Last week Rep. Michele Bachmann from Minnesota was on Hardball with Chris Matthews last week. She made allegations that Barack Obama held un-American views and pretty much went on and implicated a large swath of Congress. She called for a major media investigation into all of this. It really was amazing. It was really over the top. I mean, really over the top.
The result was that her opponent received over $1,000,000.00 in donations as a result of her apperance. The RNC pulled out all of their funding for her. It is looking like her political career has gone down the tubes.
Two things have been said in response by her. First off, she has backed away from her comments. She misspoke, she was misunderstood, etc.
The second thing, of course, was that she blamed Chris Matthews. Actually, in watching the interview, Matthews pretty much let her do the talking only asking points of clarification, often with, 'are you sure...?' She had never watched Hardball (right) and didn't know much about Chris Matthews (right) and he trapped her.
A couple of responses.
First, I suspect that she said what she really thought and really felt. Actually, she spoke with such passion and conviction it was painfully obvious that she said what she really thought and really felt.
Secondly, about Chris Matthews. I watch Chris Matthews a great deal. Matthews is actually usually very gracious and even self-depricating. He is willing to allow people, actually wants people to say what they really think about things. He is painfully fair to people from any perspective and despite is loudness and bluster, is a good interviewer. He does have one streak, however, that people like Michele Bachmann find painfuly. He does not suffer fools gladly. If you show up on Hardball and can answer questions with a sense of coherence and knowledge, he's great. If you are a fool, however, when he's done with you people will know that you are a fool. If you are not knowledgeable and show up on his show saying things that you don't know much about, the world will know of your ignorance.
Some time back a radio talk show host was comparing Barack Obama with Neville Chamberlain with appeasement. Matthews asked his guest what exactly Chamberlain had done in appease Hitler. He asked the question probably two dozen times and the guest only kept repeating that he 'appeased.' Matthews was looking to hear the name Czeckoslovokia.
He never heard it. It was obvious the man did not know what Chamberlain had actually done. He, of course, like Bachmann, blamed Matthews for trapping him. If we get trapped in our own ignorance it is not the person who exposes our ignorance to the world who is at fault, it is us.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The Isms Show Up
Recently, in New Albany, Indiana, a local merchant told a Chicago newspaper that while he was a lifelong Democrat, he would never vote for an African American for President. Race was the key issue at work. The blogs in out fair city have been afire with people decrying racism as well they should.
Rush Limbaugh, in his recent blast on Colin Powell, stated that the only reason Powell was backing Obama was because of race. Limbaugh’s usual logic was at play as Powell’s rationale, whether one agreed with it or not, was clearly laid out with statements as to why. The reality that Limbaugh missed was that Powell just made his decision; and six months ago Barack Obama was already an African American. Nothing new changed there. Unless Limbaugh believes that Powell recently had corrective eye surgery or something. But I do digress. Rush Limbaugh has made enough comments over the years to demonstrate that he is a pretty blatant racist and his bigotry is pretty easily traced. I would certainly hope that people who have not seen this would be interested in a bridge I’d like to sell them in Brooklyn...
Interestingly enough the current flap about Sarah Palin’s wardrobe is actually pretty sexist in tone.
Take note of things that have been discussed about Sarah Palin.
Her glasses are very fashionable and many women are seeking these glasses. Lots of people have taken note of how attractive she looks wearing them.
The lipstick she wears is one that has drawn buzz.
How Sarah Palin wears her hair, up, down, or a combination of both is a regular discussion. People have opinions on how she wears it.
Obviously her clothing is well coordinated.
It has, we have learned, cost the RNC $150,000.00 to keep her ‘beautified.’
At this juncture I have yet to hear anyone speak about the hair styles of Barack Obama, John McCain, or Joe Biden.
I have not heard anyone speak about the color of their suits, the kinds of shoes they wear, their ties, their pants, or their shirts.
Some recent research showed that on ABC television programs leading female characters have a budget of a bit over $4000.00 per episode for attire, hair, and make up. Palin’s expenses are up to almost 30 episodes----but think about how many times she is on television. Every night, over and over again. And how she looks is scrutinized.
Her appearance is a subject for discussion in so many circles which, frankly, demands that she looks really good. Did they go overboard? Perhaps. Did they seem to contradict her appeal as a hockey mom? Probably----though I strongly suspect if she was campaigning in a hockey jersey and jeans she’d be eviscerated for that too.
We do have a double standard on how men are presented to the world and how women are presented to the world. When that double standard is in play, and it is in play here, this is sexism.
She is being treated unfairly in this regard.
And please note. I am not a fan of her’s, will not vote for her, and am a male. So when I say that she’s being treated unfairly, I think I actually may have a tad of credibility...
Rush Limbaugh, in his recent blast on Colin Powell, stated that the only reason Powell was backing Obama was because of race. Limbaugh’s usual logic was at play as Powell’s rationale, whether one agreed with it or not, was clearly laid out with statements as to why. The reality that Limbaugh missed was that Powell just made his decision; and six months ago Barack Obama was already an African American. Nothing new changed there. Unless Limbaugh believes that Powell recently had corrective eye surgery or something. But I do digress. Rush Limbaugh has made enough comments over the years to demonstrate that he is a pretty blatant racist and his bigotry is pretty easily traced. I would certainly hope that people who have not seen this would be interested in a bridge I’d like to sell them in Brooklyn...
Interestingly enough the current flap about Sarah Palin’s wardrobe is actually pretty sexist in tone.
Take note of things that have been discussed about Sarah Palin.
Her glasses are very fashionable and many women are seeking these glasses. Lots of people have taken note of how attractive she looks wearing them.
The lipstick she wears is one that has drawn buzz.
How Sarah Palin wears her hair, up, down, or a combination of both is a regular discussion. People have opinions on how she wears it.
Obviously her clothing is well coordinated.
It has, we have learned, cost the RNC $150,000.00 to keep her ‘beautified.’
At this juncture I have yet to hear anyone speak about the hair styles of Barack Obama, John McCain, or Joe Biden.
I have not heard anyone speak about the color of their suits, the kinds of shoes they wear, their ties, their pants, or their shirts.
Some recent research showed that on ABC television programs leading female characters have a budget of a bit over $4000.00 per episode for attire, hair, and make up. Palin’s expenses are up to almost 30 episodes----but think about how many times she is on television. Every night, over and over again. And how she looks is scrutinized.
Her appearance is a subject for discussion in so many circles which, frankly, demands that she looks really good. Did they go overboard? Perhaps. Did they seem to contradict her appeal as a hockey mom? Probably----though I strongly suspect if she was campaigning in a hockey jersey and jeans she’d be eviscerated for that too.
We do have a double standard on how men are presented to the world and how women are presented to the world. When that double standard is in play, and it is in play here, this is sexism.
She is being treated unfairly in this regard.
And please note. I am not a fan of her’s, will not vote for her, and am a male. So when I say that she’s being treated unfairly, I think I actually may have a tad of credibility...
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Problem with Marginalization
I’m going to begin by stating that I am a hypocrite. I do enjoy Saturday Night Live and I’m amazed at Tina Fey’s imitation of Sarah Palin. She wins the award for the best mimic job on television right now.
There is an underlying current, however, that has a major lack of health and benefit. We have become a society of learning to marginalize people.
For better or worse, Sarah Palin has become very marginalized. When she stands up to speak we think of Tina Fey. We also think of how Tina Fey will portray her. I might not be a fan of Sarah Palin’s, but I do not believe she is lacking in intelligence. She is lacking in education on issues and that lack of education shows itself time and time again. She is partly at fault for accepting the nomination for a position she had no business taking; but she also can fault those who chose her. What has taken place now is quite simple. She has become fodder for Saturday Night Live and fewer and fewer people are taking her seriously. She has become marginalized.
Marginalization is one of the favorite mechanisms of Rush Limbaugh. If one listens to him he is less interested in a person’s positions or arguments, but finds himself more interested in finding ways to demean the person. His comments about Colin Powell and race being the only real reason Powell was supporting Obama. I like to think that most people who can count to 21 with their shoes on do not fall for such foolishness but I would probably be sadly disappointed. Limbaugh ignored the words of Powell and made it all about race so that Powell would be marginalized and not taken seriously. It is a bold gambit, I might add, because Powell is a person of great integrity, courage, and accomplishment. Limbaugh cannot argue with him on merit, so his attempt is to demean him.
It goes on.
We have John McCain being portrayed as a tottering old fool who is all over the lot and not to be taken seriously. This is marginalization in a blatant form.
We have Joe Biden marginalized who lives to put his foot in his mouth so as to make him appear incompetent and lacking in judgment. Again, this is marginalization at its best. Or worst.
So much of the campaign by many has been to marginalize Barack Obama as being Arab, Muslim, odd, friend of terrorists both foreign and domestic. If people can marginalize him enough, he becomes less serious.
This is done because it is an effective political tactic.
No one has been more marginalized than George W. Bush. One can argue that his judgments (or lack thereof) and his failures have helped him earn the role he has right now. That is not an unreasonable or foolish argument. He is leaving a mess behind that no President has ever inherited. Not even close.
But...
George W. Bush is also in an important office and the office of the President means something. Years ago Andy Rooney spoke to a man during the Watergate era and the man had a picture of President Nixon on the wall. Rooney asked the man about having a picture of Nixon on the wall and the man said that he didn’t have a picture of Nixon, but a picture of the President of the United States. The position is less about the person and more about the office.
So when the marginalized George W. Bush spoke before an anxious nation to speak about the economy, he calmed no fears. It really mattered very little as to who wrote the speech or what he said or even how brilliant or dumb his words were. He, he personally, has been so marginalized that hardly anyone takes him seriously.
The lesson in all of this is simple. When we marginalize our leaders, when we make them irrelevant, when we make them little more than laughing stocks, they have no ability to lead us when we have a crisis or reassure us that all will be well.
Being critical of bad leaders and bad decisions is not only a Constitutional right, but a Constitutional responsibility. All good governments require a loyal opposition; but when the opposition works to marginalize the people in power, we all suffer the consequences.
There is an underlying current, however, that has a major lack of health and benefit. We have become a society of learning to marginalize people.
For better or worse, Sarah Palin has become very marginalized. When she stands up to speak we think of Tina Fey. We also think of how Tina Fey will portray her. I might not be a fan of Sarah Palin’s, but I do not believe she is lacking in intelligence. She is lacking in education on issues and that lack of education shows itself time and time again. She is partly at fault for accepting the nomination for a position she had no business taking; but she also can fault those who chose her. What has taken place now is quite simple. She has become fodder for Saturday Night Live and fewer and fewer people are taking her seriously. She has become marginalized.
Marginalization is one of the favorite mechanisms of Rush Limbaugh. If one listens to him he is less interested in a person’s positions or arguments, but finds himself more interested in finding ways to demean the person. His comments about Colin Powell and race being the only real reason Powell was supporting Obama. I like to think that most people who can count to 21 with their shoes on do not fall for such foolishness but I would probably be sadly disappointed. Limbaugh ignored the words of Powell and made it all about race so that Powell would be marginalized and not taken seriously. It is a bold gambit, I might add, because Powell is a person of great integrity, courage, and accomplishment. Limbaugh cannot argue with him on merit, so his attempt is to demean him.
It goes on.
We have John McCain being portrayed as a tottering old fool who is all over the lot and not to be taken seriously. This is marginalization in a blatant form.
We have Joe Biden marginalized who lives to put his foot in his mouth so as to make him appear incompetent and lacking in judgment. Again, this is marginalization at its best. Or worst.
So much of the campaign by many has been to marginalize Barack Obama as being Arab, Muslim, odd, friend of terrorists both foreign and domestic. If people can marginalize him enough, he becomes less serious.
This is done because it is an effective political tactic.
No one has been more marginalized than George W. Bush. One can argue that his judgments (or lack thereof) and his failures have helped him earn the role he has right now. That is not an unreasonable or foolish argument. He is leaving a mess behind that no President has ever inherited. Not even close.
But...
George W. Bush is also in an important office and the office of the President means something. Years ago Andy Rooney spoke to a man during the Watergate era and the man had a picture of President Nixon on the wall. Rooney asked the man about having a picture of Nixon on the wall and the man said that he didn’t have a picture of Nixon, but a picture of the President of the United States. The position is less about the person and more about the office.
So when the marginalized George W. Bush spoke before an anxious nation to speak about the economy, he calmed no fears. It really mattered very little as to who wrote the speech or what he said or even how brilliant or dumb his words were. He, he personally, has been so marginalized that hardly anyone takes him seriously.
The lesson in all of this is simple. When we marginalize our leaders, when we make them irrelevant, when we make them little more than laughing stocks, they have no ability to lead us when we have a crisis or reassure us that all will be well.
Being critical of bad leaders and bad decisions is not only a Constitutional right, but a Constitutional responsibility. All good governments require a loyal opposition; but when the opposition works to marginalize the people in power, we all suffer the consequences.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
The weekend in the NFL
It was a weekend of upsets.
Last night last year’s 10-6 Giants played last year’s 10-6 Browns. The Giants had read too many of their press clippings and forgot that they were playing a team that had played just as well as they did last year. The Giants offense was bad with Eli throwing three picks, but their defense was putrid. They never once stopped the Browns. Not once. The Browns had two drives to run out clock at the end of both halves and one missed field goal. Other than that, they scored every time they had the ball; most often on long, time-consuming drives. To say that I was disgusted by my team’s performance last night is an understatement. But, they had to lose sometime!
The Cowboys did not look good on Sunday. Now Romo is out for a month. Romo has too much swagger and while is often a really solid NFL quarterback, has a tendency, when things get rough, to be somewhat dumb. The Cowboys have a problem with TO, however and it has impacted Romo. TO is NOT team player. He’s out for himself....always. I suspect every time he goes into the huddle he’s saying he’s open; throw it to me. Having both TO and Pacman Jones on the same team sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
The Bears lost to the Falcons and they have their coach to blame. I’m not a big believer that Lovie Smith has a clue and he consistently provides me proof. He by-passed going for a sure field goal when he needed to put points on the board. All he did was to fire up the Falcons. But he had a one point lead with 11 seconds left. This kind of game is difficult to blow. Most, if not all of that time, will be used on the kick return. Even if the return is for 30 or 40 yards, there will only be time for one play. But a squib kick takes less time off the clock. The clock did not begin until the receiver had the ball. He had a short return of 10 yards, but that brought him to the 40 and there was still time, alas, for two plays. So the Bears’ defense covers the CENTER of the field and allowed the sideline to be open. Matt Ryan’s pass was perfect and bam. Jason Elam will not miss two field goals in one game like that.
The Colts looked awesome on Sunday. Really awesome. The Ravens’ offense is not a big challenge, but their defense is and Peyton shredded them.
The Patriots do not look like a highly competitive team this year. Enough said.
The Bucs started Jeff Garcia and he had a good game. And they were surprised...why?
The NFC is listed as the best division in football. They certainly did not look that way this past Sunday!
Last night last year’s 10-6 Giants played last year’s 10-6 Browns. The Giants had read too many of their press clippings and forgot that they were playing a team that had played just as well as they did last year. The Giants offense was bad with Eli throwing three picks, but their defense was putrid. They never once stopped the Browns. Not once. The Browns had two drives to run out clock at the end of both halves and one missed field goal. Other than that, they scored every time they had the ball; most often on long, time-consuming drives. To say that I was disgusted by my team’s performance last night is an understatement. But, they had to lose sometime!
