank goodness a German madman stepped in to kick start the American economy or FDR would have never gotten a fourth term. That's important to a power hungry man.
It is quite interesting that governments and large private entities who are so concerned these days about separation of church and state don't mind tapping into religious sentiment when it suits their selfish purposes. Don't allow your a cashier to say Merry Christmas, but take all of the person's money, honey. We can't have Nativity Scenes on public property, but remember that Christmas is driven by wonton excess for the sake of your country.
That attitude stinks. But what can we expect of an increasingly secular world? Tomorrow you may die, and without having pleased your friends and indulging yourself, what kind of life would you have lived?
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Liberals Aren't Tolerant
Consensus as consensus is not particularly appealing. It isn’t that we don’t recognize the need for sometimes disagreeable agreement in order to move things along; it’s simply that most people who preach ‘consensus first’ really aren’t ready or willing to concede anything substantial at all.
Liberals are great at this game. They want consensus on abortion or gay rights, for example. Yet they are in favor of both; conservatives are not. They talk about tolerance: they want us to tolerate both. That’s easy for them as they find both issues tolerable. They aren’t moving towards consensus in any way shape or form because they aren’t conceding anything. Yet we right wingers are essentially being asked to give up entirely on core values which we believe in very deeply. In short, it isn’t consensus they request. It’s the total and complete acceptance of their world view.
Yet there are issues on which we cannot make concession without violating our basic creed. To allow abortion is so abhorrent that we cannot tolerate it. To allow gay marriage speaks so ill of our society that we cannot tolerate it; society has the right to define marriage in the pattern which best represents what an ideal society should be.
Yes, conservatives are being obstinate on these and other questions. That is, no doubt, in part because they are such important questions to our most essential beliefs; but more, they are issues upon which a stable society cannot long survive without their being addressed properly. They must be answered in accordance with what is really right, what is really needed for a wholesome and decent nation to become and stay wholesome and decent. We strive to follow the natural moral law.
Not so with liberals. We are pariahs, neanderthals, if we do not go beyond tolerance (which, when we do tolerate things such as the legalized abortion we deal with these days, truly is only a recognition of error which we can not, at a given time anyway, overcome) and embrace their ways. There is no room, in their actions or in their philosophy, for us to be us. They are hypocrites who sound like they’re being inclusive when they are in fact less considerate of beliefs anathema to theirs than they accuse us of being. As we've said many times before: you want tolerance? Tolerate us. Short of that, admit that you aren't all that tolerant. It's obvious enough anyway, left wing, that you aren't.
Liberals are great at this game. They want consensus on abortion or gay rights, for example. Yet they are in favor of both; conservatives are not. They talk about tolerance: they want us to tolerate both. That’s easy for them as they find both issues tolerable. They aren’t moving towards consensus in any way shape or form because they aren’t conceding anything. Yet we right wingers are essentially being asked to give up entirely on core values which we believe in very deeply. In short, it isn’t consensus they request. It’s the total and complete acceptance of their world view.
Yet there are issues on which we cannot make concession without violating our basic creed. To allow abortion is so abhorrent that we cannot tolerate it. To allow gay marriage speaks so ill of our society that we cannot tolerate it; society has the right to define marriage in the pattern which best represents what an ideal society should be.
Yes, conservatives are being obstinate on these and other questions. That is, no doubt, in part because they are such important questions to our most essential beliefs; but more, they are issues upon which a stable society cannot long survive without their being addressed properly. They must be answered in accordance with what is really right, what is really needed for a wholesome and decent nation to become and stay wholesome and decent. We strive to follow the natural moral law.
Not so with liberals. We are pariahs, neanderthals, if we do not go beyond tolerance (which, when we do tolerate things such as the legalized abortion we deal with these days, truly is only a recognition of error which we can not, at a given time anyway, overcome) and embrace their ways. There is no room, in their actions or in their philosophy, for us to be us. They are hypocrites who sound like they’re being inclusive when they are in fact less considerate of beliefs anathema to theirs than they accuse us of being. As we've said many times before: you want tolerance? Tolerate us. Short of that, admit that you aren't all that tolerant. It's obvious enough anyway, left wing, that you aren't.
Friday, November 16, 2012
A Stupid Way to Teach
Students in several school districts in Michigan are being exposed to yet another educational innovation designed to spur their thinking. It's called 'visible thinking' or 'See Think Wonder'. And, on the surface, it's stupid.
An example of this is found in today's Detroit Free Press. An instructor is showing her fourth grade class an enlargement of a famous Norman Rockwell 'Freedom of Speech' painting where a man is addressing a town hall meeting. Students are asked to give their thoughts on what they think the painting is about, as an exercise in getting them to, well, think. The idea is defended on the ground that we aren't teaching students to get into a 'deeper analysis of the subject areas'.
