Just when we thought the pious worship of Political Correctness couldn’t get any sillier, today’s Financial Times reports that a high ranking Homeland Security official wants us to stop using the phrase “War on Terror” because it’s being “interpreted in the Muslim world as a war on Islam.” The suggestion surfaced in two memos including one from the National Counterterrorism Center entitled “Words that Work and Words That Don’t.” One wonders who at the NCC hemorraged their cerebrum thinking up that dazzling heading? The other erudite memo, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, stated, “The terminology the U.S. government uses should convey the magnitude of the threat we face, but also avoid inflating the religious bases and glamorous appeal of the extremists’ ideology.”
Question: Huh???
Can someone explain to me why the Muslim world is now equating the word terror with Islam after years of repeatedly and indignantly claiming that their religion is one of peace? Haven't we all been told ad nauseum that there's a huge difference between the religion of Islam and the fanatacism of terrorists? How can the phrase “war on terror” do anything to “inflate” the peace-loving Muslim religious base if the two are truly as far removed from one another as the East from the West…? And why is the Department of Homeland Security happily going along with all this blather without so much as a Whoa Nellie?
This protest reminds me a little of the Far Lefties who ranted and raved about President Bush calling them “appeasers” in his recent speech to Israel’s Parliament…when Bush was not in fact talking about them. Their misinterpretation and half-hysterical remonstrations revealed that they think of themselves as that dirtiest of modern wartime words: appeasers. One suspects this “Terror = Islam” objection is the same sort of cognitive math. We’re not saying the war on terror is a war on Islam, but the Muslim world is hearing it – because they already know the two often equate.
In any case, the United Muslims Against Accuracy seem to have some fans here in the America. A few international policy experts have suggested that we should re-name the challenge of our times as “A Global Struggle for Security and Progress.” Noble sounding, but vague. It also comes a bit too close for comfort to the enthusiastic slogans of “progress” and “modernism” espoused by Communist China and other totalitarian regimes. Not exactly the banner we want to be waving as we march around the world.
Additionally, the slogan falls short because we are largely engaged in a global struggle between – and not of – nations. Anyone who’s been paying attention for more than five minutes knows we can’t even agree on what progress should look like, nevermind how to team up and bring it about. The un-United Nations ruminates endlessly over what should be done on a thousand fronts as they grapple with the cold, hard fact that America’s “security and progress” is the nightmare of many world leaders. To pretend we are a part of a unified global community floating in a happy boat of common values and progressive agendas is to depart from the realms of PC politics and sail toward the sandy white shores of LaLa Land.
As I circle back on the moniker “war on terror,” allow me to suggest this snappy phrase for the next round of NCC and DHS memos: “War On Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime Who So Much As Breathes In the Direction of American Lives, Limbs, Liberties, and Lands”
That should do very nicely, now and forever. Semper Fi!
29 May 2008
Vegas trivia
It may come as a surprise to out-of-towners that Las Vegas has more Catholic churches than casinos. Perhaps not as surprising is the fact that Sunday worshipers sometimes toss casino chips in the offering basket. Since they receive chips from so many different casinos, the Catholic churches have devised a method of collecting: they send all their chips to a nearby Franciscan monastery for sorting and the chips are then taken to the casinos and cashed in. This is done by the chip monks.
28 May 2008
What Floats McCain's Boat
Chuck Muth’s YuccaFacts has good fun today. He first quotes John McCain on Yucca Mountain in a speech in Denver yesterday:
“I would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials. It is even possible that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.”
Muth then reminds us that a primary argument of Yucca Repository opponents has been Transportation and quips, Does the term “mobile Chernobyl” ring any bells?” Now, enter McCain with this grand Plan for overseas storage. Muth poses the obvious question: “How is it going to get there?” and wonders how consistent opposers will be in re: to their objections when the destination is no longer Yucca – nor indeed, anywhere in the good old U.S. of A.
My questions are: Which lucky nation does McCain have in mind for the storage site? Who will enthusiastically raise their hand in favor of becoming the world’s nuclear septic tank? And how does Mr. GreenJeans – the guy who now sells organic t-shirts and mugs on his website and “uncategorically opposes” building an oil refinery and pipeline in rural Alaska so a few caribou can freely enjoy an unfettered sunset – justify suggesting floating boatloads of radioactive waste in and out of the world’s major ports and population centers?
“I would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials. It is even possible that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.”
Muth then reminds us that a primary argument of Yucca Repository opponents has been Transportation and quips, Does the term “mobile Chernobyl” ring any bells?” Now, enter McCain with this grand Plan for overseas storage. Muth poses the obvious question: “How is it going to get there?” and wonders how consistent opposers will be in re: to their objections when the destination is no longer Yucca – nor indeed, anywhere in the good old U.S. of A.
My questions are: Which lucky nation does McCain have in mind for the storage site? Who will enthusiastically raise their hand in favor of becoming the world’s nuclear septic tank? And how does Mr. GreenJeans – the guy who now sells organic t-shirts and mugs on his website and “uncategorically opposes” building an oil refinery and pipeline in rural Alaska so a few caribou can freely enjoy an unfettered sunset – justify suggesting floating boatloads of radioactive waste in and out of the world’s major ports and population centers?
I'm with Stupid
This past weekend we went to see Ben Stein’s new docu-film “Expelled.” Though I could’ve done without the insertion of old black-and-white film clips for dramtic effect, I thought the rest of the film was pretty good mainly because Stein did a decent job of choosing representatives from both sides (i.e. Intelligent Design vs. Evolution). He asked respectful and thoughtful questions; he never interrupted; and he gave everyone ample time to speak their respective pieces. For the most part, he got out of the way, which I find admirable in this day and age of unrepentant Me-ism.
The most unlikable scientist in the film heatedly called anyone who does not believe in evolution – as in, ancient lifeless primordial goop spontaenously birthing a living cell which then evolved into every species on the planet – “stupid.” Whatever his beliefs, I don’t see how that sort of name calling is necessary, constructive, or scientific. For one thing, the stupidity of a human being has no bearing whatsoever on a Fact. If a scientist thinks he has a waterproof case, then he ought to thoughtfully and logically present it. If the evidence is sufficient, then no amount of stupidity in the universe matters. It is what it is and eventually all will know it. If, on the other hand, his “scientific” theory is birthed from the loins of pre-existing assumptions, carries numerous unanswered questions in its backpack, is missing key evidence, and therefore requires a series of additional assumptions in order to make it a unified whole, then perhaps he ought to pluck the log out of his own eye and realize that the ignorance may be his – or, at the very least, that he still has some work to do.
Secondly, there is simply no rational justification for calling scientists who reject evolution, or those who believe in a Creator and who think they see both Design and Designer in the universe “stupid,” even if they are one day found to be wrong (which I don’t think will be the case, but allowing for the possibility helps my argument). Very smart people are wrong all the time. Throughout history, very well-educated scientists and researchers have been proven incorrect by later discoveries. Wrong does not equal stupid. It’s a blatant Fallacy, and it’s incredibly annoying to hear puffed-up and self-congratulating scientists use it on their fellow citizens as if it says something meaningful.
I believe there is no conflict between True Science and the existence of a Creator. I believe that serious, exploratory science can, has, and will continue to lead to the discovery of absolutely amazing Truths about the cosmos. Quantum physicists and certain sub-sets of chaos theorists are perhaps coming closest at present, but other newer branches of science may replace these in the future. It is my unapologetic view that what evolutionists call “natural selection” – mutations within species – may well be true, but evolution as a unified theory of the origin of all life on Earth is inadequate, unlikely, and as of yet, unproven. I can accept the fact of changes in a finch’s beak over time, as supported by fossil records. I cannot accept that a single-celled organism rode on the back of some magic crystal, suddenly came to life, and evolved into Me after passing “Go” and dumping off two million other species along the way. Call me crazy - or stupid, as the case may be.
I longingly wait for the day when more scientists acknowledge, as atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins finally did at the end of Stein’s film, that science still cannot explain the existence of a living cell, that neither Nothingness nor non-living matter could possibly have birthed it without some “spark” or “pre-existing” force or yet-unknown element, that the discoveries of microbiology have utterly astounded the scientific community in the years since Darwin, and that the inner-workings of a living cell (reproduction, metabolism, transport, repair) do indeed appear to be fabulously and wondrously engineered and/or designed. When pressed to name possible Sources of that first living blob on earth, Dawkins became uncomfortable and hestitatingly cited ancient alien DNA as one feasible font-o-life. When asked where THAT came from, he smiled and seemed to realize his predicament.
The so-called conflict between science and God is an illusion. The origin of life is neither a scientific question nor a religious question. It transcends both. When we all finally realize this, men and angels can rejoice – and Dawkins and Stein can have a beer and laugh.
The most unlikable scientist in the film heatedly called anyone who does not believe in evolution – as in, ancient lifeless primordial goop spontaenously birthing a living cell which then evolved into every species on the planet – “stupid.” Whatever his beliefs, I don’t see how that sort of name calling is necessary, constructive, or scientific. For one thing, the stupidity of a human being has no bearing whatsoever on a Fact. If a scientist thinks he has a waterproof case, then he ought to thoughtfully and logically present it. If the evidence is sufficient, then no amount of stupidity in the universe matters. It is what it is and eventually all will know it. If, on the other hand, his “scientific” theory is birthed from the loins of pre-existing assumptions, carries numerous unanswered questions in its backpack, is missing key evidence, and therefore requires a series of additional assumptions in order to make it a unified whole, then perhaps he ought to pluck the log out of his own eye and realize that the ignorance may be his – or, at the very least, that he still has some work to do.
Secondly, there is simply no rational justification for calling scientists who reject evolution, or those who believe in a Creator and who think they see both Design and Designer in the universe “stupid,” even if they are one day found to be wrong (which I don’t think will be the case, but allowing for the possibility helps my argument). Very smart people are wrong all the time. Throughout history, very well-educated scientists and researchers have been proven incorrect by later discoveries. Wrong does not equal stupid. It’s a blatant Fallacy, and it’s incredibly annoying to hear puffed-up and self-congratulating scientists use it on their fellow citizens as if it says something meaningful.
I believe there is no conflict between True Science and the existence of a Creator. I believe that serious, exploratory science can, has, and will continue to lead to the discovery of absolutely amazing Truths about the cosmos. Quantum physicists and certain sub-sets of chaos theorists are perhaps coming closest at present, but other newer branches of science may replace these in the future. It is my unapologetic view that what evolutionists call “natural selection” – mutations within species – may well be true, but evolution as a unified theory of the origin of all life on Earth is inadequate, unlikely, and as of yet, unproven. I can accept the fact of changes in a finch’s beak over time, as supported by fossil records. I cannot accept that a single-celled organism rode on the back of some magic crystal, suddenly came to life, and evolved into Me after passing “Go” and dumping off two million other species along the way. Call me crazy - or stupid, as the case may be.