The Cowboys did not look good on Sunday. Now Romo is out for a month. Romo has too much swagger and while is often a really solid NFL quarterback, has a tendency, when things get rough, to be somewhat dumb. The Cowboys have a problem with TO, however and it has impacted Romo. TO is NOT team player. He’s out for himself....always. I suspect every time he goes into the huddle he’s saying he’s open; throw it to me. Having both TO and Pacman Jones on the same team sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
The Bears lost to the Falcons and they have their coach to blame. I’m not a big believer that Lovie Smith has a clue and he consistently provides me proof. He by-passed going for a sure field goal when he needed to put points on the board. All he did was to fire up the Falcons. But he had a one point lead with 11 seconds left. This kind of game is difficult to blow. Most, if not all of that time, will be used on the kick return. Even if the return is for 30 or 40 yards, there will only be time for one play. But a squib kick takes less time off the clock. The clock did not begin until the receiver had the ball. He had a short return of 10 yards, but that brought him to the 40 and there was still time, alas, for two plays. So the Bears’ defense covers the CENTER of the field and allowed the sideline to be open. Matt Ryan’s pass was perfect and bam. Jason Elam will not miss two field goals in one game like that.
The Colts looked awesome on Sunday. Really awesome. The Ravens’ offense is not a big challenge, but their defense is and Peyton shredded them.
The Patriots do not look like a highly competitive team this year. Enough said.
The Bucs started Jeff Garcia and he had a good game. And they were surprised...why?
The NFC is listed as the best division in football. They certainly did not look that way this past Sunday!
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
And People Say that Church is Boring
Before I read another posting about Barack Obama picking his nose and eating it in the 4th grade or John McCain passing gas in Kindergarten, I thought I'd post a funny video.
Monday, October 06, 2008
This is a Campaign????
Suddenly new names are swirling around the campaign to be President. Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weathermen, a radical group has emerged as someone Barack Obama has associated with. Sarah Palin observed from reading a New York Times article that they ‘palled’ around. She probably should have read the entire article as it observed that they barely knew each other and that Ayers’ activities took place when Obama was eight.
Charles Keating and John McCain’s involvement with the Keating Five is back in the news. This was an instance where John McCain reached across the aisle and found himself in hot water with four Democrats and their involvement with Charles Keating.
Sarah Palin has raised Jeremiah Wright. This will leave McCain open to having John Hagee raised; and Palin herself open to the YouTube video of her with a rather bizarre minister praying over her that she might not be overcome by witches or something or other.
Some will say that these issues are important. Sure. Pigs are going to fly next week as well. Some will remark about character; but character is never really defined by the people we have interacted with in life as much as how we conduct ourselves.
Sadly, this is a really bad turn in this campaign. A really bad turn. This is an angry left that will do whatever it needs to do to win; and an angry right that will do whatever it needs to do in order to win. And all will pretend that this is important.
It makes me wonder if these people who run campaigns are truly serious people and it makes me greatly question their patriotism.
Here are some basic issues.
The United States is at war in two countries. We have a large number of troops in Afghanistan who are undermanned and under-armed to do what they really need to be doing. We have a larger number of troops in Iraq who have sufficient numbers to do what they need to be doing; but a huge question hanging over them as to what happens when the American Army leaves? And, at some point, the American Army has to declare that it did its job and can now go home. The problem with victory in Iraq is that no one knows what it looks like.
But there are major trouble spots. Pakistan is a looming disaster. We have rogue nations such as North Korea, Syria, Iran, and yes, Saudi Arabia. We like to call Saudi Arabia our friends but if one observes where the 9/11 terrorists actually came from and where the funding actually came from, the answer is always the same.
We have major world security issues and our army is stretched out on two fronts and does not have the manpower to respond to another crisis in a meaningful way. This is a major issue.
The biggest issue, of course, is the economy. As more and more economists have stepped forward with what actually happened it seems to be this. Wall Street made some huge bets and lost. Big. Those big time losses have shaken the entire economy because those losses directly impacted banks which had loaned out vast sums of money and insurance companies that had insured vast sums of money----vast sums of money that, for the most part, was on paper and never really in existence. The debate has been raging for months and people were assured that we were not in a recession. Well, the elephant in the living room was that it might be worse than a recession and much of the fault lies at the feet of people who actually bet against this country’s companies.
We also have a major healthcare crisis. We do. We have great sick-care if people can afford it but we have dreadful preventive care and a system with little to no checks and balances. People can charge whatever they want and people can sue for whatever they want. Both parties are defending these contrary positions and helping to keep a crisis a crisis.
These are the issues I care about. Frankly, Charles Keating and Bill Ayers are ancient history. We have far bigger issues and far greater problems and I want to know who has the ideas on how to solve them.
And it might actually require answering the questions given as opposed to the ones we want to answer...
Charles Keating and John McCain’s involvement with the Keating Five is back in the news. This was an instance where John McCain reached across the aisle and found himself in hot water with four Democrats and their involvement with Charles Keating.
Sarah Palin has raised Jeremiah Wright. This will leave McCain open to having John Hagee raised; and Palin herself open to the YouTube video of her with a rather bizarre minister praying over her that she might not be overcome by witches or something or other.
Some will say that these issues are important. Sure. Pigs are going to fly next week as well. Some will remark about character; but character is never really defined by the people we have interacted with in life as much as how we conduct ourselves.
Sadly, this is a really bad turn in this campaign. A really bad turn. This is an angry left that will do whatever it needs to do to win; and an angry right that will do whatever it needs to do in order to win. And all will pretend that this is important.
It makes me wonder if these people who run campaigns are truly serious people and it makes me greatly question their patriotism.
Here are some basic issues.
The United States is at war in two countries. We have a large number of troops in Afghanistan who are undermanned and under-armed to do what they really need to be doing. We have a larger number of troops in Iraq who have sufficient numbers to do what they need to be doing; but a huge question hanging over them as to what happens when the American Army leaves? And, at some point, the American Army has to declare that it did its job and can now go home. The problem with victory in Iraq is that no one knows what it looks like.
But there are major trouble spots. Pakistan is a looming disaster. We have rogue nations such as North Korea, Syria, Iran, and yes, Saudi Arabia. We like to call Saudi Arabia our friends but if one observes where the 9/11 terrorists actually came from and where the funding actually came from, the answer is always the same.
We have major world security issues and our army is stretched out on two fronts and does not have the manpower to respond to another crisis in a meaningful way. This is a major issue.
The biggest issue, of course, is the economy. As more and more economists have stepped forward with what actually happened it seems to be this. Wall Street made some huge bets and lost. Big. Those big time losses have shaken the entire economy because those losses directly impacted banks which had loaned out vast sums of money and insurance companies that had insured vast sums of money----vast sums of money that, for the most part, was on paper and never really in existence. The debate has been raging for months and people were assured that we were not in a recession. Well, the elephant in the living room was that it might be worse than a recession and much of the fault lies at the feet of people who actually bet against this country’s companies.
We also have a major healthcare crisis. We do. We have great sick-care if people can afford it but we have dreadful preventive care and a system with little to no checks and balances. People can charge whatever they want and people can sue for whatever they want. Both parties are defending these contrary positions and helping to keep a crisis a crisis.
These are the issues I care about. Frankly, Charles Keating and Bill Ayers are ancient history. We have far bigger issues and far greater problems and I want to know who has the ideas on how to solve them.
And it might actually require answering the questions given as opposed to the ones we want to answer...
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Really Pro-Life or,....
St. Paul wrote, :”proclaim the message; be persistent whether the time is favorable or unfavorable; convince, rebuke, and encourage, with the utmost patience in teaching.”
I am often struck by the words, ‘whether the time is favorable or unfavorable.’ In another translation it says, ‘in season or out of season.’
In short, if your message comes at a time when people are open and eager to hear the message, proclaim it. But if there is a time when people are going to ignore you or even loathe you, proclaim it.
Paul’s words and listening to the way people speak about being ‘pro-life’ has brought me to reaching a boiling point. Society, the news media, politicians, and even the average person have consistently called people ‘pro-life’ even when they aren’t.
The whole concept of ‘pro-life’ has something of a tradition of being on the front burner when abortion was legalized and capital punishment was reinstated. Roe v. Wade dated back to 1973 and then in 1977 Gary Gilmore was executed, thus beginning the United States back on a trail of killing the worst criminals in society. An ethic, called the ‘whole life ethic,’ often called the ‘seamless garment’ argument was that for a person to be pro-life, that person had to be opposed to abortion, opposed to capital punishment, and opposed to euthanasia.
Lots of details went into this. People disagreed on the circumstances when an abortion could be moral. The Roman Catholic Church determined that a direct abortion was always immoral no matter what circumstances. Most others exempted this when the life or well-being of the mother was in danger and/or in instances of rape and incest.
Anti-capital punishment did not disallow police officers to use deadly force in lives were in danger, and was not considered to be pacifists. It considered killing prisoners to be immoral.
Euthanasia included directly causing a person’s death and physician assisted suicide. In the late 1970's in the case of Karen Quinlan, the Roman Catholic church and the state of New Jersey deemed it moral and legal to removed a person from life support when this life support was considered to be an extraordinary means. This was not euthanasia or assisted suicide, it was merely allowing nature to take its course and allow a natural death.
The label, “Pro-life” is not a political label (or meant to be) it is an ethical principle, an ethical way of approaching life issues. It sets the bar high.
I am consistently disturbed by many people who masquerade (strong word, but I believe to be accurate) as pro-life. Here is what they do:
First, they are anti-abortion.
Secondly, they are pro-capital punishment.
Thirdly, they are against abortion and physician suicide and often confuse natural death/extraordinary means with euthanasia. The Terri Schiavo was very representative of this. Lawrence B. Casey had written a landmark document concerning Karen Quinlan with the same principles being very much in play. Most of the people protesting in this instance had never read the document or had a clue who Lawrence B. Casey was or what he wrote.
Here is the problem.
It is often politically popular to be anti-abortion in certain segments of the population. Among a significant segment of our nation the topic of abortion is one that motivates how people vote and who they will vote for. (The reverse is also true.) As a result, phrases like ‘defending the innocent,’ or ‘defending those who have no voice,’ are used and they are very effective in attempting to make an argument opposing abortion.
It is, however, often politically unpopular to be anti-capital punishment. The people who are executed (presuming the trial was a good one and the verdict was accurate) are legitimately heinous people who have earned the right to die. The issue isn’t what they have earned, however, the issue is how society can, ethically, deal with them. It is far more difficult to defend the lives of the heinous than it is to defend the lives of the unborn. It is also politically unpopular.
In the issue of euthanasia we have less a conflict because euthanasia is not legal. When it happens it takes place very much under the radar and so we don’t grapple with it very much. The real tragedy of the Terri Schiavo case was that some zealots who distorted ethical teachings took advantage of very grief stricken parents. It was a horribly sad story from start to finish.
Politically there are very few pro-life candidates. Actually, I do not know of any. There are people who are anti-abortion, but they are not really pro-life. They might masquerade themselves as such, but they are not pro-life. The ethic behind this actually is a seamless ethic and needs to be.
Which brings me back to the words of St. Paul. These are, to me, wise and clever words. They are words reminding us to hold fast to that which is good, whether others like it or not. It does not matter what the political climate is or who is running, or what party a person is representing. One is either pro-life, or not.
As for me, I do make it my one person crusade to call people out on this one. I will not allow a person to masquerade as pro-life when they are simply opposed to abortion. I respect their opinion on abortion even embrace most of it with a strong belief that circumstances and life and well-being of mothers has to be taken into consideration. But, to be quite blunt, I have little respect for people who proclaim how pro-life they are when they either approve of or have little concern for the issue of capital punishment. For many, it’s a great political position to have, but has little to do with any ethical thought.
I once received a phone call from the National Right to Life Association asking for a donation. I asked them about their efforts to stop capital punishment. I received a song and dance story on how that wasn’t really their fight and blah, blah, blah.
I then said, “You know, I take this pro-life stuff seriously. I’ll tell you what. When you get serious about really being pro-life, call me back.”
My phone has not yet rung from them getting back to me...
I am often struck by the words, ‘whether the time is favorable or unfavorable.’ In another translation it says, ‘in season or out of season.’
In short, if your message comes at a time when people are open and eager to hear the message, proclaim it. But if there is a time when people are going to ignore you or even loathe you, proclaim it.
Paul’s words and listening to the way people speak about being ‘pro-life’ has brought me to reaching a boiling point. Society, the news media, politicians, and even the average person have consistently called people ‘pro-life’ even when they aren’t.
The whole concept of ‘pro-life’ has something of a tradition of being on the front burner when abortion was legalized and capital punishment was reinstated. Roe v. Wade dated back to 1973 and then in 1977 Gary Gilmore was executed, thus beginning the United States back on a trail of killing the worst criminals in society. An ethic, called the ‘whole life ethic,’ often called the ‘seamless garment’ argument was that for a person to be pro-life, that person had to be opposed to abortion, opposed to capital punishment, and opposed to euthanasia.
Lots of details went into this. People disagreed on the circumstances when an abortion could be moral. The Roman Catholic Church determined that a direct abortion was always immoral no matter what circumstances. Most others exempted this when the life or well-being of the mother was in danger and/or in instances of rape and incest.
Anti-capital punishment did not disallow police officers to use deadly force in lives were in danger, and was not considered to be pacifists. It considered killing prisoners to be immoral.
Euthanasia included directly causing a person’s death and physician assisted suicide. In the late 1970's in the case of Karen Quinlan, the Roman Catholic church and the state of New Jersey deemed it moral and legal to removed a person from life support when this life support was considered to be an extraordinary means. This was not euthanasia or assisted suicide, it was merely allowing nature to take its course and allow a natural death.
The label, “Pro-life” is not a political label (or meant to be) it is an ethical principle, an ethical way of approaching life issues. It sets the bar high.
I am consistently disturbed by many people who masquerade (strong word, but I believe to be accurate) as pro-life. Here is what they do:
First, they are anti-abortion.
Secondly, they are pro-capital punishment.
Thirdly, they are against abortion and physician suicide and often confuse natural death/extraordinary means with euthanasia. The Terri Schiavo was very representative of this. Lawrence B. Casey had written a landmark document concerning Karen Quinlan with the same principles being very much in play. Most of the people protesting in this instance had never read the document or had a clue who Lawrence B. Casey was or what he wrote.
Here is the problem.
It is often politically popular to be anti-abortion in certain segments of the population. Among a significant segment of our nation the topic of abortion is one that motivates how people vote and who they will vote for. (The reverse is also true.) As a result, phrases like ‘defending the innocent,’ or ‘defending those who have no voice,’ are used and they are very effective in attempting to make an argument opposing abortion.
It is, however, often politically unpopular to be anti-capital punishment. The people who are executed (presuming the trial was a good one and the verdict was accurate) are legitimately heinous people who have earned the right to die. The issue isn’t what they have earned, however, the issue is how society can, ethically, deal with them. It is far more difficult to defend the lives of the heinous than it is to defend the lives of the unborn. It is also politically unpopular.
In the issue of euthanasia we have less a conflict because euthanasia is not legal. When it happens it takes place very much under the radar and so we don’t grapple with it very much. The real tragedy of the Terri Schiavo case was that some zealots who distorted ethical teachings took advantage of very grief stricken parents. It was a horribly sad story from start to finish.
Politically there are very few pro-life candidates. Actually, I do not know of any. There are people who are anti-abortion, but they are not really pro-life. They might masquerade themselves as such, but they are not pro-life. The ethic behind this actually is a seamless ethic and needs to be.