Let's see: we show students something about they know not what, and expect a deep analysis of the issues. Well, that beats the hell out of actually teaching them the issues important in American History, doesn't it? Let's show them a picture, ask them what they think, and call it education. Small wonder we don't know math and science, let alone history.
What exactly do we get out of students following this teaching method? "I think he's giving a speech or presentation", said one. Which, of course, he seems to be. Other students, at the teacher's prompting, notice how the man is dressed (wait a minute: isn't the point to find out what the students believe they see? Why the prompt?) differently than others in the painting. None of what the kids say is untrue...but then, none of it exactly qualifies as deeper analysis of the subject either.
What we have here is a perfect example of what's wrong with American education: we have bought into ideas which do not educate, but sure make the teacher's job easier. The classroom teacher doesn't have to actually bother teaching the students about the meaning of the painting. She can just let them figure it out for themselves. Never mind the prickly details without which we cannot possibly go into 'deeper analysis' of any given subject. Never mind that Norman Rockwell had something very definite in mind when he painted it, and that he almost certainly didn't care what fourth graders might think about his work in open ended discussion. Never mind either that the point in question, a necessary and proper reverence for freedom of speech and democracy, certainly is not served without due instruction about what freedom of speech in a democratic society must mean.
But wait a minute: they get prompted. Yes; but this only furthers the hypocrisy of the education elite. "Teachers now are back in the role of learners as much as they are as teachers", says Principal Adam Scher of Way Elementary School in Bloomfield Hills. "The role of the teacher is much more about facilitating thinking, getting to where they need to go." We can infer quite a few things from this attitude. If the teachers are learners too, who's doing the teaching? If they're only facilitators, why prompt? Why not let the kids go totally on their own, if it's their ability to think on their own which we want? Are you teaching, or are you facilitating? They seem to be different things. If your job is to get them where they need to go, aren't you teaching in the traditional sense under more vague terminology (and what's your point if you are)? And how exactly can we think on our own without sufficient background knowledge anyway?
Or are we to believe that our teachers don't know their subjects? They surely don't have to, using this approach. We need to realize why facilitation is bad education: would you teach you child not to put his hand in a fire because he'll get hurt, and perhaps badly hurt, or would let him stick it into the flames and find out for himself? Social Services will want a word with you if you do. And they should.
All the while we tolerate that precise sort of idiocy from the people in front of our classrooms. We wonder why so many colleges require remedial work. And we wonder why we have trouble competing in the world market, much less even though much more critically why our kids have increasing trouble understanding right from wrong. If they get to figure it out for themselves, then they most certainly will.
It is not a pretty picture. One does wonder what Rockwell would paint to illustrate that.
An example of this is found in today's Detroit Free Press. An instructor is showing her fourth grade class an enlargement of a famous Norman Rockwell 'Freedom of Speech' painting where a man is addressing a town hall meeting. Students are asked to give their thoughts on what they think the painting is about, as an exercise in getting them to, well, think. The idea is defended on the ground that we aren't teaching students to get into a 'deeper analysis of the subject areas'.
Let's see: we show students something about they know not what, and expect a deep analysis of the issues. Well, that beats the hell out of actually teaching them the issues important in American History, doesn't it? Let's show them a picture, ask them what they think, and call it education. Small wonder we don't know math and science, let alone history.
What exactly do we get out of students following this teaching method? "I think he's giving a speech or presentation", said one. Which, of course, he seems to be. Other students, at the teacher's prompting, notice how the man is dressed (wait a minute: isn't the point to find out what the students believe they see? Why the prompt?) differently than others in the painting. None of what the kids say is untrue...but then, none of it exactly qualifies as deeper analysis of the subject either.
What we have here is a perfect example of what's wrong with American education: we have bought into ideas which do not educate, but sure make the teacher's job easier. The classroom teacher doesn't have to actually bother teaching the students about the meaning of the painting. She can just let them figure it out for themselves. Never mind the prickly details without which we cannot possibly go into 'deeper analysis' of any given subject. Never mind that Norman Rockwell had something very definite in mind when he painted it, and that he almost certainly didn't care what fourth graders might think about his work in open ended discussion. Never mind either that the point in question, a necessary and proper reverence for freedom of speech and democracy, certainly is not served without due instruction about what freedom of speech in a democratic society must mean.
But wait a minute: they get prompted. Yes; but this only furthers the hypocrisy of the education elite. "Teachers now are back in the role of learners as much as they are as teachers", says Principal Adam Scher of Way Elementary School in Bloomfield Hills. "The role of the teacher is much more about facilitating thinking, getting to where they need to go." We can infer quite a few things from this attitude. If the teachers are learners too, who's doing the teaching? If they're only facilitators, why prompt? Why not let the kids go totally on their own, if it's their ability to think on their own which we want? Are you teaching, or are you facilitating? They seem to be different things. If your job is to get them where they need to go, aren't you teaching in the traditional sense under more vague terminology (and what's your point if you are)? And how exactly can we think on our own without sufficient background knowledge anyway?