I longingly wait for the day when more scientists acknowledge, as atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins finally did at the end of Stein’s film, that science still cannot explain the existence of a living cell, that neither Nothingness nor non-living matter could possibly have birthed it without some “spark” or “pre-existing” force or yet-unknown element, that the discoveries of microbiology have utterly astounded the scientific community in the years since Darwin, and that the inner-workings of a living cell (reproduction, metabolism, transport, repair) do indeed appear to be fabulously and wondrously engineered and/or designed. When pressed to name possible Sources of that first living blob on earth, Dawkins became uncomfortable and hestitatingly cited ancient alien DNA as one feasible font-o-life. When asked where THAT came from, he smiled and seemed to realize his predicament.
The so-called conflict between science and God is an illusion. The origin of life is neither a scientific question nor a religious question. It transcends both. When we all finally realize this, men and angels can rejoice – and Dawkins and Stein can have a beer and laugh.
27 May 2008
In Deo speramus
It is perhaps fitting that on the day after Memorial Day, Victor Davis Hanson writes about Obama's "frequent recitals of U.S. history in which the Underground Railroad, the freedom riders, women suffragists, and icons of the civil-rights movement figure prominently." Hanson points out that in almost every reference to America's collective past, Obama mentions some sort of reform and/or protest. Hanson then cautions us against adopting as our heroes only those "who found the system wanting and took it on."
Hanson rightly says that there are many historical figures responsible for our freedom and prosperity and that many of them were not social activists. He suggests that Obama ought to try mentioning a few, "whether an Edison and Bell, people of action and courage like Lewis and Clark or Lindbergh, political figures such as Teddy Roosevelt, and military heroism at places like Gettysburg, the Meuse-Argonne, Okinawa, Chosun, or Hue" and says there is a need to "remind Americans of concrete examples of our exceptionalism, of good works, and of men and women of singular accomplishment".
I wholeheartedly agree. Our nation has birthed many great Citizens who never walked a picket line or marched on Washington D.C. Skepticism and dissent have their place, but we must not ever think an anti-establishment mentality is necessary to Heroism. What is essential are one or more of the following qualities: courage, strength, persistence, the love of justice, honesty, integrity, responsibility, and above all, humility. This list of virtues widens the field considerably. Indeed, I would posit that in addition to our researchers, doctors, nurses, inventors, teachers, writers, and assorted public servants, many of America's greatest citizens are ordinary people attempting to live decent lives in the midst of tremendous personal difficulty.
When I think of Barack and Michelle's seemingly endless harping and complaining, and their focus on an endless parade of negatives, I am reminded of Paul's letter to the Philippians in which he wrote, "Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things" (Philippians 4:8).
Though we are not a perfect nation, how happy we should be that there is much that is true, noble, just, and good in our history. Ours is not the shameful story some like to tell: an ugly nation of extended injustices interrupted by rare heroic protests. We are more than that.
I will never vote for nor admire a man who thinks that greatness and virtue lie only on our horizon and only through his insight and leadership...rather than behind us and eternally within us by the grace of God. We are not perfect, nor ever have been. But it is God - and not Obama - in whom we hope and trust for redemption, and it is the contemplation not of what is wrong but of all that is good and right that gives us and all our heroes both courage and "the audacity of hope."
Hanson rightly says that there are many historical figures responsible for our freedom and prosperity and that many of them were not social activists. He suggests that Obama ought to try mentioning a few, "whether an Edison and Bell, people of action and courage like Lewis and Clark or Lindbergh, political figures such as Teddy Roosevelt, and military heroism at places like Gettysburg, the Meuse-Argonne, Okinawa, Chosun, or Hue" and says there is a need to "remind Americans of concrete examples of our exceptionalism, of good works, and of men and women of singular accomplishment".
I wholeheartedly agree. Our nation has birthed many great Citizens who never walked a picket line or marched on Washington D.C. Skepticism and dissent have their place, but we must not ever think an anti-establishment mentality is necessary to Heroism. What is essential are one or more of the following qualities: courage, strength, persistence, the love of justice, honesty, integrity, responsibility, and above all, humility. This list of virtues widens the field considerably. Indeed, I would posit that in addition to our researchers, doctors, nurses, inventors, teachers, writers, and assorted public servants, many of America's greatest citizens are ordinary people attempting to live decent lives in the midst of tremendous personal difficulty.
When I think of Barack and Michelle's seemingly endless harping and complaining, and their focus on an endless parade of negatives, I am reminded of Paul's letter to the Philippians in which he wrote, "Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things" (Philippians 4:8).
Though we are not a perfect nation, how happy we should be that there is much that is true, noble, just, and good in our history. Ours is not the shameful story some like to tell: an ugly nation of extended injustices interrupted by rare heroic protests. We are more than that.
I will never vote for nor admire a man who thinks that greatness and virtue lie only on our horizon and only through his insight and leadership...rather than behind us and eternally within us by the grace of God. We are not perfect, nor ever have been. But it is God - and not Obama - in whom we hope and trust for redemption, and it is the contemplation not of what is wrong but of all that is good and right that gives us and all our heroes both courage and "the audacity of hope."
24 May 2008
Jesus Christ: Good Man, Great Moral Teacher, or God the "I AM"?
What does a Christian say to someone who acknowledges Jesus Christ as a wise man, or says he was a great moral teacher, but who does not believe in Christ-as-God: God incarnate, God in spirit, and the son of God?
I often refer to the words of C.S. Lewis in his famous book Mere Christianity: "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."
Lewis' "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" argument refers us to two things. One is Jesus' own words about Who He Is. In the gospel of John, we note that Jesus uses the verbal formula "I AM" to describe himself as deity. Jesus says, I am the bread of life (6:35); I am the light of the world (8:12, 9:5); I am the gate (10:7); I am the good shepherd (10:11,14); I am the resurrection and the life (11:25); I am the way and the truth and the life (14:16); and I am the true vine (15:1).
As a Hebraic scholar, Jesus knew that "I AM" is the primary scriptural name of God. It is equated with the name Jehovah and/or Yahweh (YHWH) from the Hebrew haveh meaning "to be", which when conjugated in the singular present form is: "I AM." It also carries connotations of the Hebrew chaveh meaning "to live". When Moses asks God for his name (Exodus 3:13), God answers, "I AM WHO I AM" (or according to the Old King James translation, "I AM THAT I AM").
Jesus' deliberate use of the words "I am" combined with other Biblical, God-equivalent words such as "way," "truth," "life," "bread," "water," and "shepherd," show that he meant to declare his deity. It leaves no room for the "great moral teacher" argument. He was either speaking the Truth, or he was being deceitful, or he was deluded.
The second thing Lewis' words refer to is what Christians understand to be the sword-like attributes of the Logos or Word of God. It slices and separates truth from untruth. In a Christian worldview, celestial logos divides right from wrong, light from dark, and God from all that is anti-God (or anti-Christ). Whether we can appropriately apply the Word to our lives and walk the godly line between truth and grace is always in question. If we do not, the lack is in us - not in the eternal and Logos of the Creator.
In one of my favorite Bible verses, John eloquently proclaims his belief in the eternal and pre-existent deity of Jesus when he begins his book with the words, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (1:1). His use of the word Logos has a deep personal, spiritual, and cosmic meaning for me. This LOGOS of the I AM exists in eternity, ever and always creates. HE moves, whirls, stands, binds, sustains, trancends, and reveals. I AM walks and talks where and when HE pleases - or HE exists not at all. So, for me, the deity of Christ is easy to believe.
Blessings on this Sabbath.
I often refer to the words of C.S. Lewis in his famous book Mere Christianity: "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."
Lewis' "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" argument refers us to two things. One is Jesus' own words about Who He Is. In the gospel of John, we note that Jesus uses the verbal formula "I AM" to describe himself as deity. Jesus says, I am the bread of life (6:35); I am the light of the world (8:12, 9:5); I am the gate (10:7); I am the good shepherd (10:11,14); I am the resurrection and the life (11:25); I am the way and the truth and the life (14:16); and I am the true vine (15:1).
As a Hebraic scholar, Jesus knew that "I AM" is the primary scriptural name of God. It is equated with the name Jehovah and/or Yahweh (YHWH) from the Hebrew haveh meaning "to be", which when conjugated in the singular present form is: "I AM." It also carries connotations of the Hebrew chaveh meaning "to live". When Moses asks God for his name (Exodus 3:13), God answers, "I AM WHO I AM" (or according to the Old King James translation, "I AM THAT I AM").
Jesus' deliberate use of the words "I am" combined with other Biblical, God-equivalent words such as "way," "truth," "life," "bread," "water," and "shepherd," show that he meant to declare his deity. It leaves no room for the "great moral teacher" argument. He was either speaking the Truth, or he was being deceitful, or he was deluded.
The second thing Lewis' words refer to is what Christians understand to be the sword-like attributes of the Logos or Word of God. It slices and separates truth from untruth. In a Christian worldview, celestial logos divides right from wrong, light from dark, and God from all that is anti-God (or anti-Christ). Whether we can appropriately apply the Word to our lives and walk the godly line between truth and grace is always in question. If we do not, the lack is in us - not in the eternal and Logos of the Creator.
In one of my favorite Bible verses, John eloquently proclaims his belief in the eternal and pre-existent deity of Jesus when he begins his book with the words, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (1:1). His use of the word Logos has a deep personal, spiritual, and cosmic meaning for me. This LOGOS of the I AM exists in eternity, ever and always creates. HE moves, whirls, stands, binds, sustains, trancends, and reveals. I AM walks and talks where and when HE pleases - or HE exists not at all. So, for me, the deity of Christ is easy to believe.
Blessings on this Sabbath.
23 May 2008
How to Be a Renaissance Man
Click here for the 75 skills every man should have, according to Esquire.
22 May 2008
The GOP: Bastion of Conservative Values or Multi-Brand Vending Machine?
Ran across this blog post by David All that essentially says Republicans need to change up the game, give up on having a core set of principles and/or limited agenda, and act more like iTunes and NetFlix -- i.e. offer conservative, libertarian, and independent voters more and varied choices -- under the larger brand "Republican."
Says All, "Gone are the days of Newt Gingrich's Contract for America, a plan which every Republican got behind and backed. A unified agenda back in 1994 was possible because of Newt Gingrich's intoxicating personality and strong leadership style; but it was also a different time, a time before the Internet inspired a culture of choice and information. Today, thanks to the Internet, each Member of Congress can and should be fighting in the trenches for the hundreds of issues which drive their voters to the polls under the banner of the Republican Party. The Internet provides a medium to distribute our message like never before. We can fight on thousands of fronts."
I'd like to hear more about the "choices" All thinks Republicans should offer in order to endear people to the "brand." I'm not opposed to hundreds of worthy mini-causes flying under the flag of the GOP, and I understand the wisdom of drumming up support through issues that click with certain voter groups. I'm just concerned that when we start talking about "branding" and "diversification" we sound more like a corporation trying to market itself for profit than a Party of values and beliefs. Loyal voters and dollars are needed, true. But is this Coca-Cola, or is this the Grand Old Party of the Republic?