Which brings me back to the words of St. Paul. These are, to me, wise and clever words. They are words reminding us to hold fast to that which is good, whether others like it or not. It does not matter what the political climate is or who is running, or what party a person is representing. One is either pro-life, or not.
As for me, I do make it my one person crusade to call people out on this one. I will not allow a person to masquerade as pro-life when they are simply opposed to abortion. I respect their opinion on abortion even embrace most of it with a strong belief that circumstances and life and well-being of mothers has to be taken into consideration. But, to be quite blunt, I have little respect for people who proclaim how pro-life they are when they either approve of or have little concern for the issue of capital punishment. For many, it’s a great political position to have, but has little to do with any ethical thought.
I once received a phone call from the National Right to Life Association asking for a donation. I asked them about their efforts to stop capital punishment. I received a song and dance story on how that wasn’t really their fight and blah, blah, blah.
I then said, “You know, I take this pro-life stuff seriously. I’ll tell you what. When you get serious about really being pro-life, call me back.”
My phone has not yet rung from them getting back to me...
Monday, September 29, 2008
A Defeated Bill
The House voted down the bailout package. The Democrats are blaming the Republicans even though almost 100 Democrats voted against it; the Republicans are blaming the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi who, I guess hurt their feelings beforehand. Bizarre, one would think that thick skin was a requirement in the House.
The stock market dropped almost 800 points for the day. Whatever one’s opinion on whether this package was good or bad, the stock market certainly didn’t like it.
There are certain things that we have learned.
Neither Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner has the pull that they need to get votes. They have both blamed each other for the defeat but if they were truly honest, they are both to blame. They have both helped create and maintain a partisan hostility within the House and it does not go away because a leader says so. Neither person was able to get the votes to pass the bill.
President Bush has lost the respect of people in both parties. Big time. The largest number of ‘no’ votes came from his own party despite him almost begging them to go along with him. He long ago lost the trust of the Democrats, but now he no longer has any respect from his own Party. Dick Cheney got booed off the platform the other day from his own party. This is an Administration that has completely and utterly lost the respect of others.
Neither Senators McCain or Obama were able to muster the votes. They may be the de facto leaders of the two parties, but neither of them could pull this one off. Obama didn’t push as hard as McCain and McCain’s party did not follow his lead. They will both blame each other, of course. The reality is that neither of them had the mojo to pull this one off.
Locally both Baron Hill and John Yarmuth voted against the bill. They, like most everyone in closely contested races, chose to vote ‘no’ to this incredibly unpopular vote. It’s hard to say if this was an act of courage or cowardice in their parts. Whatever is the case, in virtually every district where there is a close race looming, the person voted ‘no.’
Having said all of this, here is what we know for sure.
No one knows for sure if this bill will solve the problem. It is a $700,000,000,000.00 gamble. We really don’t know the answer to this.
We also don’t know for sure what will happen if no bill is passed. There are all sorts of ‘gloom and doom’ statements, but no one is really sure what will transpire long term.
We know for sure what we don’t know much for sure.
It seems to me that this mess is a mess that people from both parties helped create and the only resolution is for people of both parties to solve it.
They might need to grow up, however, in order to do so. And that might be a tall order!
The stock market dropped almost 800 points for the day. Whatever one’s opinion on whether this package was good or bad, the stock market certainly didn’t like it.
There are certain things that we have learned.
Neither Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner has the pull that they need to get votes. They have both blamed each other for the defeat but if they were truly honest, they are both to blame. They have both helped create and maintain a partisan hostility within the House and it does not go away because a leader says so. Neither person was able to get the votes to pass the bill.
President Bush has lost the respect of people in both parties. Big time. The largest number of ‘no’ votes came from his own party despite him almost begging them to go along with him. He long ago lost the trust of the Democrats, but now he no longer has any respect from his own Party. Dick Cheney got booed off the platform the other day from his own party. This is an Administration that has completely and utterly lost the respect of others.
Neither Senators McCain or Obama were able to muster the votes. They may be the de facto leaders of the two parties, but neither of them could pull this one off. Obama didn’t push as hard as McCain and McCain’s party did not follow his lead. They will both blame each other, of course. The reality is that neither of them had the mojo to pull this one off.
Locally both Baron Hill and John Yarmuth voted against the bill. They, like most everyone in closely contested races, chose to vote ‘no’ to this incredibly unpopular vote. It’s hard to say if this was an act of courage or cowardice in their parts. Whatever is the case, in virtually every district where there is a close race looming, the person voted ‘no.’
Having said all of this, here is what we know for sure.
No one knows for sure if this bill will solve the problem. It is a $700,000,000,000.00 gamble. We really don’t know the answer to this.
We also don’t know for sure what will happen if no bill is passed. There are all sorts of ‘gloom and doom’ statements, but no one is really sure what will transpire long term.
We know for sure what we don’t know much for sure.
It seems to me that this mess is a mess that people from both parties helped create and the only resolution is for people of both parties to solve it.
They might need to grow up, however, in order to do so. And that might be a tall order!
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Sports Observations
In New York this is the last year for the venerable Yankee Stadium and the easily disposable Shea Stadium. Hard to say that as a life-long Mets' fan but their stadium has long ago ceased being a great place.
Speaking of the Mets. They are in their annual September swoon. It looks like they have blown their way out of the post-season. The thing is, I suspect that they might actually have the best team in the National League EXCEPT, and this is a huge EXCEPT, they have the bullpen of the 1962 Mets. No lead is safe for this bullpen. They have blown more leads then almost anyone else. And some of the leads were substantial. Even if they make the postseason, they won't advance very far; their bullpen is that bad.
I think that someone needs to whisper a name into Lovie Smith's ear. Brian Billick. Brian Billick coached the Ravens who had one of the finest defenses of all time and this was a team that could have and should have been in several Super Bowls. Brian Billick stubbornly held the notion that one of the stiffs he had in the quarterback position would do the job. They didn't. Billick is no longer on the sidelines. Lovie Smith is, from all accounts, a great guy and loved by his team. He cannot even be considered to be a good coach if he doesn't make a concerted effort, a huge effort, to fix this gaping hole in his team.
The Colts are complaining that it was a bad call against them last week that cost them the game. It might have been a marginal call; but it did have the aroma of at least defensive holding which would have given the Jags a first down. The thing with the Colts is this. They gave up in the neighborhood of 250 yards rushing. Two runners gained over 100 yards on them and the Jags burned a ton of time. That is where they really lost the game.
Funny thing about Brett Favre. Had he been patient and not pushed to come back when he did, he would have received a phone call from Boston inviting him to play for the Patriots... Instead he's with the Jets. Eric Mangini is not, in my mind, the sharpest knife in the drawer. Favre, crafty veteran, has played in a totally different system than the Jets have. Instead of adjusting his system to aid his quarterback, he's hoping that an old veteran can change. In the history of the NFL, great coaches adapt to their personnel. Eric Mangini is sans a clue...
Does one get the impression that Joe Torre has found the circumstances of this season to be quite entertaining?
My World Series prediction: The Red Sox and the Phillies. The Red Sox win it in 5. The Cubs? The ghost of Fred Merkle will wander in their midst and will wander in the stands, and prevent the Cubs from winning.
As an aside, I would recommend that Steve Bartman not attend any games.
And, lastly, Matt Millen was fired by the Lions. I mean, DUH!!!
Speaking of the Mets. They are in their annual September swoon. It looks like they have blown their way out of the post-season. The thing is, I suspect that they might actually have the best team in the National League EXCEPT, and this is a huge EXCEPT, they have the bullpen of the 1962 Mets. No lead is safe for this bullpen. They have blown more leads then almost anyone else. And some of the leads were substantial. Even if they make the postseason, they won't advance very far; their bullpen is that bad.
I think that someone needs to whisper a name into Lovie Smith's ear. Brian Billick. Brian Billick coached the Ravens who had one of the finest defenses of all time and this was a team that could have and should have been in several Super Bowls. Brian Billick stubbornly held the notion that one of the stiffs he had in the quarterback position would do the job. They didn't. Billick is no longer on the sidelines. Lovie Smith is, from all accounts, a great guy and loved by his team. He cannot even be considered to be a good coach if he doesn't make a concerted effort, a huge effort, to fix this gaping hole in his team.
The Colts are complaining that it was a bad call against them last week that cost them the game. It might have been a marginal call; but it did have the aroma of at least defensive holding which would have given the Jags a first down. The thing with the Colts is this. They gave up in the neighborhood of 250 yards rushing. Two runners gained over 100 yards on them and the Jags burned a ton of time. That is where they really lost the game.
Funny thing about Brett Favre. Had he been patient and not pushed to come back when he did, he would have received a phone call from Boston inviting him to play for the Patriots... Instead he's with the Jets. Eric Mangini is not, in my mind, the sharpest knife in the drawer. Favre, crafty veteran, has played in a totally different system than the Jets have. Instead of adjusting his system to aid his quarterback, he's hoping that an old veteran can change. In the history of the NFL, great coaches adapt to their personnel. Eric Mangini is sans a clue...
Does one get the impression that Joe Torre has found the circumstances of this season to be quite entertaining?
My World Series prediction: The Red Sox and the Phillies. The Red Sox win it in 5. The Cubs? The ghost of Fred Merkle will wander in their midst and will wander in the stands, and prevent the Cubs from winning.
As an aside, I would recommend that Steve Bartman not attend any games.
And, lastly, Matt Millen was fired by the Lions. I mean, DUH!!!
Monday, September 22, 2008
A Bitter Pill
The Federal Government is setting up a $700,000,000,000.00 bailout of the economy. Those are a lot of zeroes all in one place at the same time.
As I write this on Monday the Stock Market is down almost 400 points. Lots of questions abound about this bailout. Most of the experts think that it’s absolutely necessary and yet, no one knows if it going to work or not. We have watched some financial giants collapse and others are in danger.
Economically we have some major issues. Unemployment is up, though not catastrophically. Prices are up.
The price of oil is a disaster. This not only impacts our daily commute or our riding about town or our vacation trips. This impacts food deliveries and prices. This will greatly impact people this winter when they pay for gas, oil, or additional electricity to heat their homes. People who get sick because of living in colder than usual environments will strain the medical system.
There is also no place to invest money. Stocks are haywire at best. Bonds are doing nothing. The interest rates for investments are almost non-existent. The economy, for the average person, is not very good.
Is the bailout a good idea? I don’t know. I’m not sure anyone is addressing the fundamentals of what put is in the situation we are in.
First, there was the predatory selling of variable-rate mortgages. Sadly, many of the people who fell for this scheme were not educated as to what they were getting into. I strongly suspect that people were told that the interest rates would not spike. It was a lie. They did spike and many people were in trouble. As real estate plummeted people’s debts were higher than the value of their homes. As so many of these mortgages had been sold, and insured, when people defaulted on the mortgages, major money was lost.
Secondly, was the rampant short-selling of stocks. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are two banks that have been healthy, have solid assets, and were not in trouble based on anything that they did wrong. Last week, however, their stocks dropped like rocks and the banks, almost overnight, lost half of their value. This took place because ‘investors’ were short-selling their stock, betting that these banks were over-valued, and betting that they could drive the price of the stock down. There is a temporary ban on short-selling, but in the coming weeks, when the ban is lifted, I can’t imagine these ‘investors’ will be back at it.
As a digression, what does it say about people that they invest in hopes of a company’s collapse? It is mind-boggling.
In the midst of this is a Presidential campaign where two candidates are promising major tax cuts for most of us and happy days arriving.
For those who like to argue ideology, for those who love government, our government failed us.
For those who like to speak about the free market, the free market failed us.
I do not know what the solution to all of this is going to be. I do know that the pill we need to swallow shall be a bitter one.
As I write this on Monday the Stock Market is down almost 400 points. Lots of questions abound about this bailout. Most of the experts think that it’s absolutely necessary and yet, no one knows if it going to work or not. We have watched some financial giants collapse and others are in danger.
Economically we have some major issues. Unemployment is up, though not catastrophically. Prices are up.
The price of oil is a disaster. This not only impacts our daily commute or our riding about town or our vacation trips. This impacts food deliveries and prices. This will greatly impact people this winter when they pay for gas, oil, or additional electricity to heat their homes. People who get sick because of living in colder than usual environments will strain the medical system.
There is also no place to invest money. Stocks are haywire at best. Bonds are doing nothing. The interest rates for investments are almost non-existent. The economy, for the average person, is not very good.
Is the bailout a good idea? I don’t know. I’m not sure anyone is addressing the fundamentals of what put is in the situation we are in.
First, there was the predatory selling of variable-rate mortgages. Sadly, many of the people who fell for this scheme were not educated as to what they were getting into. I strongly suspect that people were told that the interest rates would not spike. It was a lie. They did spike and many people were in trouble. As real estate plummeted people’s debts were higher than the value of their homes. As so many of these mortgages had been sold, and insured, when people defaulted on the mortgages, major money was lost.
Secondly, was the rampant short-selling of stocks. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are two banks that have been healthy, have solid assets, and were not in trouble based on anything that they did wrong. Last week, however, their stocks dropped like rocks and the banks, almost overnight, lost half of their value. This took place because ‘investors’ were short-selling their stock, betting that these banks were over-valued, and betting that they could drive the price of the stock down. There is a temporary ban on short-selling, but in the coming weeks, when the ban is lifted, I can’t imagine these ‘investors’ will be back at it.
As a digression, what does it say about people that they invest in hopes of a company’s collapse? It is mind-boggling.
In the midst of this is a Presidential campaign where two candidates are promising major tax cuts for most of us and happy days arriving.
For those who like to argue ideology, for those who love government, our government failed us.
For those who like to speak about the free market, the free market failed us.
I do not know what the solution to all of this is going to be. I do know that the pill we need to swallow shall be a bitter one.
Week Three in the NFL
I do have to begin where my heart begins. It almost stopped several times in the Giants/Bengals game. I was sweating this one out. The Bengals have looked bad the first two weeks of the season but I was also aware that the amount of talent they have on the Offensive side of the ball made them a serious threat. They were able to put it together very effectively against the Giants on Sunday.
The Giants have historically had a difficult time with the Bengals. Different players, different years, different teams, and the Giants have always had a tough time with the Bengals. Who’d have thought? In any case, they did. The Giants did get several sacks on Palmer, but it was from the front 4. Their blitzing was picked up by the Bengals very effectively and Palmer’s quick, short, passing worked well.
The difference of the game was Eli Manning. I may look foolish at some point, but Eli has risen into being one of the elite quarterbacks in the game. He was only the second to lead his team to victory in the final minutes of a Super Bowl. In the playoff game against Dallas, Eli led the Giants to a touchdown before half-time. The Giants got the ball with 45 seconds left. When the game was on the line yesterday, Eli rose up to the occasion and won the game. Good genes in that family.
The Colts. Sigh. Peyton was amazing, as usual. Their defense, however, did a poor job. The Jags ran, ran, and ran on them and chewed up the clock. When the game was on the line the defense folded. Ugh!
The Patriots and the Dolphins. We all knew it was coming. We all knew, at some point, the Patriots would have a meltdown game. They have been so good, so amazing, and losing Brady was devastating. They also have an older defense and injuries on the offense forced the defense to play more. They got smoked and faked out. Chad Pennington does not have a great arm, but when he’s healthy, he’s an effective quarterback. I don’t really think that the Dolphins are as good as they played yesterday and the Patriots aren’t as bad as they played.
One of the hidden treasures in the NFL this year was given up for done. Kerry Collins is now starting for the Titans and has played really well. Several teams do not have much competence at the quarterback position and Collins had been out there all along. Amazing.