Or are we to believe that our teachers don't know their subjects? They surely don't have to, using this approach. We need to realize why facilitation is bad education: would you teach you child not to put his hand in a fire because he'll get hurt, and perhaps badly hurt, or would let him stick it into the flames and find out for himself? Social Services will want a word with you if you do. And they should.
All the while we tolerate that precise sort of idiocy from the people in front of our classrooms. We wonder why so many colleges require remedial work. And we wonder why we have trouble competing in the world market, much less even though much more critically why our kids have increasing trouble understanding right from wrong. If they get to figure it out for themselves, then they most certainly will.
It is not a pretty picture. One does wonder what Rockwell would paint to illustrate that.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Government Help is not Charity
Is government aid charity? What brings this question up is Mitt Romney's explanation for his electoral defeat: the President offered gifts such as health care to the voters. The former Governor said more, but one illustration is enough. Basically, he alleges that Barack Obama bought the election.
Which us back to the original point. Many people will read this and similar stories and go on to defend the President's acts as charitable. But is government aid charity?
This is not to question the safety net factor. There is certainly nothing wrong with having in place government programs which help those in true need. If you cannot feed yourself or your family under your current circumstances, if indeed you do need health services which you cannot provide for, then it becomes rational for the government to offer aid when, if, or as necessary. Even that is rife with peril, however: it can (and has) lead to dependency and the sense of entitlement, and it can lead to the government deciding who gets what. A simple look at Ethiopia during the 1980s shows what government control of resources can lead to in the extreme. Don't think for a moment that that can't happen here. It may be in the far future if at all, but it can happen here. With the distribution of food, and with health care too, quite honestly.
So is government aid charity?
Well, is it charitable to vote for people to take money from people who are not you in order to help people who are not you and who you do not know? Or is charity something you are supposed to do for the sake of others who cannot, at a given time, help themselves? This is the problem with liberal and Democratic voters. They believe that they are doing their duty towards society by making someone else do their charitable work. Yet however good that work might be in itself, its morality becomes questionable when it is supposed to be your work. Demanding that the government do your work is not charity. It is at worst lazy, and at most, theft of the wages and resources of others.
So, finally, is government aid charity?
No.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Laws are Moral Decisions
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, garbage. 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. Every single thing a government might do is based on moral choices.
We can and we must legislate morals. We do it all the time. The only real questions are which ones, and under what circumstances. But it's high time time to get off the table the idea that governments cannot legislate morals. They do it every single day. That's why it is so very important that the moral judgments they make are right and necessary and not arbitrary or capricious.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Remember All Veterans Today
Why is it that we often only appreciate the American Soldier when he is fighting Nazis?
That is the fault of the Hollywood Left, quite frankly. For whatever bizarre reason, and knowing them it must be somewhat bizarre or selfish, it seems that the soldiers most fondly recalled are those from the WWII generation. Without a doubt, they deserve that praise of course. This isn't to doubt their service or their bravery. We should recall them. The American Soldier, and his compatriots from Canada and Great Britain and France and China and dozens of other nations from around the world fell while fighting that menace. The Nazis were awful, to be sure. They may have been at least to that time the worst threat the entire world had faced, and a threat to the United States as well, to be sure. But were they only reason the American Soldier fought and died?
Did not the American Soldier fight and fall at Lexington and Concord? Citizen soldiers, yes, they were. And they stood their ground, refusing to allow the Redcoats to secure a garrison of patriotic supplies at Concord, pestering the British all the way back to their garrison at Boston. Did the American Soldier not fall at Fort Ticonderoga, or Bunker Hill, or at Saratoga? Did he not fall at the retreat from Manhattan, or while fighting the Hessians at Princeton or Trenton, or was their blood not shed as they attacked redoubts numbered 9 and 10 at Yorktown, the attacks which were key to victory at that famous battle? Why do we not remember that American Soldier?
During the Wars which we do not remember so fondly, at sea against the French in 1798, at the Raisin River right here in Michigan in 1813 during the War of 1812, did he not fall? At Tripoli during the Wars in 1804 and 1815? Why do we not remember the American Soldier from then?
Do we remember Fort Sumter? Do we remember Antietam? Do we remember Bull Run, battles One and Two, or the siege of Vicksburg? Do Chambersburg and Gettysburg, Gettysburg, the battle which many historians argue is one of the ten most critical battles of World History, World History, mind you, mean anything these days? Do we appreciate what that means to our nation even today?
The doughboys in World War I; do we know them these days? Yes, they are universally gone now. They should not be forgotten.