Maybe All is simply suggesting that there are not ten or twenty but hundreds of conservative/libertarian issues and sub-issues to talk about, a plethora of related agenda items we could pursue, and an Internet which can help us do both. If so, I agree. If, on the other hand, All is suggesting that we water down the drink to make it easier for weaker stomachs to swallow, or that we start selling other types of soda, I can't concur. The GOP must remain rooted in conservatism, and we must persuade the citizenry - through the intelligent and passionate presentation of our values - that it is well worth preserving.
Says All, "Gone are the days of Newt Gingrich's Contract for America, a plan which every Republican got behind and backed. A unified agenda back in 1994 was possible because of Newt Gingrich's intoxicating personality and strong leadership style; but it was also a different time, a time before the Internet inspired a culture of choice and information. Today, thanks to the Internet, each Member of Congress can and should be fighting in the trenches for the hundreds of issues which drive their voters to the polls under the banner of the Republican Party. The Internet provides a medium to distribute our message like never before. We can fight on thousands of fronts."
I'd like to hear more about the "choices" All thinks Republicans should offer in order to endear people to the "brand." I'm not opposed to hundreds of worthy mini-causes flying under the flag of the GOP, and I understand the wisdom of drumming up support through issues that click with certain voter groups. I'm just concerned that when we start talking about "branding" and "diversification" we sound more like a corporation trying to market itself for profit than a Party of values and beliefs. Loyal voters and dollars are needed, true. But is this Coca-Cola, or is this the Grand Old Party of the Republic?
Maybe All is simply suggesting that there are not ten or twenty but hundreds of conservative/libertarian issues and sub-issues to talk about, a plethora of related agenda items we could pursue, and an Internet which can help us do both. If so, I agree. If, on the other hand, All is suggesting that we water down the drink to make it easier for weaker stomachs to swallow, or that we start selling other types of soda, I can't concur. The GOP must remain rooted in conservatism, and we must persuade the citizenry - through the intelligent and passionate presentation of our values - that it is well worth preserving.
Oliver Stone to Release "W" in late October
In a subtle effort to enlighten us all, and with no thought of influencing the national election two weeks later, Lionsgate Studios and Oliver Stone will release what sounds like a downright mean-spirited biopic on George W. Bush on October 17th, 2008. As Mark Hemingway pointed out, this will be the third election in a row that a highly charged political film was released right before the nation heads to the polls. No worries: it will flop and/or fizzle, as all of them have.
21 May 2008
How DARE You Call Me That!
We all know the New York Times has a track record of running fast and loose with the label "conservative" while severely limiting their use of the word "liberal." The Times also recently apologized for using the word "Democratic" to describe a Democratic organization. The nerve!
Vegas Union Boss Threatens MGM With Picketing Prostitutes
A push to organize MGM Mirage security guards has turned ugly, with the union’s lead organizer comparing casino executives to terrorists and threatening to bring homeless people and prostitutes to the picket line in order to make things unpleasant for the company. Those who know the organizer, Steve Maritas, don't seem too surprised by his tactics. Apparently he was convicted in San Diego of stalking his former girlfriend, and says he learned a lot about the union business from his father, a former president of a 30,000-member carpenters district council in New York City who was indicted on racketeering charges.
Read the whole story in the Las Vegas Sun, including how Maritas admits his "street tactics" backfired when he put a picture of Osama bin Laden next to a picture of Mandalay Bay President Bill Hornbuckle on the union’s Web site. “They’re both terrorists,” he told the Sun.
Read the whole story in the Las Vegas Sun, including how Maritas admits his "street tactics" backfired when he put a picture of Osama bin Laden next to a picture of Mandalay Bay President Bill Hornbuckle on the union’s Web site. “They’re both terrorists,” he told the Sun.
What Happens in Vegas Is Rarely Boring
Didn't turn on the PC and check my Inbox when I got home last night so didn't read about the drama involving Nevada Republican assemblywoman Francis Allen or see this arrest report until now. Two nights ago, she stabbed her new husband in the arm with a kitchen knife. She then locked herself in the bedroom. Because...he embarrassed her in front of her friends earlier in the evening. Hubby pulled the knife out of his arm and, with remarkable presence of mind, threw it in a ZipLoc baggie and drove himself to Summerlin hospital where a police report was filed, the knife was seized, and Allen was subsequently arrested for assault with a deadly weapon.
Her side of the story? He accidentally cut himself.
As Chuck Muth quipped in his Nevada News & Views, "I'd say the Honeymoon is over. As is her political career."
Her side of the story? He accidentally cut himself.
As Chuck Muth quipped in his Nevada News & Views, "I'd say the Honeymoon is over. As is her political career."
Reasons Against Yucca Repository
Looks like we have a Comment on one of the Yucca posts earlier this month. He/she is a proponent of nuclear power and favors recycling spent fuel, but is not in favor of Yucca Mountain as a long-term storage site. Primary concerns are geological and ecological: Nevada is the third most earthquake-prone state and a disaster could result in contamination of the aquifer for the entire Las Vegas valley. Another concern is transportation: can we safely move all the waste here over our highways, railways, and waterways? Even if we can, our reader suggests that instead of burying the hot waste while it winds down over the next 40,000 years, we develop better recycling technology so storage is not needed - and so nuclear energy becomes a quasi-renewable resouce.
Whatever else, I agree with this statement: "I would love to read an unbiased report about storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain." The Heritage Foundation recently stated that "no scientific, safety, or technological reason" prevents using Yucca Mountain as a repository. Is this really true? What is the proposed solution to the earthquake/acquifer challenge? I'd sure like to see more data before making my final call on the storage issue. As for recycling all the waste, naturally this seems best. With all the billions of dollars to be made, surely there must be an interest in a privatized R&D effort?
Whatever else, I agree with this statement: "I would love to read an unbiased report about storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain." The Heritage Foundation recently stated that "no scientific, safety, or technological reason" prevents using Yucca Mountain as a repository. Is this really true? What is the proposed solution to the earthquake/acquifer challenge? I'd sure like to see more data before making my final call on the storage issue. As for recycling all the waste, naturally this seems best. With all the billions of dollars to be made, surely there must be an interest in a privatized R&D effort?
20 May 2008
U.S. Government: Interfering Busybody or Protector and Stablizer?
Anne of Idaho writes:
It should be possible to remove ourselves from the habit of interfering in the internal policies of other nations while not giving up our role as protector and stabilizer of general areas of commerce in the world. Think of it this way: police action can be limited to protecting citizens in the streets (i.e., in public) but not invading homes and businesses (with or without warrants).
Our federal domestic policy of interfering in the minutest aspects of personal life (what we can eat, say, teach) is mirrored in our concomitant policy overseas of thinking we have the right to oversee the lives of foreigners.
A good parent knows how to maintain order without stifling freedom of thought and action. A “good nation” can and should do the same.
But a nation is not an entity in and of itself. It is a composite of millions of people of all ages and beliefs and agendas. Our ability to turn “nation” into an abstract whole has historically been of questionable service to the pursuit of peace and happiness. But the greater error will be in the abstract concept of “one world.”
People is plural.
Agree on all points.
Question: What if we learn that foreign terrorists are plotting and planning in private homes or the back rooms of private businesses of their nations? Do we have the "right" (or obligation) - with or without state or legal authorization - to disturb them and try to prevent their crimes before they hit the streets?
Question expanded to our dealings with nations: What if we learn that weapons are being developed and/or terrorists and murderers are being trained and motivated in the caves and compounds of certain countries? Do we attempt to preempt? Or do we wait for the crimes to be committed, and then try to track down the perpetrators, and hope that our success in doing so will prevent other crimes?
Should the liberty of a person, group, or nation be allowed (have the right to) exist right up until a crime is committed? Or is one's liberty subject to limitation as soon as one begins actively planning to infringe upon the liberty of another?
It should be possible to remove ourselves from the habit of interfering in the internal policies of other nations while not giving up our role as protector and stabilizer of general areas of commerce in the world. Think of it this way: police action can be limited to protecting citizens in the streets (i.e., in public) but not invading homes and businesses (with or without warrants).
Our federal domestic policy of interfering in the minutest aspects of personal life (what we can eat, say, teach) is mirrored in our concomitant policy overseas of thinking we have the right to oversee the lives of foreigners.
A good parent knows how to maintain order without stifling freedom of thought and action. A “good nation” can and should do the same.
But a nation is not an entity in and of itself. It is a composite of millions of people of all ages and beliefs and agendas. Our ability to turn “nation” into an abstract whole has historically been of questionable service to the pursuit of peace and happiness. But the greater error will be in the abstract concept of “one world.”
People is plural.
Agree on all points.
Question: What if we learn that foreign terrorists are plotting and planning in private homes or the back rooms of private businesses of their nations? Do we have the "right" (or obligation) - with or without state or legal authorization - to disturb them and try to prevent their crimes before they hit the streets?
Question expanded to our dealings with nations: What if we learn that weapons are being developed and/or terrorists and murderers are being trained and motivated in the caves and compounds of certain countries? Do we attempt to preempt? Or do we wait for the crimes to be committed, and then try to track down the perpetrators, and hope that our success in doing so will prevent other crimes?
Should the liberty of a person, group, or nation be allowed (have the right to) exist right up until a crime is committed? Or is one's liberty subject to limitation as soon as one begins actively planning to infringe upon the liberty of another?
U.S. Government Reveals Brilliant Economic Strategy: Buy High, Sell Low
So…how about that Farm Bill? Is anyone else bothered by the fact that it contains a provision instructing the Fed to buy “surplus” sugar from sugar-growers at an inflated price...and then sell it at an artificially low price in order to make ethanol? Put another way, in support of sugar farmers and ethanol makers, Congress has decided that the U.S. Taxpayer will deliberately buy over-priced sugar and then deliberately sell it at a loss. I am just disgusted with the Congressional Republicans who voted in favor of this bill. Some sources say the legislation will increase farm spending by 44 percent over last year... Great policy, guys!
19 May 2008
Researching Religious Figures
In my Internet wanderings this week, I ran across a good essay about the psycho-historical/psycho-biographical study of religious personalities. The subject is of interest to me in two respects: (1) the methodologies involved in investigating an historical religious figure (as opposed to any other kind of historical person), and (2) issues related to understanding the interplay between psychology and spiritualism and/or religion. I am interested in questions like: What is the role of the researcher in studying religious subjects? What place does psychology – of both the researcher and the researched – have in such endeavors? How does one methodically and objectively research religious/spiritual experience? Etc.
