Republicans Could Win Senate in 2014

What will November 2014 hold? From this far away, no one can really say. But things seem to favor the GOP.

Several states have competitive Senate races where long time Democratic seats may be lost; Montana and our own Michigan come to mind. With an effective 55-45 majority, as the two 'independents' caucus with the Democrats, the Republican opportunity to take the Senate will be an uphill battle. But it is a battle which can be won.

To begin with, Obamacare has been a disaster and Republican candidates will harp on that. They will make their races against the President as much as against their opponent. They will also attack Mr. Obama's obvious attempt to start class warfare as he fans the jealousies brought on by talk such as the income gap. Especially as the President heads into increasingly lame duck status, Republicans will see him as weak. Unless things change dramatically, Obama will be easy to run against.

Then, too, midterm elections historically tend towards the minority party; this is presumably because there is not national elections to offer a coattail effect, or a drag effect, for that matter, where a weak national candidate hurts those farther down the ballot. But it is also because the more serious voters turn out for them, and these gravitate towards the conservative. Right wingers of course tend towards Republicans themselves because of this.

It will be an interesting election year any way you slice it. As a precursor to 2016 when the Presidency is up for grabs, it will be very interesting indeed.

Income Gap Tinkering not Useful

Income equality. Or income gap, if you prefer, the gap between rich and poor, yadda, yadda. Under whatever form you like the term, they all mean basically the same thing: some Americans want incomes more level among the citizenry. But is such a thing even possible?

Why should incomes be within a certain range? Is a plumber actually worth the same money we pay a cancer specialist? A truck driver equal to a secretary? Indeed, is there any true equality among jobs? No? Then why should there be income equity?

Well, we don't mean that, say the supporters of bridging the income gap. We mean raising wages so that people can live better off of lower wage jobs. But why are there lower wage jobs? Why are the people who only want them, or can only work them? Aren't those questions beyond the actual scope of whatever job is in question?

Further, don't we want the natural incentives which the chance of higher earnings might offer? That woman who several months ago famously called out the McDonald's CEO; has any asked her why she's been at a Mickey D's 9 years and not advanced? Why haven't her two children been a factor in her wanting to improve herself rather than demanding that society acquiesce to her terms? Is she saying that advancement is impossible with a family, even a snigle mother household? We suspect that even many single mothers would take offense at that.

The bottom line is twofold: is closing the income even remotely possible (without a tyrannical state), and that there are really too many questions involved to determine exactly who's worth what even within industries and professions. Only where a pair of or a small group of workers are involved, all of whom have almost identical qualifications and seniority, could we seriously discuss equal pay for equal work. Yet how often will that be the case?

It is foolish to talk about income equality. We will only waste our time, money, and effort. Oh, we'll surely make people jealous and resentful. That certainly is not a decent use of our human resources.

Raising Michigan's Minimum Wage

There is an attempt here in Michigan to put a the question of raising the minimum wage on the November ballot. Many of the proposal's supporters have concluded that people can't live on minimum wage.

Shocked? You shouldn't be. Yet what is so often forgotten is that no one generally has to live on it. The overwhelming majority of minimum wage earners are exactly those who don't need to live off of it. They are teenagers and others on the first step of the employment ladder, or the second wage earner in a traditional household. In short, they are, generally speaking, those just getting their feet wet economically. They're getting job experience; what ought they expect when just starting out?

But that is not a concern behind a recent study of minimum wage workers using the Basic Economic Security Tables for Michigan. One of the people it focused on was a 23 year old unmarried mother of two, trying to support herself and her kids working two jobs which paid between $9.50 and $13 bucks an hour. Another is a single mother of three who makes $7.54 an hour as a telemarketer. Single mothers... is anyone willing to stand up and point out that these are not traditional families?

How did they become single mothers? It doesn't matter, because we will be told that that's none of our business as a society. Yet when these single moms want sympathy, and a liberal organizations such as Wider Opportunities for Women and the Michigan League for Human Services, who created the report using public data, want attention to their views on how the government ought to run the economy, then their lot in life is supposed to be our concern.

To call that effrontery is to understate the point. Simple common sense says that if these single moms had waited to have kids until they were in a more stable and traditional home environment, or at least until they had gained the skills themselves to qualify for better jobs, then their current wages wouldn't be such an issue.

This is not to disparage all single moms. Some are in that position through no fault of their own, to be sure. But as to the ones who are in such circumstances as the direct result of free will actions of their own, it is fair to wonder exactly how much society ought to change for their benefit. Simple Christian charity indeed calls on us to help...but more for the sake of the children involved. They are the innocents. Their mothers are all too often merely insisting that they be allowed to act any way they want, then demanding society help hold the bag.

It is a point which should not be lost on the larger society when considering wealth and poverty issues.

There Should Be no War between Science and Religion

There is a war going on, a war for the collective mind which is society. Some term it a war on science; others, a war on religion. But must there be a war between then?

