High Gas Prices Hurt Everyone

As Michigan gas prices continue to remain high, and as we face the continual threat of sudden spikes in gas costs, life has become more difficult for Metro Area drivers. Whether you're simply going to work, doing charity, hitting the town or taking a recreational spin, it hurts the pocketbook when fuel is four bucks a gallon.

Government supporters at all levels, federal, state, and local, love to preach about how budget cuts hurt the entire community. Yet we rarely think about how, in detail, high gasoline prices hurt more, and more profoundly. When people complain that state parks can't be closed because it hurts the locality, no one talks about how high gas prices may well keep people out of the campgrounds anyway. When government lovers assert that certain air routes losing subsidies hurts localities, no one talks about how high gas prices make it more difficult for anyone or any supplies to get to the less traveled areas. When Lansing supporters says budget cuts hurt the poor, no one complains about how high gas prices make it harder to help the poor simply because willing helpers and needed services can't get to them.

Gas prices affect us all, directly and every day. And something could have been done about them long ago. Our leaders could have opened up more areas to oil exploration. But they have not, by and large because they believe that the environment is more important than people.

This should be a premier issue in the November elections, whether we're talking about elections in Michigan or nationally. If we can't move people and things around cheaply, we all hurt. Think about that before you pull the lever next month.

Respect Life at all Times

Today is Respect Life Sunday. It is a day which the Catholic Church has set aside each year to remind people that life must be respected from the moment of conception. Naturally enough, the aim is to convince everyone that abortion, and things such as assisted suicide, are moral evils.

It cannot be said enough that being against abortion is a philosophic and not inherently religious stance. Society likes to dismiss it as merely religious so that it can justify the deed. Separation of Church and State and all that, you know. It's funny how they don't mind religious action on other matters, such as poverty and capital punishment, but that is a question for another time.

Human beings have human babies. Common sense tells us as much. Science, if you simply must have everything interpreted empirically, tells us as much. When a couple decides to have a child, they fully expect a human child. Even in the despicable cases of rape and incest, we cannot set aside the question of personhood involved with the child simply for the sake of the unfortunate (in terms of having a crime committed against her) mother. We know that a pregnant woman is carrying a human being. To deny that is intellectual dishonesty, or worse: a moral evil perpetuated by those who benefit from the act of abortion. This must include the men and women who happen to want one merely because a child would cramp their style.

Likewise, assisted suicide and any form of euthanasia must be seen too as abhorrent. Did you put yourself on this Earth? No; indeed, you had no say on the matter. Why ought you have in say in how and when you leave? We have addressed the question philosophically, without an appeal to any higher authority. This before we get into the question of someone helping you...which means that someone helping you check yourself out must be doing something wrong too.

These conclusions can be derived by logical argument and inference without any reference to religion. It is time that we as a society accept it as such, and act accordingly. Short of that, we are simply savages.

Finally, you must respect life from conception if you expect your life to be respected equally. We are less than human otherwise; you are less than human otherwise. If you will not respect someone else's life simply because it is their life, on what grounds can you demand respect for yours? Because you're already here? Listen to how selfish that sounds. Where's the respect in such attitudes?

All right, this is harsh. But it's less harsh than denying a human being humanity.

Respect life at all times. Especially at its weakest and most defenseless.

The Wind Roars?

Michigan, along with five other states and with the blessing of the Obama Administration, has signed on to a plan to, perhaps, in the future, put wind turbines offshore in the Great Lakes. The idea, of course, is to create alternative energy sources. And, of course, there is significant opposition to the plan.

We are skeptical of the long term value of wind power. Yet it seems a better alternative than solar power, at least in the short run. Especially when you consider that the folks behind the current plan, if their numbers are good, expect that enough energy could be created to power 300,000 homes while providing about 20% of the world's wind generated electricity. The plan would also, supposedly, anyway, encourage investment in wind power technology. That would in turn create jobs.

So far, so good, so far as it goes. But what are the criticisms? They could harm life on the lakes. They will kill birds (as wind farms already in existence do) and perhaps displace other animals. They would mar the seascape of lakeside homeowners. They might even drip greases into the water, causing harm to the ecosystem.