Media Bias Alive and Well at NBC News
On the Corner earlier this week, K-Lo provided a transcript of a letter from Ed Gillespie @ the GOP to the president of NBC News. It’s a must read for anyone interested in (or who still denies) Media Bias. The lack of journalistic integrity over at NBC News is truly outrageous. I'd threaten to stop watching, but I haven't watched in years. Anyway, the letter begins thusly:
This e-mail is to formally request that NBC Nightly News and The Today Show air for their viewers President Bush's actual answer to correspondent Richard Engel's question about Iran policy and "appeasement," rather than the deceptively edited version of the President's answer that was aired last night on the Nightly News and this morning on The Today Show.
Gillespie's subsequent points were that W's remarks before the Knesset were the same as all his past policy statements, the "appeasement" line needed to be put in context, and the U.S. has a long-standing policy position against negotiating with terrorists...so all the whipped-up frenzy was unnecessary. He referred to NBC's "deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline" as "utterly misleading and irresponsible." Gillespie then went on to say the following:
As long as I am making this formal request, please allow me to take this opportunity to ask if your network has reconsidered its position that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, especially in light of the fact that the unity government in Baghdad recently rooted out illegal, extremist groups in Basra and reclaimed the port there for the people of Iraq, among other significant signs of progress.
On November 27, 2006, NBC News made a decision to no longer just cover the news in Iraq, but to make an analytical and editorial judgment that Iraq was in a civil war. As you know, both the United States government and the Government of Iraq disputed your account at that time. As Matt Lauer said that morning on The Today Show: "We should mention, we didn't just wake up on a Monday morning and say, 'Let's call this a civil war.' This took careful deliberation.'"
How nice to know that Matt Lauer, our nation's foremost expert on military and political affairs, was part of the careful deliberation that led to this "news." We certainly approve of such an accomplished foreign policy expert as Where-In-The-World Lauer. I mean, we've all seen his Tango, so, 'nuf said. Gillespie continues:
I noticed that around September of 2007, your network quietly stopped referring to conditions in Iraq as a "civil war." Is it still NBC News's carefully deliberated opinion that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? If not, will the network publicly declare that the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?
Gillespie's letter ends thus:
Mr. Capus, I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network's viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olberman at MSNBC don't hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.
This e-mail is to formally request that NBC Nightly News and The Today Show air for their viewers President Bush's actual answer to correspondent Richard Engel's question about Iran policy and "appeasement," rather than the deceptively edited version of the President's answer that was aired last night on the Nightly News and this morning on The Today Show.
Gillespie's subsequent points were that W's remarks before the Knesset were the same as all his past policy statements, the "appeasement" line needed to be put in context, and the U.S. has a long-standing policy position against negotiating with terrorists...so all the whipped-up frenzy was unnecessary. He referred to NBC's "deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline" as "utterly misleading and irresponsible." Gillespie then went on to say the following:
As long as I am making this formal request, please allow me to take this opportunity to ask if your network has reconsidered its position that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, especially in light of the fact that the unity government in Baghdad recently rooted out illegal, extremist groups in Basra and reclaimed the port there for the people of Iraq, among other significant signs of progress.
On November 27, 2006, NBC News made a decision to no longer just cover the news in Iraq, but to make an analytical and editorial judgment that Iraq was in a civil war. As you know, both the United States government and the Government of Iraq disputed your account at that time. As Matt Lauer said that morning on The Today Show: "We should mention, we didn't just wake up on a Monday morning and say, 'Let's call this a civil war.' This took careful deliberation.'"
How nice to know that Matt Lauer, our nation's foremost expert on military and political affairs, was part of the careful deliberation that led to this "news." We certainly approve of such an accomplished foreign policy expert as Where-In-The-World Lauer. I mean, we've all seen his Tango, so, 'nuf said. Gillespie continues:
I noticed that around September of 2007, your network quietly stopped referring to conditions in Iraq as a "civil war." Is it still NBC News's carefully deliberated opinion that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? If not, will the network publicly declare that the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?
Gillespie's letter ends thus:
Mr. Capus, I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network's viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olberman at MSNBC don't hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.
Who Else Would Do It? Who Else Could?
In re: to my Bob Barr/Libertarian post, Anne of Idaho writes:
People lose sight of the fact that our military strength does more than protect the USA . We patrol the waters in the Mediterranean in order to keep the region stable so that all countries can benefit from the peaceful movement of oil and other goods. Our presence in many areas keeps traditional foes restrained. And our military strength enables other countries (think EU) to have tiny military budgets. They know we are there. What would they do if we weren’t?
They would be royally screwed, me-thinks. Not that we say these things out loud. It wouldn't be politically correct to point out the world's dependency on us, nor to state that there is no other nation on earth who does so much, for so many, with so little thanks - or reciprocity. But, as Ronald Reagan once said, "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit."
Getting back to how all this relates to Libertarianism, though, I still ask: what is the logical-philosophical justification for the party's Isolationist ideas? I need a Libertarian to tell me.
People lose sight of the fact that our military strength does more than protect the USA . We patrol the waters in the Mediterranean in order to keep the region stable so that all countries can benefit from the peaceful movement of oil and other goods. Our presence in many areas keeps traditional foes restrained. And our military strength enables other countries (think EU) to have tiny military budgets. They know we are there. What would they do if we weren’t?
They would be royally screwed, me-thinks. Not that we say these things out loud. It wouldn't be politically correct to point out the world's dependency on us, nor to state that there is no other nation on earth who does so much, for so many, with so little thanks - or reciprocity. But, as Ronald Reagan once said, "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit."
Getting back to how all this relates to Libertarianism, though, I still ask: what is the logical-philosophical justification for the party's Isolationist ideas? I need a Libertarian to tell me.
A Few Words on Bob Barr
Bob Barr has announced his desire for the Libertarian party nomination. For those of you who are unfamiliar, Barr was a Republican who served four terms in Congress (for Georgia) before losing in a 2002 primary fight against Rep. John Linder. A quick sum-up of his time in Congress: he voted Yes to the Iraq war, Yes to the prescription-drug program, and Yes to the Patriot Act.
Barr now flies the Libertarian flag and says he is Pure-Dee anti-government as well as a staunch non-Interventionist. In another interesting role reversal, he has recently joined hands with the Marijuana Policy Project to repeal the hard work he did as as member of the Task Force for a Drug-Free America (Barr once helped block a voter initiative to legalize medical marijuana in D.C.) He says the expansion of government power after 9/11 changed his views on the war on drugs. (What does the Patriot Act have to do with cracking down on joint-smoking cancer patients? I’m just wondering…)
Anyway, I agree with Barr’s change of mind on medical marijuana and I sure don’t mind him opposing a taxpayer subsidized prescription drug plan (or any other kind of subsidy), but on the Patriot Act and the war on terror I think he’s just plain wrong. Barr now opposes laws which (I believe) have improved U.S. counter-terrorism efforts without stomping on too many constitutional liberties.
As my GOP friends keep reminding me: in a close presidential race, every vote is important. Even if that weren't the case this year, I don’t think I would vote for Bob Barr based on his views re: international relations. Perhaps I’m not leaning as Libertarian as I thought…
Question: Are Libertarian candidates making a mistake vis a vis their insistence on being anti-Interventionist? It seems to me that those who care most deeply about protecting fundamental liberties should be in favor of intelligently deploying our military wherever and whenever lunatics gather and train with the monomaniacal goal of killing us (death being the ultimate loss of freedom). 9/11 and other deadly incidents of international terrorism over the past two decades should have changed the way we think about how, when, and where we send troops and wage wars...shouldn't it?
Barr now flies the Libertarian flag and says he is Pure-Dee anti-government as well as a staunch non-Interventionist. In another interesting role reversal, he has recently joined hands with the Marijuana Policy Project to repeal the hard work he did as as member of the Task Force for a Drug-Free America (Barr once helped block a voter initiative to legalize medical marijuana in D.C.) He says the expansion of government power after 9/11 changed his views on the war on drugs. (What does the Patriot Act have to do with cracking down on joint-smoking cancer patients? I’m just wondering…)
Anyway, I agree with Barr’s change of mind on medical marijuana and I sure don’t mind him opposing a taxpayer subsidized prescription drug plan (or any other kind of subsidy), but on the Patriot Act and the war on terror I think he’s just plain wrong. Barr now opposes laws which (I believe) have improved U.S. counter-terrorism efforts without stomping on too many constitutional liberties.
As my GOP friends keep reminding me: in a close presidential race, every vote is important. Even if that weren't the case this year, I don’t think I would vote for Bob Barr based on his views re: international relations. Perhaps I’m not leaning as Libertarian as I thought…
Question: Are Libertarian candidates making a mistake vis a vis their insistence on being anti-Interventionist? It seems to me that those who care most deeply about protecting fundamental liberties should be in favor of intelligently deploying our military wherever and whenever lunatics gather and train with the monomaniacal goal of killing us (death being the ultimate loss of freedom). 9/11 and other deadly incidents of international terrorism over the past two decades should have changed the way we think about how, when, and where we send troops and wage wars...shouldn't it?
Obama Speaks! (File Under: OMG)
Listen up, good Peeps: Obama has a word for us!
“We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say 'OK.'”
We can’t…? We can’t eat a hearty dinner and turn the thermostat down a notch for fear of upsetting foreign governments…? We can’t pick Grandma and Grandpa up in the SUV to go see the kid's football game and just expect to get away with it...?!
For the record: we primarily drive a mid-sized fuel-efficient sedan, eat normal quantities of food, and keep our thermostat between 76 and 79. But if I WANT to buy a gas-guzzler, gorge myself silly from dawn to dusk, and turn the temperature down so low it starts snowing in the living room, I darn well WILL - and Senator Obama and his international PC police can kiss my well-fed, air-conditioned, Hummer- driving a**.
“We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say 'OK.'”
We can’t…? We can’t eat a hearty dinner and turn the thermostat down a notch for fear of upsetting foreign governments…? We can’t pick Grandma and Grandpa up in the SUV to go see the kid's football game and just expect to get away with it...?!
For the record: we primarily drive a mid-sized fuel-efficient sedan, eat normal quantities of food, and keep our thermostat between 76 and 79. But if I WANT to buy a gas-guzzler, gorge myself silly from dawn to dusk, and turn the temperature down so low it starts snowing in the living room, I darn well WILL - and Senator Obama and his international PC police can kiss my well-fed, air-conditioned, Hummer- driving a**.
The Opinion of Chief Justice Ronald M. George
It is a testament to our times that California Supreme Court Chief Justice George’s activist opinion really comes as no great surprise. Though his opinion conceded that “from the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman,” and though California voters in 2000 overwhelmingly ratified that understanding by adopting The California Defense of Marriage Act, Justice George feels just fine and dandy about distorting his state's constitution and overriding the electorate.
As the ink dries on George's opinion, we contemplate how marriage, and really, all of the most intimate and personal aspects of human relations, are being reduced to mere matters of personal "choice" and style. We shrug at tradition while our judges are busy red-lining our constitutions. It seems to me that the adoption of Tolerance as the greatest of all virtues, and the insistence upon viewing the world subjectively, have sped us to this place. Each person is his own little god, deciding for himself what is best and right. He yields to no moral authority; he is master of all he surveys.