World War II and Korea live in our memories. Yet we forget Korea. That is, other than with the greatest cynicism, as presented by M*A*S*H. Why do we recall only with disdain the great victories of the American Soldier in Vietnam? Why do we not acknowledge the tremendous victory of the American Soldier of the TET Offensive during the New Year of 1968? The Viet Cong were blown off the field of battle as an effective fighting force for a year, an entire year, and the media which hates conservative America called it a military loss. Why do we forget you? Why do we forget the American Soldier of Operation Iraqi Freedom? Why do we forget the American Soldier who toils each day in Afghanistan? Why do we forget the American Soldier who toils each day holding the Al Qaeda militants at bay at Guantanamo, safe from attacking their fellow citizens?
We should not. We should not forget you any more than we should forget the veteran of Granada or Operation Desert Storm, of Panama or Haiti or the 200 or more military operations in our history. Has every action of the US been right? No; we are human. We have made mistakes. Where we have, nature and nature's God rightly demand we regret them and make amends where we can. Yet even then we must not forget that our sons and daughters have not died in vain. There were part of the greater cause, willing to serve their nation whenever or wherever it called. We must give them their due too.
The Nazis have not been the only evil in the world. They may have been not the worst evil, either. Other evils have arisen; evils whose blood soils the hand of the American Soldier. He was always and everywhere was concerned with rightness and justice no matter what. And that, dear friends, is how we ought remember him.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Papa John's Reduced Hours are Liberalism's Fault
The CEO of Papa John's pizza, John Schlatter, says that he will instruct his franchisees to limit employee hours. The parent company of the Olive Garden restaurant chain has toyed with the same idea; no doubt that many other small businesses have as well. Why? Because the law will require that any employee who works over 30 hours per week have their health care paid for by his boss.
Before all you bleeding hearts decry this idea, ask yourself one simple question: what did you expect? Businesses always pass the cost of business on, either to their customers or through their workers in firings, layoffs, or reduced hours. They can't stay in business if they can't control their costs. Usually, the quickest and easiest ways to control costs are either to raise prices or reduce overhead. This is economics 101. It is so basic of an idea that you would have to be a blockhead to fail to comprehend it.
Unfortunately it is people with that mentality who gave us Obamacare and re-elected the President who gave it to us. Just make the government do it and all will be well.
We had hoped that that lame and thoughtless mentality had gone the way of the dodo. It really is no different and no less irrational than the idea that the way to make everyone rich is to print more money. Mandating something will not make it so. You cannot force businesses, who are, after all, moral persons themselves, do any particular thing. You can only cause them to react to circumstance. If a given circumstance means the need to cut costs, they'll cut them. That may well hurt individuals, but well, there comes a time when the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If such and such a circumstance means layoffs or firings or the entire company will fold, then there must be layoffs and firings even though it obviously will be a crunch on the laid off or fired.
Or the ones whose hours are cut. To be sure, the higher ups who are (to a degree, anyway) immune to those government forces who order ill-advised mandates will keep their health care, but so? Rank has its privileges. It always has and, generally, should. But the bottom line is that people and businesses look out for themselves first. Even the poor and downtrodden do this: why else would they make even errant calls for bad ideas such as Obamacare otherwise? They want what they perceive as theirs inherently.
Ya gets what yas pay for. You pay for a President who blithely commands action, you get folks who blithely react. Don't be so shocked that you didn't expect it. Your lack of forethought isn't on us. Your lack of true concern for all people isn't on us either. It's on you, Democratic voter. You alone.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Appealing to the Electorate
A quick glance at the American electorate after Tuesday's election offers questions which beg answers. This is highlighted even further when we contrast the results of the Election of 2012 with those of 2010.
Michigan, for example, elected an overwhelmingly Republican state government in November two years ago. Tuesday, 9 of the state's 14 Congressional Districts went to the GOP, even the one held by Thaddeus McCotter where Republicans were represented by something of a renegade. All 6 attempts to amend the state constitution failed. Yet Michigan also went for President Barack Obama by a comfortable margin.
Wisconsin had voted in a solid Republican state government, one which even survived a well funded recall attempt. Yet it went for the President as well, while also electing the first openly gay US Senator. Ohio, solidly Republican as well within itself, also voted for the President, albeit by a slim margin. Indeed in Ohio, the third party vote may have made the difference. But why should it have ever been that close anyway?
Part of the answer surely lies in the fact that rural areas are more conservative than urban. When dealing with state offices, particularly the most local ones such as state houses and senates, as they are typically more such offices outside of urban areas (or at least outside of the central cities) it isn't too much of a shock to GOP legislatures while liberal voters carry elections for purely national offices such as the Presidency. Yet that can't be the entire answer; after all, Rick Snyder won here as Governor running with the same electorate which went for the President. So too did Ohio and Wisconsin Governors John Kasich and Scott Walker in their respective states.