Huffpost Politics offers today an interesting piece featuring a man both seriously scientific and seriously religious. You may find it here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/25/francis-collins-davos_n_4635338.html?ir=Politics&ref=topbar The article is centered on one Dr. Francis Collins, a devout Christian and, believe it or not, geneticist. His science is so respected that no less than Pope Benedict XVI appointed him to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Dr. Collins in Huffpost this morning says simply, "...you know, if you are a believer in God, it's hard to imagine that God would somehow put this incontrovertible evidence in front of us about our relationship to other living organisms and expect us to disbelieve it." We may argue about exactly how incontrovertible the evidence might be, as much of it appears mere conjecture. Still, if the Almighty deigned to create through an evolutionary process, who are we to argue? Are we special because of our physical appearances or due to our sentience?

We believe the latter. If we are made in the image of God, then surely that image is more like retrospection than rock. It is thought which makes us more real than any given liquid, solid, or gas. If God is Spirit, them form and matter are not, or are, at least, less so. We are more like God because we can think and consider and not because we might have the tensile strength to hold a suspension bridge up. True, knowing tensile strength is important, especially if we want the bridge to be safe for others like us. We should want that knowledge.

Science and religion do not contradict one another. Or, if we are truly interested in all which God commands, we must accept knowledge in all its forms, facts, and minutiae. This means that science must respect religion. It means as well that any serious religion must accept good science too.

An old military maxim states that you should not fight battles you cannot win. Religion should not fight science because it cannot win. Neither, then, shall science defeat religion. Why should it be expected to? It was created by the same God.

Things Change, and It's Scary

We ask you, what is not to love about the global warming (we're so sorry, climate change) partisans and their most astute allies in the media? Nuclear winters, ozone depletion, and frets about, yes, global warming, simply zoom right onto the sweet spots of their bats. It's a hit every time!

Now those weather experts who swing at every pitch are saying - just sayin', ya know - that a recent lull in solar activity might mean we're heading into a Little Ice Age. Just ask the folks at Huffpost Science: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/solar-lull-little-ice-age-sun-scientists_n_4645248.html?utm_hp_ref=science#305888150icid=maing-grid7main5dl10sec1_lnk2pLid=434634

erhaps that article ought to be filed under, if you'll pardon a somewhat obscure reference to comedian (and accordionist, which shows Weird Al isn't alone) Judy Tenuta, "Shut up! It could happen." Because this stuff happens all the time: both the media and the scare mongers of climate warming or global change or whomever latch onto a naturally occurring phenomenon in nature and run head on into full Chicken Little mode.

This and things similar are designed to grab headlines and get people to look. Yes, we fully realize this means that it made us look too. But if your definition of success is to attract those who'll ridicule you and your point, well, wow. You're not aiming very high.

What do the liberals say so much, when they're trying to get us to alter our conservative ways and attitudes? Oh yes; things change. Yet it seems that things change in science too. Then they change back, in a somewhat natural and predictable rhythm as well.

No wonder science confuses the left. They're busy marching forward so blindly and so certainly that they don't have the time to see the clarity of scientific truth. It's a wonder they see anything at all.

End Abortion Now

On this, the anniversary of one of the most heinous Supreme Court decisions in our history (it's right up there with if not more awful than Dred Scott) we must take a moment and consider what our nation has become since then. Do we really support life when we give of our money and time to soup kitchens and homeless shelters yet will not protect people at their most defenseless?

We do not. What the liberals who have approached me over the abortion question always seem to fall back on is that I need to put all 'life' issues on the same plain. I need to find a balance, of which, they assert, abortion is only one issue.

It may well be only one issue, yet if it is it is the issue. It is based on the dignity of human life, which is what drives any respect for humanity in general. Why should the poor be helped? Because of their dignity as human beings. Why should people not be murdered or stolen from or raped or kidnapped? Because of their dignity as human beings. Where does this dignity begin?

It begins in the womb. Simple Reason tell us as much: human beings have human children.

If you won't support life at its beginning, when it can do nothing for itself, how can I trust that you really will support human dignity later? How can I even trust what you call human dignity? If I can't trust you on that, then, quite frankly, your opinion on education and the environment and our role is world affairs must be held suspect as well. If the dignity of the human person isn't first in your thoughts, then I have difficulty believing in your sincerity on lesser causes.

End abortion now. Work for and vote for the repeal of Roe v. Wade. Then we might discuss, with some promise, what to do about ancillary questions.

On Richard Sherman

Anyone with an ear towards the upcoming orgy of football excess known as the Super Bowl surely is familiar with the sideline rant of Richard Sherman after Sunday's NFC title game. He has apologized for his antics being a distraction, and he deserves credit for that. But when he and his defenders say not to judge him by his actions on the field and immediately thereafter as he is a passionate player and football is only a part of who he is, well, we're not all that sure that such is a fair defense of him.

It seems to us that how someone reacts in the heat of the moment is a stronger indicator of their overall temperament than when they do when the pressure is not on. Keeping your cool, keeping your wits about you when there is no particular challenge to them, is rather easy. Speaking and acting well when you're in the spotlight can be tough.

Yet the good leaders, the good people, are able to rise to the occasion. If Sherman truly felt slighted by Michael Crabtree, his best reaction was to have walked away and said and done nothing. He didn't; we can't help but feel that such is in fact a reflection of his true character, especially given the in your face attitude which football seems hell bent for leather to instill in its players.

If this proves to be an isolated incident then our criticism of the Seattle corner back is unwarranted. We doubt, however, that such will be the case.