The twentieth century has witnessed as much moral-personal and political change as all of History combined, and the U.S. seems to be evolving (devolving?) rapidly. I hope we are ready to deal with the consequences.
As the ink dries on George's opinion, we contemplate how marriage, and really, all of the most intimate and personal aspects of human relations, are being reduced to mere matters of personal "choice" and style. We shrug at tradition while our judges are busy red-lining our constitutions. It seems to me that the adoption of Tolerance as the greatest of all virtues, and the insistence upon viewing the world subjectively, have sped us to this place. Each person is his own little god, deciding for himself what is best and right. He yields to no moral authority; he is master of all he surveys.
The twentieth century has witnessed as much moral-personal and political change as all of History combined, and the U.S. seems to be evolving (devolving?) rapidly. I hope we are ready to deal with the consequences.
Patriot Post: Historic Documents resource
Click here for a great resource page containing links to all our nation's major historic and Founding documents. I'll be adding a link on the sidebar.
18 May 2008
Everything Is Spiritual
Just finished watching "Everything Is Spiritual," a DVD teaching by Rob Bell of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Regardless of your worldview or beliefs, this DVD is a must see. I'll probably be buying it as a gift for everyone on my Christmas list this year. Just Amazing!
17 May 2008
Desert Beauty
Before visiting Las Vegas for the first time in 1997, I envisioned a land without color (especially green). Here's a neat page of thumbnail photos that show just how pretty the desert can be. Click on each photo to see it enlarged (so you can fully appreciate the vibrant colors).
16 May 2008
Center for Yucca Facts Cites Heritage Foundation Report : Yucca Mountain Remains Critical to Spent Nuclear Fuel Management
See this Yucca Facts blog post for the Heritage Foundation's report on the role of Yucca Mountain in the future of nuclear power in the U.S. While acknowledging that Yucca is not the whole answer, Heritage says it IS part of the solution - if not held up by politics, and if properly managed.
Jets Getting Some Exercise at Nellis AFB
Every time I've been out and about this week, including today at lunch, they've been running aerial combat exercises over Nellis. What's cooking with all the war games?!
Just for fun: Click here for YouTube video of past "Red Flag" training excercises at Nellis.
Just for fun: Click here for YouTube video of past "Red Flag" training excercises at Nellis.
More Knesset Snippets
I’ve seen and heard lots of snippets of Bush’s speech yesterday to the Israeli Knesset, the most “controversial” of which are now on Talk Tadio and all over the Blogosphere. If you want to read the whole transcript (as I did), you can find it here on NewsBusters.
Here are a few blurbs from the speech (in italics) along with my comments:
We gather to mark a momentous occasion. Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence, founded on the "natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate." What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David — a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael.
Like our own Founding Fathers, Gen-Gurion and friends found certain truths to be self-evident and pushed through to the establishment of a new and democratic nation. The birth of the state of Israel in 1968 resonated with Americans because it reminded us of our own history.
Eleven minutes later, on the orders of President Harry Truman, the United States was proud to be the first nation to recognize Israel's independence. And on this landmark anniversary, America is proud to be Israel's closest ally and best friend in the world.
And so, we became BFFs.
The alliance between our governments is unbreakable...
I hope W is right, but I wonder. Obama’s been hinting around that under his leadership we'll be having fewer slumber parties with Israel and may be catching an occasional dinner and a movie with Amajinadad. If he/we continue to delude ourselves into thinking that diplomacy will work with neo-fascist, murderous Islamic despots, and if our nation's citizenry continues to devolve away from the roots of our Judeo-Christian faith, will we really remain passionate about being friends with the Jewish state? Or will the friendship fizzle out?
We believe in the matchless value of every man, woman and child. So we insist that the people of Israel have the right to a decent, normal and peaceful life, just like the citizens of every other nation. We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human rights. So we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world.
It is indeed outrageous that the U.N. so disproportionately chastises Israel. Just one more reason to question the moral and political legitimacy of the U.N.
....the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.
There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.
Not sure “natural” is the best word for the tendency to ignore, explain, justify, or defend wrongdoing. Intentions may indeed be good, but the proverbial road to hell-on-earth is paved with too great a tolerance for too many wrongs.
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it.
Words can be powerful, but people can believe in their ability to influence through rhetoric far too much. Jimmy Carter's recent meeting with Hamas was just the most recent example of such Hubris. There are many political occasions that call for talking, reasoning, and negotiating; there are some that do not.
We must confront the moral relativism that views all forms of government as equally acceptable and thereby consigns whole societies to slavery. Above all, we must have faith in our values and ourselves and confidently pursue the expansion of liberty as the path to a peaceful future.
All men are created equal; all governments are not. Arguments that we cannot and should not try to force democracy upon the nations of the world are valid. Democracy, by its very nature, must be conceived and carried in the minds of common men. Liberty must be desired, even at the cost of one's own life. The fear of death must be overcome by the will to live freely and well . The birth of a republic follows long, difficult labor.
Here are a few blurbs from the speech (in italics) along with my comments:
We gather to mark a momentous occasion. Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence, founded on the "natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate." What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David — a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael.
Like our own Founding Fathers, Gen-Gurion and friends found certain truths to be self-evident and pushed through to the establishment of a new and democratic nation. The birth of the state of Israel in 1968 resonated with Americans because it reminded us of our own history.
Eleven minutes later, on the orders of President Harry Truman, the United States was proud to be the first nation to recognize Israel's independence. And on this landmark anniversary, America is proud to be Israel's closest ally and best friend in the world.
And so, we became BFFs.
The alliance between our governments is unbreakable...
I hope W is right, but I wonder. Obama’s been hinting around that under his leadership we'll be having fewer slumber parties with Israel and may be catching an occasional dinner and a movie with Amajinadad. If he/we continue to delude ourselves into thinking that diplomacy will work with neo-fascist, murderous Islamic despots, and if our nation's citizenry continues to devolve away from the roots of our Judeo-Christian faith, will we really remain passionate about being friends with the Jewish state? Or will the friendship fizzle out?
We believe in the matchless value of every man, woman and child. So we insist that the people of Israel have the right to a decent, normal and peaceful life, just like the citizens of every other nation. We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human rights. So we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world.
It is indeed outrageous that the U.N. so disproportionately chastises Israel. Just one more reason to question the moral and political legitimacy of the U.N.
....the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.
There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.
Not sure “natural” is the best word for the tendency to ignore, explain, justify, or defend wrongdoing. Intentions may indeed be good, but the proverbial road to hell-on-earth is paved with too great a tolerance for too many wrongs.
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it.
Words can be powerful, but people can believe in their ability to influence through rhetoric far too much. Jimmy Carter's recent meeting with Hamas was just the most recent example of such Hubris. There are many political occasions that call for talking, reasoning, and negotiating; there are some that do not.
We must confront the moral relativism that views all forms of government as equally acceptable and thereby consigns whole societies to slavery. Above all, we must have faith in our values and ourselves and confidently pursue the expansion of liberty as the path to a peaceful future.
All men are created equal; all governments are not. Arguments that we cannot and should not try to force democracy upon the nations of the world are valid. Democracy, by its very nature, must be conceived and carried in the minds of common men. Liberty must be desired, even at the cost of one's own life. The fear of death must be overcome by the will to live freely and well . The birth of a republic follows long, difficult labor.
National Review Editors: Pork Farm
I was going to blog about the new and unimproved $300 billion farm bill, but the editors at National Review did it for me. Good grief!
15 May 2008
Nevada Jet Setters
Check out this investigative post on Chuck Muth's blog re: our NV legislators' jet-setting ways on the Taxpayer dime. What gives?!
Reader Question re: Yucca Mountain Nuclear Power Plant: "wouldn't the plant's cooling water be radioactive?"
I don't know much about the inner workings of nuclear power plant cooling systems, so I started with a patent search and found U.S. Patent 4894202. It is a "method of inhibiting radioactive substances from eluting into cooling water in a nuclear plant and an apparatus" issued on January 16, 1990. One would assume that a patented method/product that's been in existence for 18 years is in use, but I will continue to research this - and anyone who passes this way should feel free to Comment with what they know or learn.
14 May 2008
I Will Love Him and Hug Him and Call Him George
Question recently posed by a Friend: What will you do when you get a Reader on Shoe blog?
Me: You mean, someone who isn't you, my husband, or my mom?
She: Yeah.
Me: And whaddaya mean, "A" reader? You think there will only be one...?
The first Reader has since appeared, followed by another. One emailed from Austrailia; the other commented Anonymously. Sincere Thanks to both for visiting and making my day. Many blessings and come back soon!
Me: You mean, someone who isn't you, my husband, or my mom?
She: Yeah.
Me: And whaddaya mean, "A" reader? You think there will only be one...?
The first Reader has since appeared, followed by another. One emailed from Austrailia; the other commented Anonymously. Sincere Thanks to both for visiting and making my day. Many blessings and come back soon!
OMG
Well…I may not be ready for full-fledged Libertarianism, but I truly don’t know if I can remain a registered Republican very much longer. Two nights ago I said to a Very green sounding McCain fundraiser: “Tell the Bosses that when the GOP stops sliding to the Left, gets back to Goldwater-Reagan values, and helps nominate a decent Conservative candidate, I’ll gladly give more money. And tell them to stop sending out these stupid pretend surveys that a tree monkey could complete just so they can ask for more money for their lame campaign.” She was silent for a moment, and then laughed and said “ok,” and hung up. I respected her for that; I really did.
I guess I was still grouchy from McCain’s interview with O’Reilly late last week. Big Mac says he refuses to consider drilling in ANWR, nor will he crack down on sanctuary cities…because he is a Teddy Roosevelt conservative. (?!) Um, try not to abuse TR’s legacy like that, “my friend.” TR was tough, wise, and knew the difference between good policy and pandering. He cared about conservation – but was wise with it. And he wanted measured, well-managed immigration. I very much doubt he would have approved of McCain’s tedious thirty-nine part illegal immigration “program.” I ask you: why must McNoodle appear on my television screen and conjure up the dead spirit of past conservatives as if it says something about HIM? Can he not entertain and convey these ideas on his own? Where is the principled and pure conservatism of the Now?
And please don’t feed me any lines about John’s commitment to appointing conservative judges. That’s a no-brainer, so no Brownie Points will be awarded. And anyway McCain has more demerits than he can hope to overcome. He has, after all, failed to complete assignments again and again. Like when, you ask? Well, let us count the ways. He pulled some pretty dirty campaign tricks on Bush in 2000 but now haughtily insists he will run a “respectful” campain against Obama. I guess he only plays nasty with members of his own party, but against the man who may well be the downfall of our nation he will be Oh So Nice. I mean, He’ll be Lovey Dovey.