Part of it may have been a relatively weak candidate in Mitt Romney. Part too may have been Hurricane Sandy, as pundits such as Bill Riley assert that the storm gave President Obama the chance to look presidential while effectively stunting the Romney campaign for several days. Part of it as well may be that Romney never really, outside of the first debate, pushed the issues which would have put Obama on the defensive. He played too nice, some thing the Democrats rarely do. They nearly always push their advantages to the limit; that's why have Obamacare. If they were as interested as playing nice, as interested in what the people truly want, they would have never pulled the parliamentary trick which gave us Obamacare in the first place.
But the biggest reason may actually be rather shallow, as much as we hate to admit it. It may simply that the typical voter votes their gut rather than as the result of a well thought out approach to elections, the political process, and political philosophy. The right to vote does not mean that voters will vote with any consistency, or employ any particular rationale in determining their vote.
That's why the federal government was supposed to be relatively small, and decidedly limited. The founders knew that a large, overarching structure would eventually swallow the smaller units of government in a federal system. Especially when the electorate begins to gravitate towards that central organism rather than keeping things local.
This does not mean that our day is done. The United States isn't necessarily on the road to a Western European style socialism, despite the desires of our European and Canadian friends who like the President more than they like us. We can still turn back, as we did with Reagan in the 1980s. But we, us conservatives and our Republican partners, are simply going to have to do a better job of selling ourselves but, more importantly, our creed. The people will respond to that because, despite any inconsistency, they do know truth when they see it explained clearly and unambiguously. And they will support it.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Romney lost more so than Obama won
This is not a mandate. That's the first and most important thing to say. The President won, yes, but the GOP controls the vast majority of state houses and appears headed towards increasing its seats in the House of Representatives. It's a oddly divided nation we have, and the really interesting question about this election is, why are American voters so inconsistent?
It simply makes no sense that we re-elect a man who is spending our future away and has done a remarkably Carter-like job on the economy. Barack Obama should have lost on those grounds alone. So why, then, in a year which saw the GOP gain four governorships and expand its control of the House, could a man with that record win another four years?
Obviously, Romney was a weaker candidate than had been hoped. He never pushed as hard as he ought to have and when he should have. Mitt never really capitalized on the Benghazi debacle and, let's face it, he really didn't appeal to conservatives. If you can't appeal to your own party's base, how can you possibly appeal to the wider electorate? So it's safe to say that the conservative message wasn't the problem. It was the messenger.
And that is what the Republicans should be thinking. There have been and will be many calls for the GOP to look within itself, to do some soul searching, but that's not necessary. Why would Republicans hold so much power outside of Washington if the bulk of the voters didn't, at heart, think their way?
Why, then, did the bulk of the voters not vote that way in the one national election? Why that inconsistency? Simply put, because too many of them aren't ideological. They vote for reasons which really have little to do with policy. The President is viewed as a 'nice' man, and no doubt that he personally is one. Yet to vote for a guy because you think he'd make a great neighbor is rather shallow. Indeed, it's downright silly.
Yet that's how far too many voters think. The only way around it is to find our own nice man or woman and run them in 2016. We need someone to take up the mantle of Ronald Reagan, and there are several folks who could do that. We don't need a lot of soul searching, and we certainly do not need to rethink our priorities. Our principles are sound and true. We simply need someone to better enunciate them.
The 2012 Presidential election was ours for the taking. As such, it is safe to say Romney lost more than Obama won. The conservative situation isn't all that bad considering what the GOP gained even yesterday. If we but put a good, solid, conservative candidate up in 2016, then November 6, 2012, will have been but a speed bump.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Vote as You LIke on 5, Michigan
Of all the proposals on the statewide ballot this year in Michigan, perhaps the easiest to overlook is Proposal 5. It would call for a supermajority in the the State Legislature to pass any tax increase, or a popular vote in a November election.
The idea gives one pause. It appears to be a very easy proposal to support; who among conservatives anyway does not want to make it more difficult for governments to increase taxes? Still, a two-thirds vote of the Legislature seems high. On how many things can we find two-thirds support among the people, let alone politicians? Not many.
That, perhaps, is the most troubling fact with the proposal. It becomes fair to wonder whether democracy itself could survive should the idea be more broadly applied. Still, we can't shake the feeling that there is a degree to which Michigan politicians, or, more correctly, politicians in general (Michigan government seems to have been curtailed in recent times), have brought this upon themselves. As government continues to expand, it may be that the only real check on its growth is to choke it financially. Limit what it can take in, and it can only spend so much.
Yet sometimes taxes must be raised, whether we like it or not. While the principle of minority rights cannot be too readily shunted aside, neither can the fear of the tyranny of the majority. If and when needed monies must be had for the sake of everyone in the state it seems foolish to hamper raising them. As we have said twice this week already in addressing ballot proposals, we always have options with elected officials. We can elect them out the next time.
So what to do about Proposal 5? We lean towards saying no. The idea of limiting the power to tax is quite appealing, and we realize that a simple majority to pass any given tax all too often comes dangerously close to infringing minority rights. This is particularly true in this day and age when we have married ourselves to democracy so much that we have an attitude that if the majority wants it, it must be right. Might makes right, as such, is hardly moral.