The Raiders will probably fire Kiffin today. Good for Kiffin. Who would ever want to coach for Al Davis? The thing is, when the Bills were driving, Kiffin had two timeouts that he never used. The Bills drove down the field and kicked the winning field goal. What was he thinking? Scott Norwood is not longer the Bills kicker...
The Bears would be a really fine team if they had a quarterback. I think that Lovie Smith is greatly over-rated as a coach. He’s a sharp defensive guy and he gets players to play for him, no doubt, but he seems clueless as to running an offense and even more clueless as to the need for an effective quarterback. The Bears have not had someone capable in that position in a while and Smith has done nada about it. Ask Brian Billick how this works, long term?
It’s funny how Jeremy Shockey hasn’t been all-world for the Saints and is a disruption in the locker room. Hmm.
The Cowboys and the Eagles seemed to lack defense a week ago. Yesterday their defensive units went crazy. Especially the Eagles. They turned Big Ben into Uncle Ben and converted his rice!
Best division in football? The NFC East. After three weeks, the combined record of the NFC East is 10-2. The two losses were by the Eagles to the Cowboys and by the Redskins to the Giants, thus making both losses to division rivals.
The Giants have historically had a difficult time with the Bengals. Different players, different years, different teams, and the Giants have always had a tough time with the Bengals. Who’d have thought? In any case, they did. The Giants did get several sacks on Palmer, but it was from the front 4. Their blitzing was picked up by the Bengals very effectively and Palmer’s quick, short, passing worked well.
The difference of the game was Eli Manning. I may look foolish at some point, but Eli has risen into being one of the elite quarterbacks in the game. He was only the second to lead his team to victory in the final minutes of a Super Bowl. In the playoff game against Dallas, Eli led the Giants to a touchdown before half-time. The Giants got the ball with 45 seconds left. When the game was on the line yesterday, Eli rose up to the occasion and won the game. Good genes in that family.
The Colts. Sigh. Peyton was amazing, as usual. Their defense, however, did a poor job. The Jags ran, ran, and ran on them and chewed up the clock. When the game was on the line the defense folded. Ugh!
The Patriots and the Dolphins. We all knew it was coming. We all knew, at some point, the Patriots would have a meltdown game. They have been so good, so amazing, and losing Brady was devastating. They also have an older defense and injuries on the offense forced the defense to play more. They got smoked and faked out. Chad Pennington does not have a great arm, but when he’s healthy, he’s an effective quarterback. I don’t really think that the Dolphins are as good as they played yesterday and the Patriots aren’t as bad as they played.
One of the hidden treasures in the NFL this year was given up for done. Kerry Collins is now starting for the Titans and has played really well. Several teams do not have much competence at the quarterback position and Collins had been out there all along. Amazing.
The Raiders will probably fire Kiffin today. Good for Kiffin. Who would ever want to coach for Al Davis? The thing is, when the Bills were driving, Kiffin had two timeouts that he never used. The Bills drove down the field and kicked the winning field goal. What was he thinking? Scott Norwood is not longer the Bills kicker...
The Bears would be a really fine team if they had a quarterback. I think that Lovie Smith is greatly over-rated as a coach. He’s a sharp defensive guy and he gets players to play for him, no doubt, but he seems clueless as to running an offense and even more clueless as to the need for an effective quarterback. The Bears have not had someone capable in that position in a while and Smith has done nada about it. Ask Brian Billick how this works, long term?
It’s funny how Jeremy Shockey hasn’t been all-world for the Saints and is a disruption in the locker room. Hmm.
The Cowboys and the Eagles seemed to lack defense a week ago. Yesterday their defensive units went crazy. Especially the Eagles. They turned Big Ben into Uncle Ben and converted his rice!
Best division in football? The NFC East. After three weeks, the combined record of the NFC East is 10-2. The two losses were by the Eagles to the Cowboys and by the Redskins to the Giants, thus making both losses to division rivals.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Random Musings
I do find people to be amusing.
Carly Fiorina decreed that Sarah Palin couldn't run Hewlett-Packard. Of course, realizing that she had dug a hole she tried to climb out. So she said that John McCain couldn't run HP either. Realizing that she was closing in on her knee, she decreed that Joe Biden or Barack Obama couldn't run HP either. I guess that she thinks HP is a more complex place than the United States. In fairness to all those she has dismissed, lots of people at HP felt that she couldn't run HP either.
Word has it that Fiorina will not be making more television appearances for John McCain...
Barack Obama is releasing a two minute commercial. Critics say that we need more sound bytes than substance. Whew! Two minutes, I guess, is too short a period of time to really make a complex point, but we need sound bytes?
Sadly, the critics are probably right.
Ironies abound. People screamed for deregulation as regulation of financial institutions was Socialist. Too much government control. Well, greed and lack of regulation has caused some major collapses and the companies are being taken over by, ahem, the government. In a blind effort to not be socialistic, we've actually become more so.
Sarah Palin is blocking any attempts to investigate Troopergate. She really needs to read "All the President's Men." It's usually not the deed, it's the cover-up. Let the thing work its way through. Even if she fired the guy because he wouldn't fire her brother in law she'd probably have survived that-----now the story just plays on and on and on and if she did a misdeed, the cover up will make it far, far worse.
The Vatican decreed that Darwin's theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible, but decided not to rescind the condemnation they issued 150 years ago.
OJ Simpson is on trial for kidnapping and armed robbery and these are the less serious crimes he has ever been on trial for. I'm glad I'm not on the jury. My inclination would have been to vote 'guilty' even before the trial started. OJ in jail sounds about right.
The Mets are in the Septembe swoon. It's hard to be an optimist with the Mets.
Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys was in two different luxury boxes, on the sidelines, and in the stands during the game the other night. My guess is that he's an equal opportunity annoyer...
I wonder if Jerry Jones could run HP?
Carly Fiorina decreed that Sarah Palin couldn't run Hewlett-Packard. Of course, realizing that she had dug a hole she tried to climb out. So she said that John McCain couldn't run HP either. Realizing that she was closing in on her knee, she decreed that Joe Biden or Barack Obama couldn't run HP either. I guess that she thinks HP is a more complex place than the United States. In fairness to all those she has dismissed, lots of people at HP felt that she couldn't run HP either.
Word has it that Fiorina will not be making more television appearances for John McCain...
Barack Obama is releasing a two minute commercial. Critics say that we need more sound bytes than substance. Whew! Two minutes, I guess, is too short a period of time to really make a complex point, but we need sound bytes?
Sadly, the critics are probably right.
Ironies abound. People screamed for deregulation as regulation of financial institutions was Socialist. Too much government control. Well, greed and lack of regulation has caused some major collapses and the companies are being taken over by, ahem, the government. In a blind effort to not be socialistic, we've actually become more so.
Sarah Palin is blocking any attempts to investigate Troopergate. She really needs to read "All the President's Men." It's usually not the deed, it's the cover-up. Let the thing work its way through. Even if she fired the guy because he wouldn't fire her brother in law she'd probably have survived that-----now the story just plays on and on and on and if she did a misdeed, the cover up will make it far, far worse.
The Vatican decreed that Darwin's theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible, but decided not to rescind the condemnation they issued 150 years ago.
OJ Simpson is on trial for kidnapping and armed robbery and these are the less serious crimes he has ever been on trial for. I'm glad I'm not on the jury. My inclination would have been to vote 'guilty' even before the trial started. OJ in jail sounds about right.
The Mets are in the Septembe swoon. It's hard to be an optimist with the Mets.
Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys was in two different luxury boxes, on the sidelines, and in the stands during the game the other night. My guess is that he's an equal opportunity annoyer...
I wonder if Jerry Jones could run HP?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Of Tanning Beds and Substance...
The first thing I saw on the news this morning is that Sarah Palin has a tanning bed.
I am officially in the "I don't care" category on Sarah Palin's tanning bed. Actually, I do not care about her relationship with her husband or her children. I do not lay awake at night worrying that her daughter is pregnant. There are many things about her policies, etc., and her prevailing philosophy on things that I am interested in. I do not care that she has a tanning bed.
This weekend Lehman Brothers collapsed. Merrill Lynch was bought out by Bank of America. AIG is seeking major loans; loans exceeding its corporate worth. The Stock Market plunged over 500 points yesterday.
Lots of people believe that this is not going to impact them. Many people do not own stock or mutual funds. However, many pension plans and annuities that we are relying on or will rely on when we retire are getting hammered by this.
Phil Gramm (of you're a bunch of whiners fame) was the principle author of a bill deregulating the banking industry and allowing them to make almost unlimited investing. It has worked as well as Napolean's strategy at Waterloo or Custer's strategy as Little Big Horn. The fact that many people see him as the architect of John McCain's economic plans is downright chilling.
John McCain, to his great discredit, stated yesterday that the economy was fundamentally strong stands as one of the most monumental statements of the campaign.
Fundamentally strong on the day of a collapse of one of the country's leading investment banks. Another one is sold. Another one is in major trouble. The stock market plunged 500 points. The job market is bad. The housing market is bad----people are losing value on their homes. Interest rates for investments are low. There is no place for people to put their money. Fundamentally strong? My sense is that when you have help to toast your bread and butter your toast and pour your coffee, you might have a bit of a disconnect with the average person. I think that John McCain, at his core, is a good person, but he is woefully out of touch with the average person.
I am not sure Barack Obama is either. He, at least, is pointing to the elephant in the living room. He is not touting that the economy is fundamentally strong----he sees a problem. I'm not sure, however, that he has any sort of idea on how to get the elephant out of the living room.
The economy is something that impacts all of us. A great deal of rhetoric has been thrown out there talking about the American worker and that small business has been the foundation of the American economy.
The thing is, this isn't what built the American economy. It was built by manufacturing. When the United States entered World War II, Herman Goering said he wasn't worried because the United States was too busy worrying about manufacturing cars and razor blades. To his great chagrin, those automobile factories built tanks and planes in quantities Hitler's Germany could never match.
In many places, part of the dilemma that is facing people is that the manufacturing jobs are gone. Automobile assembly lines are shutting down. In Louisville, General Electric's Appliance Park is being sold or shut down. My Dad worked for GE years ago for product service in New Jersey. In his GE branch in New Jersey, people spoke of how great Louisville was and how they would love to see where the refrigerators, stoves, and washing machines were being built. That branch, a proud group of people, is gone.
We are in a time of major transition and I suspect we will never again be the manufacturing superstar that we once was the American dream. The transition, however, is painful. In the meantime our greatest financial institutions are collapsing, the stock market is plunging, and there is no place for people to invest their money.
There is a huge issue hanging right out there.
And this morning, the first story on the news was that Sarah Palin has a tanning bed...
I am officially in the "I don't care" category on Sarah Palin's tanning bed. Actually, I do not care about her relationship with her husband or her children. I do not lay awake at night worrying that her daughter is pregnant. There are many things about her policies, etc., and her prevailing philosophy on things that I am interested in. I do not care that she has a tanning bed.
This weekend Lehman Brothers collapsed. Merrill Lynch was bought out by Bank of America. AIG is seeking major loans; loans exceeding its corporate worth. The Stock Market plunged over 500 points yesterday.
Lots of people believe that this is not going to impact them. Many people do not own stock or mutual funds. However, many pension plans and annuities that we are relying on or will rely on when we retire are getting hammered by this.
Phil Gramm (of you're a bunch of whiners fame) was the principle author of a bill deregulating the banking industry and allowing them to make almost unlimited investing. It has worked as well as Napolean's strategy at Waterloo or Custer's strategy as Little Big Horn. The fact that many people see him as the architect of John McCain's economic plans is downright chilling.
John McCain, to his great discredit, stated yesterday that the economy was fundamentally strong stands as one of the most monumental statements of the campaign.
Fundamentally strong on the day of a collapse of one of the country's leading investment banks. Another one is sold. Another one is in major trouble. The stock market plunged 500 points. The job market is bad. The housing market is bad----people are losing value on their homes. Interest rates for investments are low. There is no place for people to put their money. Fundamentally strong? My sense is that when you have help to toast your bread and butter your toast and pour your coffee, you might have a bit of a disconnect with the average person. I think that John McCain, at his core, is a good person, but he is woefully out of touch with the average person.
I am not sure Barack Obama is either. He, at least, is pointing to the elephant in the living room. He is not touting that the economy is fundamentally strong----he sees a problem. I'm not sure, however, that he has any sort of idea on how to get the elephant out of the living room.
The economy is something that impacts all of us. A great deal of rhetoric has been thrown out there talking about the American worker and that small business has been the foundation of the American economy.
The thing is, this isn't what built the American economy. It was built by manufacturing. When the United States entered World War II, Herman Goering said he wasn't worried because the United States was too busy worrying about manufacturing cars and razor blades. To his great chagrin, those automobile factories built tanks and planes in quantities Hitler's Germany could never match.
In many places, part of the dilemma that is facing people is that the manufacturing jobs are gone. Automobile assembly lines are shutting down. In Louisville, General Electric's Appliance Park is being sold or shut down. My Dad worked for GE years ago for product service in New Jersey. In his GE branch in New Jersey, people spoke of how great Louisville was and how they would love to see where the refrigerators, stoves, and washing machines were being built. That branch, a proud group of people, is gone.
We are in a time of major transition and I suspect we will never again be the manufacturing superstar that we once was the American dream. The transition, however, is painful. In the meantime our greatest financial institutions are collapsing, the stock market is plunging, and there is no place for people to invest their money.
There is a huge issue hanging right out there.
And this morning, the first story on the news was that Sarah Palin has a tanning bed...
Monday, September 15, 2008
Early Season NFL Notes
I have thought this for a long time but I believe that Peyton Manning is the greatest quarterback of this generation----maybe all time. As good as Tom Brady is, part of Tom Brady’s success has been a great supporting cast. Manning proves that he can beat anyone at anytime with almost any supporting cast. The Colts linemen were wearing name tags yesterday because they were all so new. If you let Manning stay in the game, he’ll find a way. The great ones always do.
I should note that this appears to be a family trait. During last year’s post season Eli was very Peytonesque. People all recall the Super Bowl but in the playoff game against Dallas, the Cowboys scored at the end of the first half. They were going into halftime with a 14-7 lead and were pumped. The Giants got the ball with 45 seconds left and Eli led them down for a touchdown. Then, of course, in the Super Bowl, with a little over two minutes to play, he led a legendary drive.
These Mannings are really, really good.
Speaking of supporting casts. Aaron Rodgers looks excellent leading the Packers. He has played really well. He is very fortunate to have a really good supporting cast around him. Between his ability and the team, the Packers look really, really good. Brett Favre, I suspect, realized that the Jets do not give him a great supporting cast. He’s still really good and can still probably beat almost anyone----but he doesn’t have the horses to do it consistently.
The Vikings need a quarterback. Actually, the Bears do to. Orten isn’t making a lot of mistakes, but he won’t be making big plays, either.
Kurt Warner looked really good.
I watched the end of the Chargers/Broncos game. It looked like neither defense could stop a renegade Girl Scout troop. The Chargers, however, were robbed by a bad call at the end of the game. When officials defeat a team, as in this case, it is exactly what football shouldn’t be.
Vince Young has learned a lesson about being a quarterback in the NFL. You have to be able to throw. Young was an awesome player in college and his scrambling killed opposing teams. In his rookie year he did the same thing. But NFL defenses adjust and last year he wasn’t getting away and had to rely on this arm more than his legs. This year, disaster. The young man is a great talent, but he needs to learn how to drop back and throw.
Two games were on yesterday afternoon. The Colts and the Vikings. It looked like a laugher and that the Vikings were going to win easily. Alas...