To continue… McCain slandered the Swift Boat veterans against John Kerry without the basis of evidence, which I found just astounding. He also echoed the lies of the Left by deriding the Bush tax cuts as being only “for the rich.” He has flip-flopped on immigration policy numerous times. He favors constitutional rights for terrorists. He helped legitimize the filibustering of judicial nominees in the Senate. He championed bad campaign-finance reform. He has participated in the demonization of the big, bad oil and drug companies. He co-sponsored the McCain-Kennedy illegal immigrant Forgive, Forget and Let’s-all-have-a-Scotch bill. He also voted for Specter’s hare-brained Let’s-politely-ask-for-Mexico’s-permission-to-build-a-fence-on-our-own-freaking-border Bill. He has sold out on global warming and talks about Green living like he invented it. His pro-life credentials are questionable. (Shall I continue…?)
“So, what do you WANT?” a friend inquires nervously as I finish the rant. Great question, and SO glad you asked. I want a conservative candidate who is…a Conservative. I want a president who talks sincerely and intelligently about reducing government. I want a POTUS who genuinely wants government transparency at every level. I want a strict adherence to ethics and a swift cutting off the offending hand when violations occur. I want our $3.1 trillion dollar federal budget slashed. I want balanced budgets at all levels of government. I want major tax reform with lower taxes for all. I want an end to the welfare state and an end to taxpayer dollars being doled out to entitlements and special interests of all kinds. I want an end to subsidies. Let us all live and die in the free market, and let people give to the causes they believe are worthy because they choose to do so.
I do not want the government giving money to anyone who bought a home they can’t afford, or saving any mortgage company who loaned too much money to too many high risk borrowers. Let everyone learn their lesson, and lick their wounds, and proceed. No one will die because they have to give up their house and go rent for awhile, so let’s stop behaving as if this “crisis” is on the level of a personal tragedy. I want things to happen because the economy makes them necessary or because individuals and private organized groups gather up and make it so. I want an end to union dues being used for political purposes without member permission. I want an end to earmarks forever. In general, I want less Bureaucracy in the Universe.
I want a better, stronger, faster, meaner military, and I want to use it to frighten the world into behaving properly where American interests are concerned. I want everyone in this country to get real about the dark soullessness of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. I want a swift cooling of relationship with all nations who claim they are for peace but either whistle and look the other way or are in bed with these nuts on the sly. Including and starting with Saudi Arabia and Egypt. I want Israel to bomb anyone who breathes in their direction, and I want to throw a parade for them every time they do. I want the NRA to thrive, and I want to keep my guns and be free to buy more, and I want our kids to learn how to use them properly, and I want to be free to shoot intruders and trespassers or anyone who tries to harm me or my family.
I want the CIA to organize an infiltration of the organization of every sick, murderous despot in the world so they can summarily shoot he and all his drooling cronies in the head. (I realize this is where the Libertarians and I part ways. I also realize it separates me from many of my Christian friends. However, I am an unapologetic Interventionist when it is called for, and I believe it is called for whenever and wherever diabolically inclined dicators are responsible for grave human rights violations. I believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, and I believe we have a moral obligation to say so, and to do something about it. If someone summarily and systematically murders those who they are supposed to lead and care for, let them be shot, and let God judge their souls, and let their people go free.)
I want an end to the “drug war” which is costing us billions, filling up our prisons, and accomplishing little. Many companies have drug testing policies, and many other companies don’t care, so let’s just let everyone make their choices and let the market do what it does. If private organizations want to battle the sale and use of drugs, and help people who are addicted through education and counseling, let them do so, with our thanks. I want prison system reform including the establishment of work camps and compounds where all prisoners will pay their debt to society by laboring 40 to 50 hours per week (just like the rest of us!) both to maintain the prison and to produce something useful. I want these prison workplaces to be managed like a business: efficiently and for profit.
I want us to abolish or considerably reduce the scope and influence of the failed Department of Education. I want more charter schools and more encouragement and resources for home schoolers. I want education reform and better public education for fewer billions of dollars. I want more intelligent educational and career tracking for kids based on their skills, interests, and goals. I want to encourage more kids to go to vocational and/or trade and/or tech schools and for everyone to stop pretending that every kid needs a four to nine year college education for our country to be great. I want an end to affirmative action in academics. The smartest and best and most hard working ought to be accepted to our universities, no matter their gender, class, or race. Less talented students can attend community college and transfer in later if they are able, which they should be if they have any ability at all.
I want our courts to honor and uphold our Constitution. I do not want it revised. I want all judges to do their jobs, by the book. I want to stop the slow erosion of personal property rights. I do not want national, socialized health care. (I’ll take McCain’s tax credit for health care, but let’s remember that if our taxes weren’t so high in the first place we wouldn’t need a freaking credit in order to afford our doctor’s bills. Am I supposed to feel like McCain is “doing” something for me when really I’m just getting some of my own damn money back…?) I don’t want any cap-and-crap energy policy. I don’t want corporations trading or selling carbon emission credits like baseball cards. Can we please stop introducing abstract ideas into our economy as if they can actually serve as real currency and support the market? Good grief!
I want us to accept that there is nothing Hillary Clinton or anyone else can do about the OPEC oil cartel and their inflation of prices…except to drill for oil and refine here at home where and when we needed and even if it means running an ugly pipeline or two over the freaking tundra and ruining the scenic view of some Arctic terns.. I want us to get the per gallon gas prices back down at least in the $2.00s while we figure out what the next generation of cars is going to run on. (And it is NOT bio fuel. Even though plants are a quasi-“renewable resource,” the earth cannot sustain enough plants for both food and the world’s rising fuel demand. Hyrdogen fuel cells make a lot more sense, or how about that new proto-type car that is primarily motored by air pressure?)
I also want to tell the Middle East and half of Africa to feed their own damn starving citizens and neighbors since they are raking in trillions from oil sales. I want everyone here at home to stop treating nuclear power like it’s the Devil and get real about the tremendous benefits - when it’s managed correctly. It’s powerful; efficient; reliable; and opens up high tech jobs in the community. We can deal with the waste intelligently, by extracting and refining the Uranium (a huge boon to any state’s economy).
(sigh)
I am aware that I want what apparently cannot be had, at least not this year. And I know I will vote for McCain, as the best of the undesirables. But I will not be happy about it. And I will hope for something better next time. And I will probably have an “I” rather than an "R" on my voter card by 2012, if for no other reason than to let the GOP know how disgusted with them I really am.
I guess I was still grouchy from McCain’s interview with O’Reilly late last week. Big Mac says he refuses to consider drilling in ANWR, nor will he crack down on sanctuary cities…because he is a Teddy Roosevelt conservative. (?!) Um, try not to abuse TR’s legacy like that, “my friend.” TR was tough, wise, and knew the difference between good policy and pandering. He cared about conservation – but was wise with it. And he wanted measured, well-managed immigration. I very much doubt he would have approved of McCain’s tedious thirty-nine part illegal immigration “program.” I ask you: why must McNoodle appear on my television screen and conjure up the dead spirit of past conservatives as if it says something about HIM? Can he not entertain and convey these ideas on his own? Where is the principled and pure conservatism of the Now?
And please don’t feed me any lines about John’s commitment to appointing conservative judges. That’s a no-brainer, so no Brownie Points will be awarded. And anyway McCain has more demerits than he can hope to overcome. He has, after all, failed to complete assignments again and again. Like when, you ask? Well, let us count the ways. He pulled some pretty dirty campaign tricks on Bush in 2000 but now haughtily insists he will run a “respectful” campain against Obama. I guess he only plays nasty with members of his own party, but against the man who may well be the downfall of our nation he will be Oh So Nice. I mean, He’ll be Lovey Dovey.
To continue… McCain slandered the Swift Boat veterans against John Kerry without the basis of evidence, which I found just astounding. He also echoed the lies of the Left by deriding the Bush tax cuts as being only “for the rich.” He has flip-flopped on immigration policy numerous times. He favors constitutional rights for terrorists. He helped legitimize the filibustering of judicial nominees in the Senate. He championed bad campaign-finance reform. He has participated in the demonization of the big, bad oil and drug companies. He co-sponsored the McCain-Kennedy illegal immigrant Forgive, Forget and Let’s-all-have-a-Scotch bill. He also voted for Specter’s hare-brained Let’s-politely-ask-for-Mexico’s-permission-to-build-a-fence-on-our-own-freaking-border Bill. He has sold out on global warming and talks about Green living like he invented it. His pro-life credentials are questionable. (Shall I continue…?)
“So, what do you WANT?” a friend inquires nervously as I finish the rant. Great question, and SO glad you asked. I want a conservative candidate who is…a Conservative. I want a president who talks sincerely and intelligently about reducing government. I want a POTUS who genuinely wants government transparency at every level. I want a strict adherence to ethics and a swift cutting off the offending hand when violations occur. I want our $3.1 trillion dollar federal budget slashed. I want balanced budgets at all levels of government. I want major tax reform with lower taxes for all. I want an end to the welfare state and an end to taxpayer dollars being doled out to entitlements and special interests of all kinds. I want an end to subsidies. Let us all live and die in the free market, and let people give to the causes they believe are worthy because they choose to do so.
I do not want the government giving money to anyone who bought a home they can’t afford, or saving any mortgage company who loaned too much money to too many high risk borrowers. Let everyone learn their lesson, and lick their wounds, and proceed. No one will die because they have to give up their house and go rent for awhile, so let’s stop behaving as if this “crisis” is on the level of a personal tragedy. I want things to happen because the economy makes them necessary or because individuals and private organized groups gather up and make it so. I want an end to union dues being used for political purposes without member permission. I want an end to earmarks forever. In general, I want less Bureaucracy in the Universe.
I want a better, stronger, faster, meaner military, and I want to use it to frighten the world into behaving properly where American interests are concerned. I want everyone in this country to get real about the dark soullessness of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. I want a swift cooling of relationship with all nations who claim they are for peace but either whistle and look the other way or are in bed with these nuts on the sly. Including and starting with Saudi Arabia and Egypt. I want Israel to bomb anyone who breathes in their direction, and I want to throw a parade for them every time they do. I want the NRA to thrive, and I want to keep my guns and be free to buy more, and I want our kids to learn how to use them properly, and I want to be free to shoot intruders and trespassers or anyone who tries to harm me or my family.
I want the CIA to organize an infiltration of the organization of every sick, murderous despot in the world so they can summarily shoot he and all his drooling cronies in the head. (I realize this is where the Libertarians and I part ways. I also realize it separates me from many of my Christian friends. However, I am an unapologetic Interventionist when it is called for, and I believe it is called for whenever and wherever diabolically inclined dicators are responsible for grave human rights violations. I believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, and I believe we have a moral obligation to say so, and to do something about it. If someone summarily and systematically murders those who they are supposed to lead and care for, let them be shot, and let God judge their souls, and let their people go free.)