Yes, sadly, the safe bet seems to be vote no. But we will just the same not harbor any ill will towards those who vote yes. By itself, that may be a great message to send to Lansing. It's really only too bad we can't apply the measure to Washington.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Government must Govern
The Michigan ballot proposals which we face this coming Tuesday are an intriguing lot. But no matter what each one individually may say, they all have one thing in common. They're all attempts to enshrine ideas within the state constitution. That's not necessarily good.
There's no inherent reason to tie too many things into our governing document. Constitutions are only supposed to be basic guidelines or offer a skeletal frame for the workings of government. Filling them up with any and everything is counterproductive; it can cause inefficiency in government by tying its hands. As much government waste as there may be, if we put too many limits on it we may as well not have it at all.
This is not to say that every ballot measure should be voted down. Each must be accepted or rejected on its own merits or lack thereof. But a good general rule of thumb is to vote against them. As much as it pains us to say it, because we do know that government is all too often unresponsive, the job of legislators and executives and judges is to let the legislate, execute, and judge. We have to let them do their jobs. We can vote them out later should they not.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Only Five Days Left
As we head down to the wire, the race for President appears to taking firm shape. Races are tightening in several states thought at one point to be safely for President Barack Obama. Swing states such as Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, and Virginia, once thought in the President's back pocket, are in play.
But to whom do we listen? The Huffington Post and the Nate Silvers of the polling world are insisting that Obama's lead will hold. Yet Gallup polls and the Rasmussen Reports seem to say that Mitt Romney is ahead; Gallup in particular has the former Massachusetts Governor up significantly. By that measure, Romney appears an easy winner.
Given that Rasmussen and Gallup are more reliable than many other polls, and it is fair to believe that Romney rather than the President holds the upper hand. Rasmussen has the President with 237 safe electoral votes as of today, while it pegs Romney with 206. As 270 such votes guarantee a win, the advantage, it is argued, is to Mr. Obama, However, that doesn't take into account that two states, New York and California make up for 84 of the President's safe votes. Most of his other solid support comes from smaller states with fewer electoral votes, and most is also concentrated in the northeast. Almost everything is at least competitive or favoring Mitt Romney.
What it means, then, is that the so-called swing states hold the power. And they are increasingly trending Romney, according to the more trustworthy polls.
The evening of November 6th will be a long one for the White House, and the time to January 20th short.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
The Power of God
An article on AOL this morning posed an interesting question. It asked whether the super-storm Sandy was a punishment from God. The direct and most likely answer is, probably not. It just happened.
But that doesn't mean that it absolutely was not God's will. He may have been issuing a punishment, or a warning of some sort. The best we can accurately say is, maybe so and maybe no. It's simply more than we can ever know, at least while we still walk the Earth.
It's far too easy to say and think that God wouldn't do that, yet we must be very careful about presuming His will in either a positive or negative direction. We put ourselves at great peril to assume that He would never never do anything destructive if He thought that humanity needed the lesson. The Old Testament is replete with stories of Divine wrath, and even Christ Himself cursed the fig tree which afforded Him no fruit.
It's all too easy to believe that an almighty yet loving God will do good things for us while never calling out nature for His own purposes. To be sure, Christ Himself also pointed out that the people who died when a tower fell on them weren't necessarily greater sinners than anyone who still lived after the incident. So it's all whatever God wills it, and that's that.
We must remember too that nature, like man, is imperfect. If nature were perfect, no storms would form, and we only get exactly what we needed of Her at a given time. So the storm may have been nothing more than a reflection of nature's, well, nature. Part of the point here is to remind Christians that bad things are not automatically or inherently, except indirectly, of course, the Will of God. Yet it also to remind Christians as well as the world at large that we need to pay attention to these seemingly natural events in that they may indeed be meant to tell us something. The bottom line is that it isn't very outlandish to think of Sandy and the harm she caused as a chance at introspection, to consider how fragile our lives are and how they may be changed by the events around us over which we have no control.
Perhaps that is the lesson in a nutshell. As such, it is all the easier to believe that the Hand of God is behind it just the same.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Vote No on 6, But Only Out of Necessity
There are, as most voters in Michigan realize, several different statewide ballot proposals to consider in the coming election. Most of them do not merit serious thought, as they seek to clog up the Michigan Constitution and dangerously tie the hands of lawmakers. Perhaps the worst of those is Proposal 6. It would require a vote of the people before the state could fund any international bridge crossing. It was brought on by Ambassador Bridge owner Matty Maroun.
There seems little reason to believe that this is nothing more than Maroun throwing a hissy fit. He hasn't been able to get his way on building a bridge himself, so he's trying to keep Lansing out of the business. But be that as it may, by itself the proposal has certain merits. There's no reason why a private business cannot build and maintain even an international crossing. It's what we have anyway with the current Detroit/Windsor bridge.