I also watched the Bears and the Panthers. Again, a laugher. Then the Panthers got it going. Alas...
What is with the Seahawks. Several people were calling them the class of the NFC and some predicted them to be in the Super Bowl. They have not looked good, thus far. Of course, last year’s Super Bowl winner lost its first two games and looked putrid...
The Saints are learning why the Giants weren’t that upset to lose Shockey. He can make some really good plays, but he can make some killer, dumb mistakes along the way as well.
I should note that this appears to be a family trait. During last year’s post season Eli was very Peytonesque. People all recall the Super Bowl but in the playoff game against Dallas, the Cowboys scored at the end of the first half. They were going into halftime with a 14-7 lead and were pumped. The Giants got the ball with 45 seconds left and Eli led them down for a touchdown. Then, of course, in the Super Bowl, with a little over two minutes to play, he led a legendary drive.
These Mannings are really, really good.
Speaking of supporting casts. Aaron Rodgers looks excellent leading the Packers. He has played really well. He is very fortunate to have a really good supporting cast around him. Between his ability and the team, the Packers look really, really good. Brett Favre, I suspect, realized that the Jets do not give him a great supporting cast. He’s still really good and can still probably beat almost anyone----but he doesn’t have the horses to do it consistently.
The Vikings need a quarterback. Actually, the Bears do to. Orten isn’t making a lot of mistakes, but he won’t be making big plays, either.
Kurt Warner looked really good.
I watched the end of the Chargers/Broncos game. It looked like neither defense could stop a renegade Girl Scout troop. The Chargers, however, were robbed by a bad call at the end of the game. When officials defeat a team, as in this case, it is exactly what football shouldn’t be.
Vince Young has learned a lesson about being a quarterback in the NFL. You have to be able to throw. Young was an awesome player in college and his scrambling killed opposing teams. In his rookie year he did the same thing. But NFL defenses adjust and last year he wasn’t getting away and had to rely on this arm more than his legs. This year, disaster. The young man is a great talent, but he needs to learn how to drop back and throw.
Two games were on yesterday afternoon. The Colts and the Vikings. It looked like a laugher and that the Vikings were going to win easily. Alas...
I also watched the Bears and the Panthers. Again, a laugher. Then the Panthers got it going. Alas...
What is with the Seahawks. Several people were calling them the class of the NFC and some predicted them to be in the Super Bowl. They have not looked good, thus far. Of course, last year’s Super Bowl winner lost its first two games and looked putrid...
The Saints are learning why the Giants weren’t that upset to lose Shockey. He can make some really good plays, but he can make some killer, dumb mistakes along the way as well.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Lessons from 9/11
It has been seven years since that very sad and difficult day. Over the years I have thought about it a great deal and I do think that there are some lessons we need to learn.
The first lesson is a lesson of culture. We were attacked by a culture that we did not have any understanding of. When Timothy McVeigh did the Oklahoma City bombing, he lit a fuse and ran away. While do we not understand his act of violence and cold-bloodedness, we do comprehend how he did it. There were hints of violence using an airplane flying into a building. Those hints did not register. Most of his would never even imagine such a thing happening, let alone doing such a thing. The problem is that we didn’t quite understand the culture. I don’t know if we do now, but we will never have any success in fighting terrorism until we begin to understand the culture from whence terrorists come.
During World War II there was a similar difficulty in fighting the war with Japan. We did understand much of the German culture, but the Japanese culture was a complete mystery to us. We suffered greatly for it. Conversely, the Japanese did not understand American culture and attacked Pearl Harbor with little awareness of what the consequences would be for them. The failure to understand other cultures is dangerous.
The second lesson is our shameful partisanship. There was ample intelligence handed over to the Bush Administration from the Clinton Administration about Osama Bin Laden. It was ignored. To be quite fair, if it had been handed over to the Clinton Administration from the first Bush Administration, it would have been ignored. The levels of division are so deep between our two political parties that there has grown to be an intense dislike and lack of trust. Talk Radio, Talk TV, agenda specific media of all sorts has helped cultivate this division. It has grown and continues to grow. Shame on us. It was part of the problem and remains part of the problem. This war on terror is an American issue, not a Democrat or Republican issue.
The upcoming Presidential Campaign is becoming increasingly partisan and increasingly stupid. The fighting, right now, is mostly over nonsense. This is a horribly dangerous thing for us as a nation at the moment. We cannot allow this to continue or we will continue to struggle and be vulnerable to attack and it will be our own fault.
The third lesson is a failure of imagination. NASA officials, when Apollo I blew up said that they had a weakness. It was a failure of imagination. They hadn’t thought through and imagined all the potential problems. Years later, the 0 Rings was a similar instance. We live in a very concrete, cut and dry society. We long for easy answers to complex questions and often view the world in black and white.
The party is over. We no longer have this luxury. The world around us is smaller and deadlier than it has ever been. Our greatest threats no longer come from nations, but they come from rogue groups. If we fail to have imagination, we will continue to be woefully vulnerable to attack. Sadly, what happened seven years ago may be small in comparison.
The fourth lesson is the danger of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a strict and literal maintenance of religious ideas and can also be applied to political beliefs. While they held opposite views and were both atheists, both Ayn Rand and Karl Marx were fundamentalists. There was little gray in their worlds. Everything was absolutely clear.
In religion it’s very much the same. Fundamentalism often rejects science and history to hold on to whatever it wants to hold on to. Christian fundamentalism has little resemblance to historic Christianity. Islamic fundamentalism has little resemblance to historic Islam. Etc. As we live in a world in which fundamentalism of all sorts of being embraced, we live in an increasingly dangerous world. Ayn Rand and Karl Marx could never, ever, come to a consensus on anything because they were both right about everything. This is a lethal danger to the world.
That day, seven years ago was a tragic day. Perhaps even more tragically has been our national failure to have learned from the events of that day.
The first lesson is a lesson of culture. We were attacked by a culture that we did not have any understanding of. When Timothy McVeigh did the Oklahoma City bombing, he lit a fuse and ran away. While do we not understand his act of violence and cold-bloodedness, we do comprehend how he did it. There were hints of violence using an airplane flying into a building. Those hints did not register. Most of his would never even imagine such a thing happening, let alone doing such a thing. The problem is that we didn’t quite understand the culture. I don’t know if we do now, but we will never have any success in fighting terrorism until we begin to understand the culture from whence terrorists come.
During World War II there was a similar difficulty in fighting the war with Japan. We did understand much of the German culture, but the Japanese culture was a complete mystery to us. We suffered greatly for it. Conversely, the Japanese did not understand American culture and attacked Pearl Harbor with little awareness of what the consequences would be for them. The failure to understand other cultures is dangerous.
The second lesson is our shameful partisanship. There was ample intelligence handed over to the Bush Administration from the Clinton Administration about Osama Bin Laden. It was ignored. To be quite fair, if it had been handed over to the Clinton Administration from the first Bush Administration, it would have been ignored. The levels of division are so deep between our two political parties that there has grown to be an intense dislike and lack of trust. Talk Radio, Talk TV, agenda specific media of all sorts has helped cultivate this division. It has grown and continues to grow. Shame on us. It was part of the problem and remains part of the problem. This war on terror is an American issue, not a Democrat or Republican issue.
The upcoming Presidential Campaign is becoming increasingly partisan and increasingly stupid. The fighting, right now, is mostly over nonsense. This is a horribly dangerous thing for us as a nation at the moment. We cannot allow this to continue or we will continue to struggle and be vulnerable to attack and it will be our own fault.
The third lesson is a failure of imagination. NASA officials, when Apollo I blew up said that they had a weakness. It was a failure of imagination. They hadn’t thought through and imagined all the potential problems. Years later, the 0 Rings was a similar instance. We live in a very concrete, cut and dry society. We long for easy answers to complex questions and often view the world in black and white.
The party is over. We no longer have this luxury. The world around us is smaller and deadlier than it has ever been. Our greatest threats no longer come from nations, but they come from rogue groups. If we fail to have imagination, we will continue to be woefully vulnerable to attack. Sadly, what happened seven years ago may be small in comparison.
The fourth lesson is the danger of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a strict and literal maintenance of religious ideas and can also be applied to political beliefs. While they held opposite views and were both atheists, both Ayn Rand and Karl Marx were fundamentalists. There was little gray in their worlds. Everything was absolutely clear.
In religion it’s very much the same. Fundamentalism often rejects science and history to hold on to whatever it wants to hold on to. Christian fundamentalism has little resemblance to historic Christianity. Islamic fundamentalism has little resemblance to historic Islam. Etc. As we live in a world in which fundamentalism of all sorts of being embraced, we live in an increasingly dangerous world. Ayn Rand and Karl Marx could never, ever, come to a consensus on anything because they were both right about everything. This is a lethal danger to the world.
That day, seven years ago was a tragic day. Perhaps even more tragically has been our national failure to have learned from the events of that day.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Monday, September 08, 2008
Ah, NFL, Week I
NFL football is back. And none too soon.
There are two games tonight. I may have to add to this, but I don’t think tonight is going to be a ‘game changer.’
First off, the Giants won. Their offense came out looking great, but the more lead they built the more conservative they became. The Redskins have a great defense and I think that the Giants were overly cautious.
On defense it is difficult to tell how good the Giants are and how bad, offensively, the Redskins are. The Giants defense pretty much stopped them cold----helped by miserable play calling and game management by the Redskins’ staff.
A win, however, is a win.
The Bengals are a bad football team. They are highly undisciplined, bad defense, and not a very good offense. It makes me wonder if Marvin Lewis, who is a great defensive coordinator, has a clue on being the Head Coach.
The AFC East is a different world with no Tom Brady at the helm for the Patriots. I do believe that they need to sign someone better than what they have. They barely beat the Chiefs and the Chiefs are not, at least as of now, a powerhouse. This leaves it open to the Bills who had a fantastic game on Sunday and the Jets who suddenly look like geniuses in signing Brett Favre. (We will see how smart the Packers were...)
Pittsburgh was, wow. Awesome.
The Cowboys played a great game against the Browns. Hard to tell if the Browns’ defense is that bad or the Cowboy’s offense is that good.
The Bears played a great game against the Colts. Manning was rusty. They also lacked blocking and their defense made Kyle Orton look All-Pro. The Bears embarrassed the Colts in the Colts first game in their new home. What an ugly game. Ugh.
Two other big surprises. Atlanta looked really good against a Lions’ team that people said was going to challenge for a playoff shot this year. It didn’t look that way. And the Panthers defeated the Chargers. Wow.
Great week of football!!!
There are two games tonight. I may have to add to this, but I don’t think tonight is going to be a ‘game changer.’
First off, the Giants won. Their offense came out looking great, but the more lead they built the more conservative they became. The Redskins have a great defense and I think that the Giants were overly cautious.
On defense it is difficult to tell how good the Giants are and how bad, offensively, the Redskins are. The Giants defense pretty much stopped them cold----helped by miserable play calling and game management by the Redskins’ staff.
A win, however, is a win.
The Bengals are a bad football team. They are highly undisciplined, bad defense, and not a very good offense. It makes me wonder if Marvin Lewis, who is a great defensive coordinator, has a clue on being the Head Coach.
The AFC East is a different world with no Tom Brady at the helm for the Patriots. I do believe that they need to sign someone better than what they have. They barely beat the Chiefs and the Chiefs are not, at least as of now, a powerhouse. This leaves it open to the Bills who had a fantastic game on Sunday and the Jets who suddenly look like geniuses in signing Brett Favre. (We will see how smart the Packers were...)
Pittsburgh was, wow. Awesome.
The Cowboys played a great game against the Browns. Hard to tell if the Browns’ defense is that bad or the Cowboy’s offense is that good.
The Bears played a great game against the Colts. Manning was rusty. They also lacked blocking and their defense made Kyle Orton look All-Pro. The Bears embarrassed the Colts in the Colts first game in their new home. What an ugly game. Ugh.
Two other big surprises. Atlanta looked really good against a Lions’ team that people said was going to challenge for a playoff shot this year. It didn’t look that way. And the Panthers defeated the Chargers. Wow.
Great week of football!!!
Monday, September 01, 2008
Is Religious Faith Reasonable? Part I
Is religious faith reasonable? By reasonable I’m not saying that it’s low priced or even just acceptable. I’m using the word in an older definition of this. Can religious faith and reason dance together?
I think that this is a valid question because, increasingly, people are questioning whether there are any valid, rational reasons to have faith in God. Sadly, this is often a response to the increasing irrationality of much of modern day Christianity. This irrationality comes from a lot of places and each place is unique unto itself. My humble plan is to look at each group’s contribution to this.
I’m going to start with the church of my roots, the Roman Catholic Church.
A year ago or so the Pope summoned Bishops to Rome to have a ‘serious’ discussion on Holy Communion within the Roman Catholic Church. As Holy Communion, the Eucharist, is pretty central to Roman Catholic theology, this was a major event. For many people it was a sign of hope that perhaps the Roman Catholic Church was going to finally address some serious issues within their theological realm. And there were/are some serious issues.
The Eucharist is central to Roman Catholicism. The centrality of the Mass, the coming together of the people, and the literal re-enacting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is central to Roman Catholicism. Increasingly more churches are having to do without Sunday Morning Mass because there is a critical shortage of priests. Furthermore, this is an aging profession. In 1999, the last year they did a study, the average age of Roman Catholic priests in the United States was 60. No one doubts that it is higher; probably much higher than that. Priests are spread too thinly now and this promises to only get worse.
As a result, many churches share a priest with other churches----and these are often large congregations----and there simply are not enough of these men to cover all that needs to be done.
There is a two-fold problem in attracting priests. The rule of celibacy and the ordination of women. The problem, at least from a seemingly rational perspective, is that they have an easily solved problem if they ended the discipline of celibacy and ordained women.
The discipline of celibacy is just that. A discipline. Celibacy is not a central doctrine of Christianity.
Celibacy dates back to the early part of the second millennium of church history, which is to say that the first 10 centuries this was not a central issue, although it was debated. The debate was two-fold. The first was sexual and the second was structural. They did not understand human sexuality, saw it as debasing behavior, and somehow unholy. Additionally, the rules of property ownership and the Church was in play and inheritance of one’s children became an issue. The response was to have a discipline of celibacy.
Celibacy is NOT a doctrine----it is a discipline, something one does to increase one’s holiness. Praying each day or reading the Bible each day, or not eating meat on Friday, or fasting, are all disciplines. A discipline, by design, ought to be one’s choice. The Roman Catholic Church, made this a mandated discipline.
The problem is that by maintaining celibacy the Roman Catholic Church has demonstrated that a discipline trumps a doctrine.
The meeting in Rome, many hoped, would address this.
The ordination of women should also have been on the table. Churches that do not want to ordain women use St. Paul to ‘validate’ their opinion. Paul’s words come from a particular context and the argument that women shouldn’t be ordained is as thin as rice paper. This is more a case of using Scripture to back an opinion rather than to discover the truth underlying it.
Within Roman Catholicism, there is a belief that the priest is the ‘persona Christi’ the literal ‘person of Christ’ at the time of consecration. The presumption, I guess, is that it requires a penis in order to transcend one’s self. Who’d have thunk it?
Actually, I have a difficult time even debating the ordination of women. The arguments in opposition are usually too shallow to even remotely approaching a reasonable discussion.
Again, they had this meeting in Rome.
There were other issues as well.
With the rising divorce rate many Roman Catholics had chosen to remarry and either couldn’t attain or couldn’t afford an annulment. When they remarried, they cut themselves off from the table. Many simply left the Roman Catholic Church, many joined Protestant churches, and many just gave up on religion (and God) all together.