I want an end to the “drug war” which is costing us billions, filling up our prisons, and accomplishing little. Many companies have drug testing policies, and many other companies don’t care, so let’s just let everyone make their choices and let the market do what it does. If private organizations want to battle the sale and use of drugs, and help people who are addicted through education and counseling, let them do so, with our thanks. I want prison system reform including the establishment of work camps and compounds where all prisoners will pay their debt to society by laboring 40 to 50 hours per week (just like the rest of us!) both to maintain the prison and to produce something useful. I want these prison workplaces to be managed like a business: efficiently and for profit.
I want us to abolish or considerably reduce the scope and influence of the failed Department of Education. I want more charter schools and more encouragement and resources for home schoolers. I want education reform and better public education for fewer billions of dollars. I want more intelligent educational and career tracking for kids based on their skills, interests, and goals. I want to encourage more kids to go to vocational and/or trade and/or tech schools and for everyone to stop pretending that every kid needs a four to nine year college education for our country to be great. I want an end to affirmative action in academics. The smartest and best and most hard working ought to be accepted to our universities, no matter their gender, class, or race. Less talented students can attend community college and transfer in later if they are able, which they should be if they have any ability at all.
I want our courts to honor and uphold our Constitution. I do not want it revised. I want all judges to do their jobs, by the book. I want to stop the slow erosion of personal property rights. I do not want national, socialized health care. (I’ll take McCain’s tax credit for health care, but let’s remember that if our taxes weren’t so high in the first place we wouldn’t need a freaking credit in order to afford our doctor’s bills. Am I supposed to feel like McCain is “doing” something for me when really I’m just getting some of my own damn money back…?) I don’t want any cap-and-crap energy policy. I don’t want corporations trading or selling carbon emission credits like baseball cards. Can we please stop introducing abstract ideas into our economy as if they can actually serve as real currency and support the market? Good grief!
I want us to accept that there is nothing Hillary Clinton or anyone else can do about the OPEC oil cartel and their inflation of prices…except to drill for oil and refine here at home where and when we needed and even if it means running an ugly pipeline or two over the freaking tundra and ruining the scenic view of some Arctic terns.. I want us to get the per gallon gas prices back down at least in the $2.00s while we figure out what the next generation of cars is going to run on. (And it is NOT bio fuel. Even though plants are a quasi-“renewable resource,” the earth cannot sustain enough plants for both food and the world’s rising fuel demand. Hyrdogen fuel cells make a lot more sense, or how about that new proto-type car that is primarily motored by air pressure?)
I also want to tell the Middle East and half of Africa to feed their own damn starving citizens and neighbors since they are raking in trillions from oil sales. I want everyone here at home to stop treating nuclear power like it’s the Devil and get real about the tremendous benefits - when it’s managed correctly. It’s powerful; efficient; reliable; and opens up high tech jobs in the community. We can deal with the waste intelligently, by extracting and refining the Uranium (a huge boon to any state’s economy).
(sigh)
I am aware that I want what apparently cannot be had, at least not this year. And I know I will vote for McCain, as the best of the undesirables. But I will not be happy about it. And I will hope for something better next time. And I will probably have an “I” rather than an "R" on my voter card by 2012, if for no other reason than to let the GOP know how disgusted with them I really am.
12 May 2008
Proverbs 1:7: "The Fear of the Lord"
Certain scriptures and phrases in the Bible have yet to be explained to me to my satisfaction. I therefore spend a fair amount of time reading, studying, cross-referencing, thinking, praying, and otherwise seeking plausible explanations. God says, "Seek, and ye shall find" and so I do, very glad to have His blessing. One such scripture is the first half of Proverbs 1:7, which says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." What was Solomon really saying there at the end of his Prologue? How does "fear of the Lord" line up in the same parade with the flag-bearers of an all-loving, all-forgiving God? Is Solomon talking about the fear of disappointing a loving father - as in a healthy and wholesome dread of displeasing him? Or is he talking about sheer and unadulterated let's-all-hide-under-the-bed Terror? Or something else, or something in between?
My VINES reference lists a few Greek words for "fear" but none of them cross-ref back to this verse in Proverbs, so let's quickly look at each. "Phobos" is equivalent to "flight" and has connotations of both "dread" and "fright." The word "deilia" comes from "deos" and literally means fearfulness, but it primarily denotes timidity and/or cowardice which (the notes say) is not given us of/by God (see 2 Timothy 1:7). And "eulabelia" means caution, reverence, or godly fear: "a mingling of fear and love which constitute the piety of men toward God."
This last Word seems something like what we'd expect from a Proverb. It refers to a reverential respect for God as a controlling motive in life and spiritual matters. Rather than causing terror and flight, it influences and inspires the seeking of the indwelling of the Spirit of God...causing carefulness of word and deed. (Is it not true that once we discover we are Sheep, we are wise to tread carefully and to fear straying too far from the Shepherd?)
My VINES reference lists a few Greek words for "fear" but none of them cross-ref back to this verse in Proverbs, so let's quickly look at each. "Phobos" is equivalent to "flight" and has connotations of both "dread" and "fright." The word "deilia" comes from "deos" and literally means fearfulness, but it primarily denotes timidity and/or cowardice which (the notes say) is not given us of/by God (see 2 Timothy 1:7). And "eulabelia" means caution, reverence, or godly fear: "a mingling of fear and love which constitute the piety of men toward God."
This last Word seems something like what we'd expect from a Proverb. It refers to a reverential respect for God as a controlling motive in life and spiritual matters. Rather than causing terror and flight, it influences and inspires the seeking of the indwelling of the Spirit of God...causing carefulness of word and deed. (Is it not true that once we discover we are Sheep, we are wise to tread carefully and to fear straying too far from the Shepherd?)
10 May 2008
Hi Ho the Derrio, A-Voting We Shall Go
Reuters reported that despite the devastation of the cyclone on May 2nd, Myanmar's military government still proceeded with elections for a military-drafted "constitution" legitimizing its rule. Voters in areas not affected by the cyclone were under government pressure to show up and vote "yes" while their dead fellow citizens floated in the rivers and deltas and the survivors waited in vain for aid. The government's propaganda blitz featured state-run TV adds warning of "foreign interference" and cheerful actresses singing "Let's go voting" and "Come along for voting" to a snappy disco beat.
Apparently voting in cyclone-devastated areas has been postponed for two weeks. I'm sure the despondent, starving family members of Myanmar's 100,000+ dead are deeply appreciative of the government-issued rain check.
Apparently voting in cyclone-devastated areas has been postponed for two weeks. I'm sure the despondent, starving family members of Myanmar's 100,000+ dead are deeply appreciative of the government-issued rain check.
09 May 2008
Newest Addition to Carbon Emissions Hit List: America's Homeless
Check out this new report from MIT. It's a study of the carbon emissions of Americans living a variety of lifestyles. Though Americans were found to emit a higher quantity of carbon per capita than the rest of the world, you might be interested to know that even our homeless people are emitting twice as much carbon dioxide as the average Citizen of Earth. Apparently an American living in homeless shelters and eating all his meals in soup kitchens is responsible for 8.5 tons of carbon emissions per year. Compare that with Steve Hayward's estimates in his WSJ piece that in order to reduce U.S. emissions by 80% by the year 2050, carbon emissions need to be reduced to only 2.5 tons per person.
Voters should note that the "80 by 50" target has been endorsed by both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. McCain is only slightly more reasonable, calling for a 65% reduction. My question: which of them is going to tell all the Homeless people how their irresponsible lifestyle is ruining the world?
Voters should note that the "80 by 50" target has been endorsed by both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. McCain is only slightly more reasonable, calling for a 65% reduction. My question: which of them is going to tell all the Homeless people how their irresponsible lifestyle is ruining the world?
Don't Start Building Those Igloos Just Yet
If worries about climate change are keeping you awake at night, don't miss this Investor's Business Daily piece that reminds us of some of the dire predictions made on (or soon after) the first Earth Day in 1969. We'd do well to remember that 1970s environmentalists were predicting the next Ice Age and were screaming for preventative government policy before millions of American families starved to death in their igloos...which they said would happen within the next 30 years. Yet here we all are, in 2008: snug as a bug in a rug. I ask you: Why are weird Al Gorivich and the environmental Doomsdayers of today any more correct than they were back then?
Here's what they said:
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."
C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."
In 1968, professor Paul Ehrlich, former Vice President Al Gore's hero and mentor, predicted that there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s . . . hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecast that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and that by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning that the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992.
Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50% of the world's resources and "by 2000 they (Americans) will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."
Harvard biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look magazine, that by 1995 "somewhere between 75% and 85% of all the species of living animals will be extinct."
And how about this one, from 1885:
In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association: There's a 1,000- to 2,500- year supply.
Here's what they said:
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."
C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."
In 1968, professor Paul Ehrlich, former Vice President Al Gore's hero and mentor, predicted that there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s . . . hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecast that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and that by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning that the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992.
Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50% of the world's resources and "by 2000 they (Americans) will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."
Harvard biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look magazine, that by 1995 "somewhere between 75% and 85% of all the species of living animals will be extinct."
And how about this one, from 1885:
In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association: There's a 1,000- to 2,500- year supply.
07 May 2008
The Right Stuff
In re: to the debate on what now ought to happen in the GOP, check out Victor Davis Hanson's Corner post on the conservative principles that ought to be embraced and communicated going into November - and in my opinion, Forevermore. Gingrich was saying much the same this morning in his Human Events op-ed.
The GOP needs to dig in and stop the slide towards the Center, which every Republican president since Reagan has contributed to in his own special way. As Hanson rightly says, we ought to frame and present conservative principles in a more articulate way rather than cater to the perceived advantages of straddling the fence. We need a smarter, more pragmatic energy policy; a curbing or elimination of taxes of all kinds; strict fiscal discipline; constitutionalist federal judges; secure and/or closed borders; a careful and principled approach to national security and military efforts around the globe; and a strong commitment to ethics and transparency in all governmental corners. We should also eliminate the Dept of Education and leave it to the states, who ought to offer/allow quality public and private education according the demands of its residents.
The GOP needs to dig in and stop the slide towards the Center, which every Republican president since Reagan has contributed to in his own special way. As Hanson rightly says, we ought to frame and present conservative principles in a more articulate way rather than cater to the perceived advantages of straddling the fence. We need a smarter, more pragmatic energy policy; a curbing or elimination of taxes of all kinds; strict fiscal discipline; constitutionalist federal judges; secure and/or closed borders; a careful and principled approach to national security and military efforts around the globe; and a strong commitment to ethics and transparency in all governmental corners. We should also eliminate the Dept of Education and leave it to the states, who ought to offer/allow quality public and private education according the demands of its residents.