Yet despite that, there are practical issues. Canada has said that it won't allow a private bridge to be built, essentially on the grounds that only governments should control international crossings. The argument is weak, but it is what it is and there's not much Michigan voters can do about that. If another bridge is to be built, it will be built publicly. And, to be fair, the Canadians are willing to put up the lion's share of the funds.
The strongest reason to vote for this proposal is that it supports individual rights. Never mind that we may not care for the attitude of the individual behind it: right is right no matter what we personally think of even the persons involved. But the trouble with enshrining within the Michigan Constitution a popular vote on such things is that such things ought to be up to the Legislature. It's why we elect leaders: to scan the landscape and do the best they can under the circumstances they're facing. Making a major decision such as a bridge which can only help international traffic, international business, and international relations, ought to be left to elected representatives. If we don't like their choices, well, we get a choice on them during the regular elections.
It would be easy to vote for Proposal 6 if for no other reason than to support the idea that individuals with the money and the will should be allowed to finance even international crossings. But as there will be no new bridge that way, it seems a silly and counterproductive effort. It's best to vote no on 6, even if we must do it with a frown and a smirk.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Whither Equality?
We are in this world almost daily deluged with calls for equality. It all sounds so good, and everyone seems to want it. But there's only one problem with it.
We are not, any of us, really equal.
This is not to say that we are not political equals. Yet even that phrase leaves a bit of uncertainty: we are only equal because my vote should count as much as yours. That doesn't strike us as equality. It strikes us as justice.
In the same manner, as we have employed this tactic when talking about freedom, education, peace, and so forth, so too do we find that we must apply it to any calls for equality. We need to ask what the supporters of equality really mean. Because any absolute and final equality of circumstances must actually be something which applies only in very, very few cases. Take equal pay for equal work, for example. Notice that we are asking a question whose answer only applies to very strict and definite circumstances. A woman cancer doctor, 50 years old, with 20 years of practice, who graduated from the same schools with the same grades as a complimentary male cancer specialist in the same place of work, and with the same proficiency of work, should get the same pay. No rational mind would argue otherwise. But the case is so limited that only one answer is truly right anyway.
As to the other facet of the argument, well, calls for equality must ring hollow because, again, we are not equal. A brain surgeon isn't equal to a plumber, no matter how much more we want the latter when the faucet breaks or the basement floods, and no matter which is male or female. As a matter of decency, we should not automatically look well on the surgeon nor ill on the plumber. But yet again, that's a point about justice, not equality.
We could refine the case further, but we trust the point is made. When we are demanding equality we are often (if not in fact always) demanding justice. We are asking that we be treated rightly and properly in light of the circumstances which surround us. We are not asking for equality. We are asking for justice.
So, and we are sure many people may have grown tired of us asking yet we must, when you demand equality, do you really want that? If so, how? Why? For we need to remember that the only sure way to make folks equal is downward, to the where no one is above the lowest common denominator.
That the average person means equality in the sense of true justice we don't doubt. Still, it is when we use terms wrongly that we have the greatest troubles. It is then when the radical fringe of any given group may take the day. Yet when we clarify our thoughts, when we strive to end misunderstanding by calling things what they are, then, indeed, justice wins out. Isn't that what we really want?
We are not, any of us, really equal.
This is not to say that we are not political equals. Yet even that phrase leaves a bit of uncertainty: we are only equal because my vote should count as much as yours. That doesn't strike us as equality. It strikes us as justice.
In the same manner, as we have employed this tactic when talking about freedom, education, peace, and so forth, so too do we find that we must apply it to any calls for equality. We need to ask what the supporters of equality really mean. Because any absolute and final equality of circumstances must actually be something which applies only in very, very few cases. Take equal pay for equal work, for example. Notice that we are asking a question whose answer only applies to very strict and definite circumstances. A woman cancer doctor, 50 years old, with 20 years of practice, who graduated from the same schools with the same grades as a complimentary male cancer specialist in the same place of work, and with the same proficiency of work, should get the same pay. No rational mind would argue otherwise. But the case is so limited that only one answer is truly right anyway.
As to the other facet of the argument, well, calls for equality must ring hollow because, again, we are not equal. A brain surgeon isn't equal to a plumber, no matter how much more we want the latter when the faucet breaks or the basement floods, and no matter which is male or female. As a matter of decency, we should not automatically look well on the surgeon nor ill on the plumber. But yet again, that's a point about justice, not equality.
We could refine the case further, but we trust the point is made. When we are demanding equality we are often (if not in fact always) demanding justice. We are asking that we be treated rightly and properly in light of the circumstances which surround us. We are not asking for equality. We are asking for justice.
So, and we are sure many people may have grown tired of us asking yet we must, when you demand equality, do you really want that? If so, how? Why? For we need to remember that the only sure way to make folks equal is downward, to the where no one is above the lowest common denominator.