Again, they had this meeting in Rome.
And....
The meeting in Rome discussed the serious issues of:
How to teach people to hold their hands property when receiving Holy Communion.
The increasing problem of people sitting while other people in the church were receiving Holy Communion.
Along with this, assorted quirks of individual priests during the Mass.
Is religious faith reasonable or ludicrous. Unfortunately, by these examples, there is a great argument for the latter.
I think that this is a valid question because, increasingly, people are questioning whether there are any valid, rational reasons to have faith in God. Sadly, this is often a response to the increasing irrationality of much of modern day Christianity. This irrationality comes from a lot of places and each place is unique unto itself. My humble plan is to look at each group’s contribution to this.
I’m going to start with the church of my roots, the Roman Catholic Church.
A year ago or so the Pope summoned Bishops to Rome to have a ‘serious’ discussion on Holy Communion within the Roman Catholic Church. As Holy Communion, the Eucharist, is pretty central to Roman Catholic theology, this was a major event. For many people it was a sign of hope that perhaps the Roman Catholic Church was going to finally address some serious issues within their theological realm. And there were/are some serious issues.
The Eucharist is central to Roman Catholicism. The centrality of the Mass, the coming together of the people, and the literal re-enacting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is central to Roman Catholicism. Increasingly more churches are having to do without Sunday Morning Mass because there is a critical shortage of priests. Furthermore, this is an aging profession. In 1999, the last year they did a study, the average age of Roman Catholic priests in the United States was 60. No one doubts that it is higher; probably much higher than that. Priests are spread too thinly now and this promises to only get worse.
As a result, many churches share a priest with other churches----and these are often large congregations----and there simply are not enough of these men to cover all that needs to be done.
There is a two-fold problem in attracting priests. The rule of celibacy and the ordination of women. The problem, at least from a seemingly rational perspective, is that they have an easily solved problem if they ended the discipline of celibacy and ordained women.
The discipline of celibacy is just that. A discipline. Celibacy is not a central doctrine of Christianity.
Celibacy dates back to the early part of the second millennium of church history, which is to say that the first 10 centuries this was not a central issue, although it was debated. The debate was two-fold. The first was sexual and the second was structural. They did not understand human sexuality, saw it as debasing behavior, and somehow unholy. Additionally, the rules of property ownership and the Church was in play and inheritance of one’s children became an issue. The response was to have a discipline of celibacy.
Celibacy is NOT a doctrine----it is a discipline, something one does to increase one’s holiness. Praying each day or reading the Bible each day, or not eating meat on Friday, or fasting, are all disciplines. A discipline, by design, ought to be one’s choice. The Roman Catholic Church, made this a mandated discipline.
The problem is that by maintaining celibacy the Roman Catholic Church has demonstrated that a discipline trumps a doctrine.
The meeting in Rome, many hoped, would address this.
The ordination of women should also have been on the table. Churches that do not want to ordain women use St. Paul to ‘validate’ their opinion. Paul’s words come from a particular context and the argument that women shouldn’t be ordained is as thin as rice paper. This is more a case of using Scripture to back an opinion rather than to discover the truth underlying it.
Within Roman Catholicism, there is a belief that the priest is the ‘persona Christi’ the literal ‘person of Christ’ at the time of consecration. The presumption, I guess, is that it requires a penis in order to transcend one’s self. Who’d have thunk it?
Actually, I have a difficult time even debating the ordination of women. The arguments in opposition are usually too shallow to even remotely approaching a reasonable discussion.
Again, they had this meeting in Rome.
There were other issues as well.
With the rising divorce rate many Roman Catholics had chosen to remarry and either couldn’t attain or couldn’t afford an annulment. When they remarried, they cut themselves off from the table. Many simply left the Roman Catholic Church, many joined Protestant churches, and many just gave up on religion (and God) all together.
Again, they had this meeting in Rome.
And....
The meeting in Rome discussed the serious issues of:
How to teach people to hold their hands property when receiving Holy Communion.
The increasing problem of people sitting while other people in the church were receiving Holy Communion.
Along with this, assorted quirks of individual priests during the Mass.
Is religious faith reasonable or ludicrous. Unfortunately, by these examples, there is a great argument for the latter.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Interesting Article
This is an interesting article:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=mccains_sexist_vp_pick
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=mccains_sexist_vp_pick
Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin is an interesting, audacious choice, by John McCain. I strongly suspect that before yesterday, most people did not know who Governor Sarah Palin was.
Why her?
John McCain recognized that he is running against an historic opponent. Running against history is a difficult proposition, to be sure. Ask those who ran against Hillary and Obama. McCain, by choosing Sarah Palin, made his ticket historic. No matter who wins, this will be a first. He now brings this to the table.
This also gives John McCain a crack at the PUMA voters. Many of those who voted for Hillary Clinton, who loved Hillary Clinton, who voted for HER, will NOT vote for Obama. McCain is trying to make his candidacy more attractive and his hope is that they will vote for him instead of staying home or choosing a third party candidate.
Bigger than this, and seemingly lost on the press, is that Sarah Palin puts cultural conservatism back on the table. This is a very clear attempt to place someone on the ballot who can motive the Religious Right to come out and vote for him. Frankly, they have had great success running against gay marriage and abortion, and she helps them with this. McCain had no real issue to run on before Sarah Palin’s choice. The Bush legacy, something that the Obama campaign is going to tie to him, is not something that McCain wants to run on.
Governor Palin, for her part, seems to be an intelligent, very capable woman. Her speech in Dayton was fine. She showed great poise and was younger, more energetic voice than McCain.
She does bring down sides to this, however.
First, Sarah Palin is not Hillary Clinton and many women are going to be enraged by this as being perceived as being shallow and stupid. I have heard many women express disgust at this because they are seen as supporting Hillary because of gender as opposed to agenda. Her gender and her agenda made her an incredibly attractive candidate. Palin only brings gender to the table. Her agenda and Hillary’s agenda are pretty much mirror opposites.
Secondly, she is from Alaska and is very reflective of that state. She grew up there and is very acculturated to Alaskan culture which is not exactly the same as the mainland. Her husband is a commercial fishermen, they are both avid hunters, and her favorite meat is moose meat. They are part of a very unique culture filled with great people and great charm. It is also a different world and she might experience some major culture shock. The photograph of her in her office, dead bear and king crab is very much her, and very unique to that region. Alaska has a smaller population than the Louisville Metro area. It will be interesting to see how she plays in the rest of the country. She will be a novel candidate----but is novelty enough?
Then there is the ‘she doesn’t believe that global warming is being impacted by humans.’ Duh. Just great. We need another leader who doesn’t believe in science.
The question is going to be if Sarah Palin is a good choice. I would be very, very cautious if I were the Obama campaign to not underestimate this person and this ticket. Sarah Palin is a smart woman, very personable and poised, and brings cultural conservativism back on the table in a big way. People are asking if she’s the ‘next Dan Quayle.’ Dan Quayle won.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
The Issue of Values
I remember the last time we had a Presidential election I was asked about voting for values. I do not think, four years ago, that I entirely grasped what this was all about.
The issue of voting for values seemed to boil down that people ought to vote for the person who inspired the best values. The two major values that were 'key' were abortion and gay marriage. My slowness at this was based on the premise that I thought that there were other values as well.
I guess that these two issues are not what motivate me a great deal. For one, many of the people who are adamantly anti-abortion and pretend that they are pro-life. Pretend. Strong word. If they are pro-capital punishment I don't want to hear about their 'pro-life' stand. It's insulting to anyone who is serious about ethics. What I also found ironic was that many of these people were also 'pro-torture.' I will respect that they are anti-abortion and that's fine. To say that they are pro-life, however. Please.
Secondly, the more I deliberate on the issue of gay marriage the more I keep coming to the realization that this is more and more a civil rights issue. I read arguments concerning inter-racial marriage written years ago and the arguments were chillingly similar. Race and sexual orientation are not life styles and not choices. I think that churches have actually been on the wrong side of this debate.
There are values that I do hold dear.
First, is the issue of poverty. The poverty rate in this country is growing exponentially. Instead of waging a war on poverty, we seem to be waging a war on the impoverished. This needs to be reversed.
Secondly, is health care. I read of a young boy who died from an abscessed tooth. He had a tooth-ache and no insurance and no money, so no dental care took place. An infection set in and since they had no insurance they avoided doctor. The boy ultimately die. In the United States of America. When such things happen and we don't fundamentally make changes, I have no idea where are values are.
Thirdly, there is the issue of justice. One of the greatest things the United States has given the world is our way of doing justice. A jury of one's peers. A right to face one's accuser. A need to be clearly charged. A right to counsel. As much as we often make folly of the legal profession, many of these hard-working professionals are helping to maintain a sense of justice for all that so many people have died for. The fact that we are holding people, off our shores so that we do not have to follow our own rules, is appalling.
Funny thing about values. The priorities often end up being what ever we choose them to be as opposed to what we are told that they are.
The issue of voting for values seemed to boil down that people ought to vote for the person who inspired the best values. The two major values that were 'key' were abortion and gay marriage. My slowness at this was based on the premise that I thought that there were other values as well.
I guess that these two issues are not what motivate me a great deal. For one, many of the people who are adamantly anti-abortion and pretend that they are pro-life. Pretend. Strong word. If they are pro-capital punishment I don't want to hear about their 'pro-life' stand. It's insulting to anyone who is serious about ethics. What I also found ironic was that many of these people were also 'pro-torture.' I will respect that they are anti-abortion and that's fine. To say that they are pro-life, however. Please.
Secondly, the more I deliberate on the issue of gay marriage the more I keep coming to the realization that this is more and more a civil rights issue. I read arguments concerning inter-racial marriage written years ago and the arguments were chillingly similar. Race and sexual orientation are not life styles and not choices. I think that churches have actually been on the wrong side of this debate.
There are values that I do hold dear.
First, is the issue of poverty. The poverty rate in this country is growing exponentially. Instead of waging a war on poverty, we seem to be waging a war on the impoverished. This needs to be reversed.
Secondly, is health care. I read of a young boy who died from an abscessed tooth. He had a tooth-ache and no insurance and no money, so no dental care took place. An infection set in and since they had no insurance they avoided doctor. The boy ultimately die. In the United States of America. When such things happen and we don't fundamentally make changes, I have no idea where are values are.
Thirdly, there is the issue of justice. One of the greatest things the United States has given the world is our way of doing justice. A jury of one's peers. A right to face one's accuser. A need to be clearly charged. A right to counsel. As much as we often make folly of the legal profession, many of these hard-working professionals are helping to maintain a sense of justice for all that so many people have died for. The fact that we are holding people, off our shores so that we do not have to follow our own rules, is appalling.
Funny thing about values. The priorities often end up being what ever we choose them to be as opposed to what we are told that they are.
Friday, August 15, 2008
A Little More to the Last Post
I was thinking some more about this.
There are two things that I find particularly revolting.
Rush Limbaugh found Michael J. Fox's illness to be hilarious. He's finding it greatly entertaining that Elizabeth Edwards has a terminal illness. Actually, both of these people do. Both Michael J. Fox and Elizabeth Edwards confront their illness each and every day.
There is nothing funny about a terminal illness. These are people who blow out birthday cake candles and wonder if this is their last birthday. At Thanksgiving they wonder if this is the last turkey they share with their families. At Christmas they wonder if this is their last Christmas. They live lives with a very direct confrontation of their own morality. Each day may be a turning point for the worst. What is more, they know it is going to happen, sooner rather than later.
Over the I have dealt with a lot of people dealing with terminal illness. They are some of the most remarkable people I have ever met. THEY occasionally find humor in their lives and can have really good laughs. They are remarkable because they appreciate each day, so much, that they live lives with greater enthusiasm then most. They make decisions, and life choices based on their circumstances; circumstances never far from their immediate thoughts.
When this sorry excuse for a human being mocks them, he mocks the sacred, he mocks anything and everything that is good about humanity. He finds folly in the midst of their suffering, their pain, their very lives. How incredibly pathetic is this?
Here's the second thing I find revolting. He still has people who listen to him every day and admire him. I cannot imagine how.
There are two things that I find particularly revolting.
Rush Limbaugh found Michael J. Fox's illness to be hilarious. He's finding it greatly entertaining that Elizabeth Edwards has a terminal illness. Actually, both of these people do. Both Michael J. Fox and Elizabeth Edwards confront their illness each and every day.
There is nothing funny about a terminal illness. These are people who blow out birthday cake candles and wonder if this is their last birthday. At Thanksgiving they wonder if this is the last turkey they share with their families. At Christmas they wonder if this is their last Christmas. They live lives with a very direct confrontation of their own morality. Each day may be a turning point for the worst. What is more, they know it is going to happen, sooner rather than later.
Over the I have dealt with a lot of people dealing with terminal illness. They are some of the most remarkable people I have ever met. THEY occasionally find humor in their lives and can have really good laughs. They are remarkable because they appreciate each day, so much, that they live lives with greater enthusiasm then most. They make decisions, and life choices based on their circumstances; circumstances never far from their immediate thoughts.
When this sorry excuse for a human being mocks them, he mocks the sacred, he mocks anything and everything that is good about humanity. He finds folly in the midst of their suffering, their pain, their very lives. How incredibly pathetic is this?
Here's the second thing I find revolting. He still has people who listen to him every day and admire him. I cannot imagine how.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Talk Radio’s Offshore Driller
I live in constant amazement of Rush Limbaugh. I have often seen Limbaugh as the quintessential bottom-dweller, the person who delights in uniting people by their lowest common denominators. Instead of being just a bottom dweller he has now taken on to being an offshore driller. When sinking to the bottom is not low enough, one must drill to go down deeper. Rush wins. No one has sunk deeper.
It all begins with John Edwards.
I was a fan of John Edwards. I thought that he would have been a far better Presidential Candidate than John Kerry who I never really liked. Edwards was my early choice for the Democratic nomination. I thought that he offered compelling insights into the American economy. My wife, however, believed he was as genuine as a three-dollar bill----and she proved to be very correct.
The story of his affair is a sleazy story. His interview was quite bad. His wife had cancer but he said that when he had the affair she was in remission. Oh, goody. That makes it all better. I have strong doubts that it ended when he said that it ended and I have strong doubts that he is not the father of the child in question. Telling a little truth sometimes is used to deceive people into believing you are totally honest. Edwards was and is not being totally honest. There is nothing good to be said. Edwards decided to sink to the bottom.
The problem is, Rush Limbaugh doesn’t want anyone to beat him. When John Edwards proved to be a bottom dweller, Limbaugh had to figure a way to go even lower than Edwards. Alas, the problem with John Edwards was, and a mighty drum roll ought to take place, Elizabeth Edwards. She is the problem, says Rush, because she keeps talking and doesn’t know when to keep quiet.
Elizabeth Edwards, Rush Limbaugh proclaimed, is said to be smarter than John Edwards and it was she who pushed him into staying in the race, etc., etc., etc. Mrs. Edwards, in the words of Rush Limbaugh, just didn’t know when to shut up. And poor John Edwards had to go out and find a woman who would use her mouth for something other than speaking. Yes. He said this on the radio. Oh, he laughed, thus making it funny and not offensive. Right.
Most people have given Elizabeth Edwards a great deal of sympathy. She has terminal cancer and confronts her mortality each day. To add to this her husband had an affair that has been splashed all over the media and she has endured great humiliation as a result of this. All of this and her fool husband seems to lean toward justifying this by saying, ‘she was in remission.’ Ugh. It is, frankly, difficult to not give some sympathy toward Elizabeth Edwards.