None of these concerns are without merit. It is wrong to wantonly harm animal life, for example. But would the harm caused by offshore wind farms be wanton? Not really; we need the energy, and as such the harm to animals becomes corollary and not directly intended. People and their needs are more important than birds and fish, after all. Possible injury to the ecosystem needs to be taken seriously too. If our aim is help our brothers and sisters with necessary human requirements, then we cannot do things which may, however unintended, hurt them.

As to hurting the view, well, perhaps. But now we are getting into the matter of the needs of the many versus the needs of the few. That's not a point to be administered lightly, for we never want to harm the legitimate rights of the individual even if it's of a minority view. But we cannot have a tyranny of the minority either. If a feasible new energy source for the bulk of us means a less spectacular view for, we might as well say it, the economically better off (how many dirt poor people have lakeside homes?) then that's just their bad luck. Besides, we doubt the view would be particularly good from cold and dark homes.

As with so many other innovations, a proper caution and a decent respect for the needs and rights of all involved must be taken into consideration. But in the end, reason must rule. If lake generated wind power has far greater pluses than minuses (so long as no real moral objections are found), pursue it. Otherwise, forget it.

The real ideal on the issue would be to allow private initiative to seek other, better, and cost effective energy sources rather than government pushes for presumably PC ideas such as wind power. But we write in context and expect to be taken that way. That other issue is for another time.

The Race is Closer than the Left Concedes

The November elections are nearly upon us. The first presidential debate is this Wednesday, and pundits are, of course, all over it. Many are already explaining away President Barack Obama's anticipated performance, saying thing such as Romney is a better debater and that the President's explanations tend to be too long for the debate format. All of that is as may be; such things can be argued as subjective and without real merit. Still, that defenses such as those are coming out well ahead of the debate itself may suggest something about the upcoming election which the President's supporters don't care to see.

We are told almost incessantly about Barack Obama's lead in the pools and that the race looks like his to lose. He has momentum, supposedly; Romney does not. He has big leads in the swing states, the media tell us, and that will be all the difference. If such is truly the case, and when you look at the more reliable pools such as the Rasmussen Report we doubt it, why the worry about the opening debate?

Part of the fears are natural enough. Anybody, in the heat of the moment, can make a mistake so galling that it turns things around while an opponent may say something which so resonates that it captures the public imagination and propels them to victory. Yet that can't be the Democrats' whole worry. It seems more likely that they, in their hearts, aren't all that sure of victory.

When you consider that the GOP leads in almost every generic Congressional poll (and indeed is expected to gain seats in the House as well as retake the Senate) you have to wonder whether the Democrats themselves really believe that an Obama reelection is preordained. When someone so out of the mainstream as Michigan GOP hopeful Kerry Bentivolio has been placed in the likely Republican column of most congressional polls, you have to question the depth of support for the President. Further, political races tend to become closer anyway as actual elections approach. What does it all mean?

It means that November 2012 is far from locked up, and the President and his allies know it. Indeed, they are likely driven by fear, whether a simple fear of the unknown or perhaps something worse. When you consider the fact that most pools are skewed Democratic and against likely voters, you can see their fear quite readily. When the Administration is trying to harm the military vote while shoring up the vote of those without proper identification, you can smell it. They won't say it because they can't, for all the obvious reasons. The President and his minions are panicking. It is a delightful aroma.

Saying Goodbye

Today we buried an old friend. Such things are always rather somber, no matter how much we try to look forward in hope and faith and at the same time remember things well. Still, the service was beautiful, and, we hope, that comfort was with the family. There was a bit of grumbling about the propriety of the situation as a whole. We won't go into the details; they are not important. We will not even deign to judge the issues in question; they are likewise superfluous. We will even go so far as to say that some criticisms may be justified, yet we wonder whether the best attitude on days and times like these are compassion and empathy. What we had was a family in grief. There were friends to comfort them. The best thing to do is to set aside uncomfortable questions no matter legitimate, and be friends. Give the benefit of the doubt. There were many there in grief; we should answer with consolation, not judgment. They were praying the best they knew, praying for a lost loved one; our duty is to pray with them. We are not responsible for their sins; we are responsible for ourselves as friends. It is not a time to ask questions which are ultimately not ours to ask anyway. It is only a time to remember a friend on the next journey of their lives, and to offer them Godspeed. Godspeed, my friend.