That the average person means equality in the sense of true justice we don't doubt. Still, it is when we use terms wrongly that we have the greatest troubles. It is then when the radical fringe of any given group may take the day. Yet when we clarify our thoughts, when we strive to end misunderstanding by calling things what they are, then, indeed, justice wins out. Isn't that what we really want?
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Moderates are Conservative
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.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
On Being Good
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 thus asserts, at least in some quarters, that goodness is innate within us physically. Yet that attitude ignores a very real point. The possibility that 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? To claim that we are innately good 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? Indeed, if we have no choice but to do good, if it is 'just what we do' then even calling our actions good comes into question. What's so good about doing what we cannot help but do?
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 answered empirically.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
The Left Demands Schitzophrenic Religion
The left does not understand religion. It cries for the separation of Church and State on the one hand yet demands that religion do its job on the other. Well, you can't have it both ways.
When it comes to feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and providing medical care, liberals very easily remind Christians of their Christian duty. It's almost droll: when these issues are raised, you know you're supposed to be doing this and that, aren't you, Christians? Yet mention the right to life or the sanctity of marriage, and Christians are scaling that false wall of separation.
It simply cannot be both ways. If you're going to insist that the Church live up to Its call then you cannot also tell Her that She cannot preach the entire call. If feeding the hungry is a moral good despite, perhaps, being a duty in which religious practice is steeped, then so too is defending the unborn. If housing the homeless is a moral good based to a great degree on religious sentiment, then so to is the recognition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
Likewise, you cannot demand that Christians leave their duty to their creed at the voting booth curtain. If you expect them to vote for government solutions when the question of worldly poverty arises, then you must expect them to vote their religious duty towards ending abortion. We simply aren't talking about wholly religious issues on things such poverty and life. We're talking about basic moral questions the answers to which define ourselves as a society.
Yes, and define ourselves as Christians. If we are expected to be whole Christians then we must live up to that. And society must allow it if it is to be just, civil, and moral.
What those do when they demand we not vote our creed in practical application is nothing short of effrontery. It is insulting and immoral in itself. The left doesn't get that. That's why it's so critical that, on November 6th, we vote our creed.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Rats leaving a sinking ship
Are we witnessing an Romney Tsunami? Several prominent newspapers have come in with endorsements of the Massachusetts Republican, newspapers which supported President Barack Obama in 2008. The Orlando Sentinel, the Tennessean, The New York Observer; they all endorsed Barack Obama in the last election, yet are siding with Mitt Romney this time around. There are others as well.
Is this genuine, or are they merely following the pack? With Romney surging ahead in many of the polls, you have to wonder. Still, when the papers who supported Barack Obama not that long ago are now abandoning him, it is a telling sign of his accomplishments. Or lack thereof.
When the Orlando Sentinel chides the President for a lack of bipartisan efforts on the budget, it plays right into the hands of the GOP. What has Paul Ryan said so often? The House has passed several budgets in recent years while the White House and the Democratic controlled Senate have not. And the budget is not the only issue where the White House has failed to be truly bipartisan, says the newspaper.
Isn't it the Democrats who preach 'reaching across the aisle'? Isn't it the Democrats who are supposed to be inclusive and tolerant? We see that they are not. And that is what this election is about: exposing the fraud of the left. They talk the talk. They do not walk the walk. When even those of the same stripe begin to admit as much, then whom to vote for in November becomes an easy choice.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Romney 2, Obama 0.
Who won the debate last night? That question seemed to be on the mind of every per...political wonk out there. Now it's in the hands of the spin doctors in both parties.
But who won? Really?
Likely as not, Mitt Romney. While President Barack Obama was much more on the offensive yesterday evening, Governor Romney was no less on that attack than in their first go 'round. So as to actually won, the jury is out as it was very close. But when thinking about who won from the standpoint of practicality, Romney did.
He scored so well in the first debate that the President needed to come out not merely swinging, but swinging for the fences. Arguably he was trying to do that, yet without the best results. It was like, as at the very best for the outcome was indeed close enough to be considered a draw, his team scored a run the inning after the opposition hit a grand slam. It was an improvement. It was hardly a triumph.
As such, it means Mitt Romney won. Yes, yes, we'll hear for about another day the fact checkers going nuts. But so far as that goes, each candidate apparently struggled enough in trying to pin the other down that no one of us in the voting public can ever actually know to the greatest detail who was the most right. They could be throwing any numbers at all out there and who would really know the difference? Even with the fact checkers, well, who checks them? Simply because CNN can find people to say A while Fox News has folks who say B means little in itself. The general populace doesn't know nor have the time or interest to look into most debate points themselves.
Romney won because Obama could not set himself apart from his opponent in any substantive way. With the foreign policy debate set for next week and the Benghazi maelstrom looming so low above the President's head, the best expectation is that the GOP challenger will be in the best position heading into November.
Posts