But, not Rush. He went right in there and decided to insult her. He went right in there and essentially blamed John Edwards’ affair on Elizabeth’s intelligence and her talking. It’s her fault.
Rush Limbaugh, marriage expert.
It is funny how Rush Limbaugh assaulted the Clintons, especially Hillary, following Bill’s affair(s). The Clintons have remained married for a long time. They have never been married to anyone else.
The Edwards are under assault. They have been married for a long time and they have never been married to anyone else.
Ever hear of Roxy Maxine McNeely? She was married to Rush Limbaugh from 1977-1980 when they divorced.
Ever hear of Michelle Sixta? She was married to Limbaugh from 1983-1990.
In 1994 Justice Clarence Thomas officiated at the wedding of Rush and Marta Fitzgerald who parted company in 2004.
Alas, Rush Limbaugh loves to do commentary on the marriages of others as if he were an expert. His track record indicates otherwise.
We are a culture in need of dialogue. Right and left need to work together to solve problems. This is true in politics and religion. There is an ideological divide in this country that is dreadful and damaging for everyone in the long term. I find myself always struggling with the likes of Rush Limbaugh because he, like so many others, both right and left, fan the flames of hostility and work diligently to prevent civil discourse and exchange.
But this is not political. There is something called human decency. Sadly, this off shore driller has none.
It all begins with John Edwards.
I was a fan of John Edwards. I thought that he would have been a far better Presidential Candidate than John Kerry who I never really liked. Edwards was my early choice for the Democratic nomination. I thought that he offered compelling insights into the American economy. My wife, however, believed he was as genuine as a three-dollar bill----and she proved to be very correct.
The story of his affair is a sleazy story. His interview was quite bad. His wife had cancer but he said that when he had the affair she was in remission. Oh, goody. That makes it all better. I have strong doubts that it ended when he said that it ended and I have strong doubts that he is not the father of the child in question. Telling a little truth sometimes is used to deceive people into believing you are totally honest. Edwards was and is not being totally honest. There is nothing good to be said. Edwards decided to sink to the bottom.
The problem is, Rush Limbaugh doesn’t want anyone to beat him. When John Edwards proved to be a bottom dweller, Limbaugh had to figure a way to go even lower than Edwards. Alas, the problem with John Edwards was, and a mighty drum roll ought to take place, Elizabeth Edwards. She is the problem, says Rush, because she keeps talking and doesn’t know when to keep quiet.
Elizabeth Edwards, Rush Limbaugh proclaimed, is said to be smarter than John Edwards and it was she who pushed him into staying in the race, etc., etc., etc. Mrs. Edwards, in the words of Rush Limbaugh, just didn’t know when to shut up. And poor John Edwards had to go out and find a woman who would use her mouth for something other than speaking. Yes. He said this on the radio. Oh, he laughed, thus making it funny and not offensive. Right.
Most people have given Elizabeth Edwards a great deal of sympathy. She has terminal cancer and confronts her mortality each day. To add to this her husband had an affair that has been splashed all over the media and she has endured great humiliation as a result of this. All of this and her fool husband seems to lean toward justifying this by saying, ‘she was in remission.’ Ugh. It is, frankly, difficult to not give some sympathy toward Elizabeth Edwards.
But, not Rush. He went right in there and decided to insult her. He went right in there and essentially blamed John Edwards’ affair on Elizabeth’s intelligence and her talking. It’s her fault.
Rush Limbaugh, marriage expert.
It is funny how Rush Limbaugh assaulted the Clintons, especially Hillary, following Bill’s affair(s). The Clintons have remained married for a long time. They have never been married to anyone else.
The Edwards are under assault. They have been married for a long time and they have never been married to anyone else.
Ever hear of Roxy Maxine McNeely? She was married to Rush Limbaugh from 1977-1980 when they divorced.
Ever hear of Michelle Sixta? She was married to Limbaugh from 1983-1990.
In 1994 Justice Clarence Thomas officiated at the wedding of Rush and Marta Fitzgerald who parted company in 2004.
Alas, Rush Limbaugh loves to do commentary on the marriages of others as if he were an expert. His track record indicates otherwise.
We are a culture in need of dialogue. Right and left need to work together to solve problems. This is true in politics and religion. There is an ideological divide in this country that is dreadful and damaging for everyone in the long term. I find myself always struggling with the likes of Rush Limbaugh because he, like so many others, both right and left, fan the flames of hostility and work diligently to prevent civil discourse and exchange.
But this is not political. There is something called human decency. Sadly, this off shore driller has none.
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Let's Sit These Olympics Out...
I do not believe that the United States ought to participate in the Olympics this year. I suspect that most of the world will disagree with me about this, but I really believe we ought not, in good conscience, be a part of this venture.
For one, I don’t believe that the Olympics have much value any longer. Sure. There are wonderful athletes from around the world who are competing against one another. Sure, there are some heart warming stories of the accomplishments of some young (or somewhat old) amateurs who are competing. But let us be honest. At this juncture, the Olympics is a contest of professional athletes from around the world. What made 1980 so special when the United States Hockey Team defeated the Soviet Union is that the US team were truly amateurs going against pros. These days have long since passed. It’s now all pros, some trying to pretend to be amateurs.
The Olympics are not what they were intended to be. Frankly, we should all boycott them on TV.
My second reason is China and my reasoning is two-fold.
We are reading and observing China clamping down on dissidents. They want to give the world a vision of China as one, big, happy country where everything is great. It is not. China is one of the world’s leaders in human rights violations. They practice misogyny openly and have little problem destroying baby girls so that they can have baby boys and fulfill the ‘one child to a family’ rule. We were, rightly, horrified by the cruelties of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The sad reality is that China is really no better. By even venturing into this country we are giving tacit approval to a horrendous, murderous, regime.
Additionally, whether we want to accept this our not, China is become our leading economic enemy. I use the word enemy very deliberately. They have a goal to destroy us economically and they are being successfuly.
A large reason the Soviet Union crumbled was because of economics and an inability to compete with the United States in spending. In the early 1980's, we heightened the Cold War and began, essentially, creating a wartime economy. Large amounts of money went into purchasing weapons and technology for weapons. A war time economy when there is no war, for a capitalist nation, means that there are plenty of jobs and plenty of money in the pipeline. The downside is that often the government does this with hot checks. Ronald Reagan’s plans had lots of people working and lots of manufacturing of arms, but he put it all on MasterCard. That brings about its own set of problems, obviously.
The problem the Soviets had was that this drained them financially beyond a point of no return. They were in a wartime economy that they couldn’t afford----but they were also fighting a war. A wartime economy when a nation is at war, drains the country. As a result, the money runs out as the debt accumulates. The Soviet Union collapsed.
History is repeating itself. China is building itself up militarily and financially, and is not in a war. They are using more and more oil----thus raising the prices of oil, and generating capital----much of which the United States is borrowing.
We are in a wartime economy but we are fighting two wars. Incomes are not growing. There is no place to invest money for it to grow. Interest rates are going higher and prices are going higher. We are borrowing more and more money and facing economic collapse ourselves.
Our big opponent in all of this is China as well as ourselves. By participating in the Olympics, a large amount of American money will flow into China and put us further and further in economic trouble.
We have no business going there.
For one, I don’t believe that the Olympics have much value any longer. Sure. There are wonderful athletes from around the world who are competing against one another. Sure, there are some heart warming stories of the accomplishments of some young (or somewhat old) amateurs who are competing. But let us be honest. At this juncture, the Olympics is a contest of professional athletes from around the world. What made 1980 so special when the United States Hockey Team defeated the Soviet Union is that the US team were truly amateurs going against pros. These days have long since passed. It’s now all pros, some trying to pretend to be amateurs.
The Olympics are not what they were intended to be. Frankly, we should all boycott them on TV.
My second reason is China and my reasoning is two-fold.
We are reading and observing China clamping down on dissidents. They want to give the world a vision of China as one, big, happy country where everything is great. It is not. China is one of the world’s leaders in human rights violations. They practice misogyny openly and have little problem destroying baby girls so that they can have baby boys and fulfill the ‘one child to a family’ rule. We were, rightly, horrified by the cruelties of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The sad reality is that China is really no better. By even venturing into this country we are giving tacit approval to a horrendous, murderous, regime.
Additionally, whether we want to accept this our not, China is become our leading economic enemy. I use the word enemy very deliberately. They have a goal to destroy us economically and they are being successfuly.
A large reason the Soviet Union crumbled was because of economics and an inability to compete with the United States in spending. In the early 1980's, we heightened the Cold War and began, essentially, creating a wartime economy. Large amounts of money went into purchasing weapons and technology for weapons. A war time economy when there is no war, for a capitalist nation, means that there are plenty of jobs and plenty of money in the pipeline. The downside is that often the government does this with hot checks. Ronald Reagan’s plans had lots of people working and lots of manufacturing of arms, but he put it all on MasterCard. That brings about its own set of problems, obviously.
The problem the Soviets had was that this drained them financially beyond a point of no return. They were in a wartime economy that they couldn’t afford----but they were also fighting a war. A wartime economy when a nation is at war, drains the country. As a result, the money runs out as the debt accumulates. The Soviet Union collapsed.
History is repeating itself. China is building itself up militarily and financially, and is not in a war. They are using more and more oil----thus raising the prices of oil, and generating capital----much of which the United States is borrowing.
We are in a wartime economy but we are fighting two wars. Incomes are not growing. There is no place to invest money for it to grow. Interest rates are going higher and prices are going higher. We are borrowing more and more money and facing economic collapse ourselves.
Our big opponent in all of this is China as well as ourselves. By participating in the Olympics, a large amount of American money will flow into China and put us further and further in economic trouble.
We have no business going there.
Friday, July 25, 2008
No Matter Who You Are or Where You are on Life's Journey; You are Welcome Here.
This is the famous Steeples' Ad for the United Church of Christ. It is self-explanatory. And wonderful.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Give Me a Break!
Give me a break!
Do you remember Steve Bartman? Bartman is the Cubs' fan who caught a foul ball that was still in play. Moises Alou, the Cubs' left-fielder was going to attempt a play on the ball and didn't give the opportunity.
After that play the Cubs fell apart and lose the game and lost the playoffs.
Bartman is being offered to attend a sports' show and if he autographs one copy of his 'catch' they will give him $25,000.00.
Bartman is still hated in Chicago and blamed the the Cubs losing the 2003 National League Championship Series to the Marlins.
Luis Castillo hit a foul ball that Alou went after. Alou never caught the ball (and this day questions whether he actually WOULD caught the ball---that was NOT a given...)
* Castillo, given new life, drew a walk. Ball four was a wild pitch from Cubs starter Mark Prior, which allowed Pierre to advance to third base.
Bartman did not throw the wild pitch.
* Iván RodrÃguez singled to drive in the first run of the inning, making the score 3-1.
Bartman was not the pitcher giving up the hit.
* Miguel Cabrera hit a ground ball to Alex S. Gonzalez, who misfielded the ball. Had Gonzalez fielded the ball properly, the Cubs could possibly have ended the half-inning with a double play. Instead all runners were safe and the bases were loaded.
Bartman was not on the field with Gonzalez.
* Derrek Lee doubled, tying the score and chasing Prior from the game.
Again, Bartman was not pitching.
* Relief pitcher Kyle Farnsworth issued an intentional walk, then gave up a sacrifice fly to give Florida a 4-3 lead. Another intentional walk again loaded the bases.
Again, Bartman was not pitching.
* A bases-clearing double from Mike Mordecai broke the game open, making the score 7-3.
Again, Bartman was not pitching and not fielding allow the double to fall in.
* Pierre singled to put Florida ahead 8-3.
Again, Bartman was not pitching.
* Finally Luis Castillo, whose foul popup initiated the controversy, popped out to second to end the inning. In total, the Marlins had sent twelve batters to the plate and scored eight runs. Florida won the game 8-3.
The Bartman play took place when there was only one out and the play itself was not a hit. It was a foul ball.
Here is the sad reality that Cubs' fans need to grasp. Steve Bartman did not lose the game for them. The Cubs lost the game. Bad pitching and bad fielding lost the game.
I think it's about time people give Steve Bartman a rest. He didn't blow the Cubs' season. The Cubs did.
This year the Cubs look good, very good. They are a distinct possibility to go to the World Series this year. If they succeed it will be because they played well; if they don't, it's because another team beat them.
And Steve Bartman, again, will have nothing to do with it.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Random Musings
It is difficult to put long, complex thoughts together after a great vacation. These are just some random musings.
If you have never been to Kitty Hawk, North Carolina or the Outer Banks, it's an awesome place to go. We had a hotel room right on the ocean. Totally perfect.
The Giants traded Jeremy Shockey. They won all their play off games and pulled off an incredible Super Bowl upset without him. They will miss an excellent, if not drop prone receiver. They won't miss his poor blocking ability and lack of interested in blocking. They will not miss his ego or his mouth. One ought to note that Eli Manning's productivity rose after Shockey got hurt. He didn't have someone in the huddle yelling at him, 'I was open," on every play. Adios!
Is it just me or is Mr. Foreign Policy Experience McCain adopting Mr. No Foreign Policy Experience Obama's positions on things like Afghanistan...
If you have not seen "The Dark Knight" run, run to the theater and see it. Wow. The movie is better than I thought it would be and I expected it to be great. It is long and intense and great. My only regret was that there wasn't a Batman III to watch right afterwards.
Brett Favre was a great, great NFL quarterback who appears to be behaving like an infant at the moment. If he comes back the Packers should probably trade him to an AFC team that has no chance of the playoffs. Someone said that the Dolphins would be a good choice. Of course, the fact that they cannot block might hamper his productivity a tad....
Back to Shockey...the Saints made a bad move getting Shockey. He's talented, but he's an ego-maniacal fool who only wants to be part of a player. This is like getting a cornerback who only wants to make interceptions but no tackles.
If you have never been to Kitty Hawk, North Carolina or the Outer Banks, it's an awesome place to go. We had a hotel room right on the ocean. Totally perfect.
The Giants traded Jeremy Shockey. They won all their play off games and pulled off an incredible Super Bowl upset without him. They will miss an excellent, if not drop prone receiver. They won't miss his poor blocking ability and lack of interested in blocking. They will not miss his ego or his mouth. One ought to note that Eli Manning's productivity rose after Shockey got hurt. He didn't have someone in the huddle yelling at him, 'I was open," on every play. Adios!
Is it just me or is Mr. Foreign Policy Experience McCain adopting Mr. No Foreign Policy Experience Obama's positions on things like Afghanistan...
If you have not seen "The Dark Knight" run, run to the theater and see it. Wow. The movie is better than I thought it would be and I expected it to be great. It is long and intense and great. My only regret was that there wasn't a Batman III to watch right afterwards.
Brett Favre was a great, great NFL quarterback who appears to be behaving like an infant at the moment. If he comes back the Packers should probably trade him to an AFC team that has no chance of the playoffs. Someone said that the Dolphins would be a good choice. Of course, the fact that they cannot block might hamper his productivity a tad....
Back to Shockey...the Saints made a bad move getting Shockey. He's talented, but he's an ego-maniacal fool who only wants to be part of a player. This is like getting a cornerback who only wants to make interceptions but no tackles.
Friday, July 18, 2008
July 6th Sermon
A Bell’s Message
Text: Leviticus 25:1-10
Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo
July 6, 2008
One of the great symbols of the 4th of July is the Liberty Bell.