A Dose of Reality

Honey Boo Boo. We've seen pictures of her (how can you not, seeing as they're all over the Internet) but not a single episode of the reality show which features her and her family. Further, we have no intention of seeing one. We don't need to. We know all we need to know about it. And what we know about it tells a tale about an American society which appears to be increasingly dysfunctional, to say the least.

Why are we so excited about reality shows, and particularly ones which appeal to our baser instincts? Why do we want to see people who are so out of whack that, in earlier years, they would have never come close to starring in TV shows? What is the actual appeal of bridezillas and families who speak so poorly that captions are needed as we watch each episode? Does seeing them make us feel superior? It's an arrogant type of superiority if it does. Do we enjoy the fact that those folks are being played for patsies? To be sure, they are patsies who are well compensated. Yet that hardly seems the point.

We have seen recently where a teen in West Branch, Michigan, was a target of a horrible scheme to have her terribly embarrassed which was made into something good. That makes sense; that's the kind of realty which ought to be promoted. Yet how far removed is that situation from what we see and cheer on in reality shows? Not very. We enjoy embarrassing them through the simple fact that we encourage their behavior. And we do nothing to, perhaps, put them in a positive light.

Surely the first defense will be that the reality stars are in the spotlight by choice. There's little doubting that. But is it the point? At the end of the day we are effectively telling them that what they do is okay. Indeed, aren't we hoping and expecting that they will become all the more outrageous in their behavior in order to keep the money flowing and increase their air time? That speaks volumes about them, yet it speaks volumes about us as well.

Or does it? Maybe we are so simple minded, prurient, and devilish that that's all we need for entertainment. If so, then the United States deserves the back water status towards which it is headed. Ah well; we had a good run.

Science and Goodness

One of the great debates between the Christian and the scientist is the degree to which we are animal or spiritual. Many scientists wish us to be wholly scientific in our approach to humanity and understanding of ourselves. It is really a rather shallow outlook on human nature or, even, the necessary consequences of a purely scientific view of who we are.

Science has apparently discovered the part of our brain which helps us to recognize justice. It asserts, at least in some quarters, that goodness is innate within us physically. Yet it ignores the very real point that whether good occurs in us naturally is an entirely different question from the judgment of 'what is good?' or the expectation that people will do good.

How do we know what is good except to be able to judge it in our individual and societal actions? Or are our scientifically minded friends suggesting that we just 'do things' and they happen to be good? Either way, any judgment about good, any assertion that 'this is good' cannot come wholly or entirely from within ourselves; there are too many of us with too many of our own nuanced ideas of good and bad.

Or are you saying that everyone from childhood, without guidance of any kind (parental, societal, or spiritual) will necessarily elect to do good? No Lord of the Flies scenarios possible? It begs the question of why people (and it should be obvious that all people do bad things sometimes regardless of physical construction) do bad things. Why does the thief steal, if he knows in his heart and head that it's wrong? Further, what's free will, if we are born with, say, no choice but to do good?

It should surprise no one that we are hard wired to recognize justice; we are, at the end of the day, physical as well as spiritual creatures. It should not be shocking news that a just and all knowing God in the very act of creation would make our physical selves able to recognize spiritual, eternal, and absolute truths, truths outside our own will, thus enabling us to see (so to speak) justice. That science has discovered as much enhances rather than detracts from our knowledge of God. It strengthens, not weakens, our relationship with Him. It makes our spiritual side and our physical side properly complimentary. It raises us from the mere animal into a higher plane of existence.

Science does not tell us who we are in our entirety. It only sets us on that road. How far we trail along that path is ultimately up to us. And the questions we discover along that way will not be empirical.