Simple Deconstruction
Having taken a class on Literary Theory & Criticism @ UNLV, nearly three weeks of which was spent on the Decontructionists, I find the below post on a WSJ story by Mark Hemingway over on The Corner pretty funny. (It was heady stuff, to be sure, and we did have a number of students who were either so (a) lost or (b) hostile to the subject (and to the poor teaching assistant), that I believe they were politely invited to drop the class. A few of them did…)
I imagine our esteemed Dartmouth alum Peter Robinson will have some thoughts on this later, but this story from today's WSJ is most amusing:
Deconstruct This [Mark Hemingway]
I imagine our esteemed Dartmouth alum Peter Robinson will have some thoughts on this later, but this story from today's WSJ is most amusing:
Kids can be so cruel. I mean you work hard to explain something simple like how in Baudrillardist simulation, one is faced with a choice: either reject subdialectic patriarchialist theory or conclude that society, somewhat paradoxically, has objective value, but only if language is equal to culture; if that is not the case, Sartre’s model of Baudrillardist simulation is one of "neodialectic narrative", and therefore a legal fiction — and they just refuse to respect you as a teacher.Often it seems as though American higher education exists only to provide gag material for the outside world. The latest spectacle is an Ivy League professor threatening to sue her students because, she claims, their "anti-intellectualism" violated her civil rights. Priya Venkatesan taught English at Dartmouth College. She maintains that some of her students were so unreceptive of "French narrative theory" that it amounted to a hostile working environment. She is also readying lawsuits against her superiors, who she says papered over the harassment, as well as a confessional exposé, which she promises will "name names."
Patriot Post: Polar Bears or Political Pawns?
Interesting op-ed in the Patriot Post on the Left's use of endangered species to block various economic initiatives. Among other things, there is now a push to put the Polar Bear on the list of endangered species. Some proponents of opening ANWR to oil drilling say it is simply a political ploy designed to continue to block their efforts.
The Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Greenpeace are suing the USFWS (of Spotted Owl fame) for delaying action to declare polar bears "threatened" and provide them protection. A 2007 U.S. Geological Survey report speculates that 60 percent of polar bears might perish by 2050 - IF global warming continues to melt Arctic sea ice.
The Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Greenpeace are suing the USFWS (of Spotted Owl fame) for delaying action to declare polar bears "threatened" and provide them protection. A 2007 U.S. Geological Survey report speculates that 60 percent of polar bears might perish by 2050 - IF global warming continues to melt Arctic sea ice.
06 May 2008
Ex-terrorist Mesage to UCol Students: "Wake up and smell the hummus"
See this story re: two ex-terrorists who have caused controversy with their criticisms of Islam. The two recently told a University of Colorado crowd to "Wake up and smell the hummus." Walid Shoebat and Kamal Saleem, whose talk was titled "Why We Want to Kill You," spent 90 minutes detailing their terrorist experiences and explaining flaws in American terrorist policy.
05 May 2008
I Won't Say I Told You So
Well, the polls are finally catching up with what I've been saying for months (to anyone who asked and a few who didn't). Hillary is a stronger candidate and much greater threat to the GOP chances in November than Obama. As of Friday, Gallup had McCain up six points over Obama, but up only one over Clinton. And Rasmussen had the McCain v. Obama lead at five points with Hillary leading McCain by one.
For the Dem nomination, Gallup has the candidates tied and Rasmussen has Clinton up by three. However, the buzz on the Dem street is that black voters will blow a group gasket and go AWOL (or vote for McCain) if Hillary gets the nomination. I don't claim to understand what would cause a voter to switch to the other party's candidate (and ditch their chosen party platform) if Their Man doesn't win the nomination, even when polls show that man CAN'T win the Big Race. I suppose it's another example of Ideology trumping Reason. As Nicholas Wapschott (of the New York Sun) said in his recent op-ed “The Limits of Idealism:”
"Yet Mr. Obama has one thing in his favor: the predilection of ideologically driven supporters to fall in love with a losing candidate. The Democratic party’s virgin foot soldiers put more value on intention than achievement and prefer purity to pragmatism. They consider idealistic perfection more important than tainted electability. They are often natural oppositionists who prefer to complain from a position of self-righteous impotence than make the grubby compromises needed to win and to govern."
Some situations do call for a staunch commitment to Ideology over pragmatism, but these instances rarely arise in politics. Our primary process and two-party system is what it is; our electoral choice often boils down to which candidate we hope will mess up the least amount of stuff for the least amount of money; and petulance, pouting, and spurning the voting booth helps nothing and no one.
For the Dem nomination, Gallup has the candidates tied and Rasmussen has Clinton up by three. However, the buzz on the Dem street is that black voters will blow a group gasket and go AWOL (or vote for McCain) if Hillary gets the nomination. I don't claim to understand what would cause a voter to switch to the other party's candidate (and ditch their chosen party platform) if Their Man doesn't win the nomination, even when polls show that man CAN'T win the Big Race. I suppose it's another example of Ideology trumping Reason. As Nicholas Wapschott (of the New York Sun) said in his recent op-ed “The Limits of Idealism:”
"Yet Mr. Obama has one thing in his favor: the predilection of ideologically driven supporters to fall in love with a losing candidate. The Democratic party’s virgin foot soldiers put more value on intention than achievement and prefer purity to pragmatism. They consider idealistic perfection more important than tainted electability. They are often natural oppositionists who prefer to complain from a position of self-righteous impotence than make the grubby compromises needed to win and to govern."
Some situations do call for a staunch commitment to Ideology over pragmatism, but these instances rarely arise in politics. Our primary process and two-party system is what it is; our electoral choice often boils down to which candidate we hope will mess up the least amount of stuff for the least amount of money; and petulance, pouting, and spurning the voting booth helps nothing and no one.
04 May 2008
03 May 2008
When Accused in the U.S., File a Libel Suit...in England?
Kevin Williamson @ the Media Blog @ NRO had a good blog post yesterday re: "libel tourism," the practice of filing libel suits in jurisdictions that are more favorable to the complaintant. Williams cites recent instances in which a billionaire Saudi banker, Khalid bin Mahfouz, has filed libel suits in Great Britain against a number of books by U.S. authors. The books are controversial and are primarly about Islamo-fascism and/or the funding of Islamic terrorists; most of them link Mahfouz with terrorism either directly or indirectly.
Williamson's post also referenced a recent situation in New Hampshire and is encouraging the enactment of laws protecting writers from "meritless prosecutions by phony "human rights" commissions abroad."
Williamson's post also referenced a recent situation in New Hampshire and is encouraging the enactment of laws protecting writers from "meritless prosecutions by phony "human rights" commissions abroad."
Jonah Goldberg: Slap on Another Coat of Wrightwash
From Jonah Goldberg this week on NRO:
Oh and one last thing, I'm not someone who constantly carps about how we need yet one more conversation about race in this country. But the people who do say that sort of thing the most seem to be the same people who want the conversation about Jeremiah Wright and what he represents to go away. That is outrageously dishonest. Unless of course your real aim is to have the same old conversation about race again and again and again, in which the only villain is white America and the only victim is black America, and all of the old cliches get one more fresh coat of Wrightwash.
Oh and one last thing, I'm not someone who constantly carps about how we need yet one more conversation about race in this country. But the people who do say that sort of thing the most seem to be the same people who want the conversation about Jeremiah Wright and what he represents to go away. That is outrageously dishonest. Unless of course your real aim is to have the same old conversation about race again and again and again, in which the only villain is white America and the only victim is black America, and all of the old cliches get one more fresh coat of Wrightwash.
Rove on McCain: Medic and Hero
Karl Rove had an op-ed in the WSJ this week re: stories from John McCain's past that the senator has not revealed. Rove's advice to McCain? Open up. Here's an excerpt:
Mr. Day relayed to me one of the stories Americans should hear. It involves what happened to him after escaping from a North Vietnamese prison during the war. When he was recaptured, a Vietnamese captor broke his arm and said, "I told you I would make you a cripple." The break was designed to shatter Mr. Day's will. He had survived in prison on the hope that one day he would return to the United States and be able to fly again. To kill that hope, the Vietnamese left part of a bone sticking out of his arm, and put him in a misshapen cast. This was done so that the arm would heal at "a goofy angle," as Mr. Day explained. Had it done so, he never would have flown again. But it didn't heal that way because of John McCain. Risking severe punishment, Messrs. McCain and Day collected pieces of bamboo in the prison courtyard to use as a splint. Mr. McCain put Mr. Day on the floor of their cell and, using his foot, jerked the broken bone into place. Then, using strips from the bandage on his own wounded leg and the bamboo, McCain put Mr. Day's splint in place. Years later, Air Force surgeons examined Mr. Day and complemented the treatment he'd gotten from his captors. Mr. Day corrected them. It was Dr. McCain who deserved the credit. Mr. Day went on to fly again.
Mr. Day relayed to me one of the stories Americans should hear. It involves what happened to him after escaping from a North Vietnamese prison during the war. When he was recaptured, a Vietnamese captor broke his arm and said, "I told you I would make you a cripple." The break was designed to shatter Mr. Day's will. He had survived in prison on the hope that one day he would return to the United States and be able to fly again. To kill that hope, the Vietnamese left part of a bone sticking out of his arm, and put him in a misshapen cast. This was done so that the arm would heal at "a goofy angle," as Mr. Day explained. Had it done so, he never would have flown again. But it didn't heal that way because of John McCain. Risking severe punishment, Messrs. McCain and Day collected pieces of bamboo in the prison courtyard to use as a splint. Mr. McCain put Mr. Day on the floor of their cell and, using his foot, jerked the broken bone into place. Then, using strips from the bandage on his own wounded leg and the bamboo, McCain put Mr. Day's splint in place. Years later, Air Force surgeons examined Mr. Day and complemented the treatment he'd gotten from his captors. Mr. Day corrected them. It was Dr. McCain who deserved the credit. Mr. Day went on to fly again.
Kenneth Blackwell: Beyond Obama's Beauty
If you're still on the fence about Obama, you should read this editorial by Kenneth Blackwell in the New York Sun. In the e-mail forwards of this column, it was noted that Blackwell is a well-respected conservative - and that he is black.
Ken Blackwell is the Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment at the Family Research Council, and the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow for Public Policy at the Buckeye Institute in Columbus, Ohio. He is a visiting fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the American Civil Rights Union. He serves on the Board of Directors of the Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Union and Pastors Retreat Network. Mr. Blackwell is also the Chairman for the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, and a member of the National Rifle Association's Public Affairs Committee. He is a columnist for the New York Sun, a contributing editor and columnist for the conservative news and opinion site Townhall.com, and a public affairs commentator for the Salem Radio Network.
Ken Blackwell is the Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment at the Family Research Council, and the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow for Public Policy at the Buckeye Institute in Columbus, Ohio. He is a visiting fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the American Civil Rights Union. He serves on the Board of Directors of the Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Union and Pastors Retreat Network. Mr. Blackwell is also the Chairman for the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, and a member of the National Rifle Association's Public Affairs Committee. He is a columnist for the New York Sun, a contributing editor and columnist for the conservative news and opinion site Townhall.com, and a public affairs commentator for the Salem Radio Network.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