Years ago if you went to Philadelphia the Liberty Bell was in Independence Hall. They eventually built a building just for the bell and moved it onto a green in front of Independence Hall. Since the events of September 11th, however, that building is now used as a security building and the bell resides in a new building next to Independence Hall.
I’ve seen the bell on numerous occasions and have listened to the speech about the bell’s history. Several years ago, a Park Ranger who gave the speech was stunned into silence. He was explaining how the bell had been silenced in 1846 and had not run since that time.
Suddenly a large GONG emanated forth from the bell. People stood in a little bit of surprise looking to hear if this was a recording. GONG. The Park Ranger was rather ashen, however, because he knew that there was no recording.
GONG.
As the Park Ranger approached the bell a little boy, no more than 7 or 8 came out from underneath the bell and said, “I fooled you, didn’t I?”
The little boy did.
There is widespread disagreement about when the first crack appeared on the Bell. Hair-line cracks on bells were bored out to prevent expansion. However, it is agreed that the final expansion of the crack which rendered the Bell unringable was on Washington's Birthday in 1846.
The Philadelphia Public Ledger took up the story in its February 26, 1846 publication:
"The old Independence Bell rang its last clear note on Monday last in honor of the birthday of Washington and now hangs in the great city steeple irreparably cracked and dumb. It had been cracked before but was set in order of that day by having the edges of the fracture filed so as not to vibrate against each other ... It gave out clear notes and loud, and appeared to be in excellent condition until noon, when it received a sort of compound fracture in a zig-zag direction through one of its sides which put it completely out of tune and left it a mere wreck of what it was."
The Liberty Bell gives to us a bell’s message.
The first is Scriptural. The bell has, on it, a quote from Leviticus 25:10.
Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof.
We have used the section of Leviticus from whence this comes.
The quote on the Liberty Bell from Leviticus is powerful. This concept of Liberty in the Bible is generally tied, as it is in Leviticus, to the time of Jubilee. Jubilee was celebrated every 50 years as a time to free people from debts and give everyone a fresh start. At least that was it in theory as most scholars are unclear as to whether Jubilees, in the fullest sense of the word, were ever actually practiced. It’s great to be released from debt----but the people others were indebted to saw it from a different perspective.
This concept of liberty, even jubilee, however, was very much on the minds of the leaders of our soon to be nation in the late 18th century. They had a vision of a nation, and perhaps more importantly, they had the courage and the fortitude to make that dream, that vision, become a reality.
The second thing about this bell that is fascinating, however, are the cracks.
Please note. I said cracks.
The ‘big crack’ that everyone sees on the Liberty Bell is NOT the crack that silenced the bell. That big crack is actually not really a crack but evidence of the repair of a crack. When a bell did crack, they drilled out the cracked section of the bell and placed large bolts in it. The big crack we see is just that. It’s the repair of a crack rather than the crack that silence the bell.
However, up higher, along the top of the bell there is a long hairline crack. This crack, the hairline crack is the one that silence the Liberty Bell.
It is the crack that we don’t usually see that silenced the bell.
There is, in my mind, something of an allegory in all of this.
In recent months and in the coming months the discussion of patriotism is going to be front and center. What, exactly, does it mean to be patriotic?
There seems to be two schools of thought. The protagonists and the antagonists. To put it simply, the cheerleaders and the peanut gallery.
For some people, patriotism is a vocal and obvious love and devotion to country. It is an approach that, quite simply, waves the flag and loves country, no matter what. They are the protagonists, the cheerleaders of our nation.
For others, the antagonists, patriotism and love of country are often being critical of the nation. These people serve as the peanut gallery, reminding people of what might be wrong. Often the cheerleaders get angry at the peanut gallery and the peanut gallery gets mad at the cheerleaders.
We have, as a nation, been well served by both.
During World War I people rallied and felt a deep sense of patriotism. I served a church in Alexandria, Pennsylvania, a small, rural town. Over the front door there was a cement plaque that said’ Reformed Church.’ If you looked at it, however, you’d see that a word had been chiseled out. The word was ‘German.’ When World War I broke out, the people of the church, all of whom were of German descent, took up a ladder and chiseled the word German from their name. They were Americans.
December 7th, 1941, Pearl Harbor. July 20th, 1969, the first person on the moon. September 11th, 2001 and we are attacked. People band together and cheer for our nation. We are well served by this.
Conversely, the peanut gallery has served us well. In the latter part of the 18th century, individuals such as Ben Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were very much antagonists to the nation----the nation of England. It was on their antagonism a concept of liberty was born.
The fight to end slavery, even the war, came as a result of the peanut gallery decreeing that slavery is wrong, calling people to something better. In the latter part of the 1960's civil rights came as a result of people who were critical of the nation.
The fact that there are different approaches is the large crack in the Liberty Bell. It is there, it is obvious, but it still rings. The little crack, the one that silences the bell’s message is the subtle undertone that there is only one voice, and anyone who disagrees is evil.
When the cheerleaders condemn and mock the peanut gallery the bell is silenced. When the peanut gallery condemns and mocks the cheerleaders, the bell is silence. The little crack dominates the bell.
Which takes me back to Leviticus. Leviticus was decreeing a time of Jubilee, a time of triumph, a time to proclaim liberty to a waiting world. All too often people work hard to silence that bell. Let’s not. Let’s use this weekend, this time, to let the bell ring out and proclaim its message to a waiting world.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
CJ Article about St. Marks
I'm back from vacation. My first day in the office is today and yesterday St. Marks had a wonderful article about what we are doing. Dale Moss did a great job with this:
Mission accomplished at St. Marks church
Members are tops at hands-on help
Send little things, like books and videos and candy and gum. That's what a member of St. Marks United Church of Christ, who was stationed in Iraq, asked of his congregation.
The New Albany church shipped nine boxes, for starters.
It shipped more than plenty, St. Marks was told. Spread the care, and that it did. It rerouted a second batch to flood victims.
This old church, at 222 E. Spring St., makes the most of a relatively new inspiration. St. Marks pushes its missionary spirit increasingly beyond the norm, and then beyond the beyond. It helps with food, with clothing, with manpower to build and fix homes. It provides both at holidays and routinely, and many thousands of people are in its debt.
"I find myself 10 times more energized -- that what I do matters," member Donna Garrison said.
The majority pitches in, in some way, so the church ambitiously follows God's charge.
"This congregation seems to have a passion for hands on," said David Riekhof, its president. "It's not just sending money."
St. Marks stands out by reaching out. From its Indiana-Kentucky denomination office, the church recently received the Barnabas Award for extraordinary local service. Only when member Alan Mason started in on the application did he realize fully the size of his church's heart.
"We had never put it together," Mason said. "It was just what we did."
St. Marks could corral more of a "market share" in suburbia. Established in 1837, St. Marks stays downtown in part because many of those in need are there.
"It does matter where we are, when it comes to opportunities for mission." Garrison said.
Associate pastor Lori Lewis recalls St. Marks deciding to make local missions more of a priority. "It came to life after that," she said.
Lewis guesses members will do more, realizing the impact that is possible.
"We're definitely not tapped out at this point," Lewis said. "I can see the list longer, with cautions."
St. Marks sponsors a weekly free lunch on Saturdays and twice-a-week clothes giveaways. Members pitch in on community Repair Affair projects and they helped Habitat for Humanity in Floyd County get going. Food baskets are distributed for Thanksgiving and toys at Christmas time.
These are only key examples of a daily, commonplace determination. Plus, St. Marks continues to come up with resources for far-flung mission work.
Being downtown, being a mostly traditional, mainline faith, the church indeed pays with fewer people regularly in the pews (200) and on the rolls (500). There is never too much money and always the potential of still more losses to the mega churches. Then again, Francesca Kemper chose St. Marks so she wouldn't be lost in a crowd. She feels at home, appreciates the church's love of music and admires its melting-pot diversity.
"I love the fact that everybody is OK, that there may be people in the room who don't feel the same way you do," Kemper said. "I've heard it called 'a thinking person's church.' "
Mason is proud that the membership of St. Marks resembles the real world. "We're not like most churches," he said. "We're not homogeneous and we don't try to fix people."
At St. Marks, women are a vital part of leadership. A worship service will not remind anyone of a Vegas act, yet the music especially leans occasionally toward the contemporary. Members discuss and vote on significant moves and expenditures. If a venture fails -- like having a Saturday evening service did -- another will be tried.
"Change is not a scary thing," Lewis said.
Just do not count on St. Marks changing locations or its commitment to care.
Dale Moss' column appears on Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Reach him at (812) 949-4026 or dmoss@courier-journal.com. Comment on this column, and read his blog and previous columns, at www.courier-journal.com/moss.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
A Veteran's Bill----and Dishonesty
I found the President’s comments on signing the Veteran’s bill the other day to be unsettling. Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia was instrumental in getting this past. It increased veterans’ benefits for those returning from active service and granted educational opportunities. I do recognize that it is expensive, but when we send soldiers overseas on numerous tours of duty in combat situations they have earned this.
The President signed it because of how it was attached and then praised himself for signing it. The problem with this is that he was in stark opposition to this. It wasn’t until the bill was attached to something he wanted to sign and because of the fact that veteran’s groups were not happy with his lack of interest in this bill didn’t seem to occur to him.
One of the people he thanked for his hard work on this bill was a Senator who was opposed to the bill as ‘too generous.’ That Senator is Senator John McCain who, frankly, should know better. I do respect his service to our nation in the military and think he should be respected for it. I also think that he needs to demonstrate respect to the veterans of these two very difficult wars in which we are engaged.
What disturbs me the most and what truly makes me feel unsettled is that the President praised himself and Senator McCain when, in fact, this was a bill they were opposed to. I disagree with their opposition and certainly don’t understand it. It is, however, their right to have their own opinion and act on it. I really have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the dishonesty of praising a bill which they truly did oppose. I’m tired of the lies and wish that they would finally stop.
The President signed it because of how it was attached and then praised himself for signing it. The problem with this is that he was in stark opposition to this. It wasn’t until the bill was attached to something he wanted to sign and because of the fact that veteran’s groups were not happy with his lack of interest in this bill didn’t seem to occur to him.
One of the people he thanked for his hard work on this bill was a Senator who was opposed to the bill as ‘too generous.’ That Senator is Senator John McCain who, frankly, should know better. I do respect his service to our nation in the military and think he should be respected for it. I also think that he needs to demonstrate respect to the veterans of these two very difficult wars in which we are engaged.
What disturbs me the most and what truly makes me feel unsettled is that the President praised himself and Senator McCain when, in fact, this was a bill they were opposed to. I disagree with their opposition and certainly don’t understand it. It is, however, their right to have their own opinion and act on it. I really have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the dishonesty of praising a bill which they truly did oppose. I’m tired of the lies and wish that they would finally stop.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
The Ongoing Dilemma and Gil Grissom’s Rule
If you are a fan of CSI, the original one, you know a bit about Gil Grissom’s Rule. The rule is this. Follow the evidence. Simple rule.
It has come into play on numerous occasions when, on the show, one of the suspects is really a despicable character who one of the agents truly wants to be guilty and go to jail. As a result, they try to pull the evidence together so that they can arrest the person and get them convicted.
On more than one occasion things did not go well because the evidence wasn’t matching up with their conclusion. Grissom’s rule comes into play. Follow the evidence. Don’t try to force the evidence where you want it to go; follow the evidence where it actually leads you.
We suffer both politically and theologically from a desire or need to begin where we want to end up instead of beginning at, well, the beginning. We decree something to be the ‘Truth’ and then do a construct to demonstrate how we got there. If the evidence does not lead to where we wanted it to, we ‘adjust’ the evidence to get us where we want to go.
We preachers often do this. We develop an opinion and then go about proving our opinion. We hang Scripture verses on our opinion like Christmas lights with little regard to context or consistency.
The end result of this, however, has been a growing lack of credibility. Theology is often replaced by political beliefs. Political beliefs are not persuaded by theology, but much the opposite.
The problem often lies with the Bible. It’s not the Bible but what we choose to do or not do with it.
The first problem is when we use the Bible for our own ends instead of following where it is leading us. I heard a sermon once where the preacher was speaking about Jesus wanting lower taxes. He had some interesting quotes but if one actually reads the entire Gospel narratives Jesus didn’t really have much interest in discussing taxes other than his famous render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s remark. We can all have our own opinions about taxes but the reality is that Jesus really doesn’t offer us a lot of insight on this.
This is most often abused with issues of sexuality. One would get the impression that Jesus spent the vast amount of his time, effort, and energy talking about the sex lives of people and mostly what they couldn’t do and who they couldn’t do it with. In reality Jesus said virtually nothing on the subject.
This is a problem when we start at the finish line instead of the starting line. We make conclusions based on what we want them to be as opposed to where the Bible actually might be leading us.
Conversely the Bible does not exist to be ignored. There are issues that are very Biblical that you can nuance any way you want to and they still come out as issues.
People, men actually, have tried to finesse the adultery laws in the Bible creating exceptions to the rule and attempting to make women property. No matter how one tries to finesse it, however, it is still wrong.
People have attempted to rationalize stealing or gouging people and all sorts of things simply ignoring that which they wanted to ignore.
Gil Grissom’s rule is a good one. Start at the starting line and follow the evidence. Don’t presume to start at the conclusion; the lack of evidence makes us look foolish.
It has come into play on numerous occasions when, on the show, one of the suspects is really a despicable character who one of the agents truly wants to be guilty and go to jail. As a result, they try to pull the evidence together so that they can arrest the person and get them convicted.
On more than one occasion things did not go well because the evidence wasn’t matching up with their conclusion. Grissom’s rule comes into play. Follow the evidence. Don’t try to force the evidence where you want it to go; follow the evidence where it actually leads you.
We suffer both politically and theologically from a desire or need to begin where we want to end up instead of beginning at, well, the beginning. We decree something to be the ‘Truth’ and then do a construct to demonstrate how we got there. If the evidence does not lead to where we wanted it to, we ‘adjust’ the evidence to get us where we want to go.
We preachers often do this. We develop an opinion and then go about proving our opinion. We hang Scripture verses on our opinion like Christmas lights with little regard to context or consistency.
The end result of this, however, has been a growing lack of credibility. Theology is often replaced by political beliefs. Political beliefs are not persuaded by theology, but much the opposite.
The problem often lies with the Bible. It’s not the Bible but what we choose to do or not do with it.
The first problem is when we use the Bible for our own ends instead of following where it is leading us. I heard a sermon once where the preacher was speaking about Jesus wanting lower taxes. He had some interesting quotes but if one actually reads the entire Gospel narratives Jesus didn’t really have much interest in discussing taxes other than his famous render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s remark. We can all have our own opinions about taxes but the reality is that Jesus really doesn’t offer us a lot of insight on this.
This is most often abused with issues of sexuality. One would get the impression that Jesus spent the vast amount of his time, effort, and energy talking about the sex lives of people and mostly what they couldn’t do and who they couldn’t do it with. In reality Jesus said virtually nothing on the subject.
This is a problem when we start at the finish line instead of the starting line. We make conclusions based on what we want them to be as opposed to where the Bible actually might be leading us.
Conversely the Bible does not exist to be ignored. There are issues that are very Biblical that you can nuance any way you want to and they still come out as issues.
People, men actually, have tried to finesse the adultery laws in the Bible creating exceptions to the rule and attempting to make women property. No matter how one tries to finesse it, however, it is still wrong.
People have attempted to rationalize stealing or gouging people and all sorts of things simply ignoring that which they wanted to ignore.
Gil Grissom’s rule is a good one. Start at the starting line and follow the evidence. Don’t presume to start at the conclusion; the lack of evidence makes us look foolish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)