The president will sign a bill into law this week that will essentially end some unfair credit practices lenders have initiated over the years which many consumers had no protection against. These practices include interest rates going sky-high overnight and virtually without notice because a customer is late with a payment (even just once) or exceeds the credit limit which, incidentally, is not likely to happen except when one is charged extra fees for late payments. These fees are added to the total balance and if that balance exceeds the credit limit, one is then hammered not only for the late payment but is now also on the hook for a “exceeding the credit limit” penalty. It is all, of course, in the fine print.
The horror stories are many, and credit card companies are the bad guys. Never mind that Americans voluntarily signed up for such practices but never bothered to read the fine print. What they got was a credit card that enabled them to buy stuff they could not previously afford. Well, guess what? It turns out they couldn’t afford the stuff after all! Believe me; I know of which I speak because “they” was “me” and thousands of other consumers who lacked the patience, the diligence, and the discipline required to save for such purchases. And it is not incidental that money saved is money loaned and money earned on these loans. Win-Win, as they say. Wiser consumers understand that if one cannot afford to put aside a little money each week or each month to save, it is highly unlikely that one can afford a new monthly payment obligation. Elementary, we shudda thunk.
Now US Senator Mark Pryor, D-AR, is going to hold hearings this summer to monitor the credit card industry’s response to this legislation. The industry is certainly going to have to make some adjustments, to be sure, because there will likely be certain losses associated with this congressional clamp. In this regard, Congress did the right thing. Sad, still, that the American consumer needs be protected from himself. What Sen. Pryor is expecting to discover is that credit card issuers will likely tighten requirements for qualification, might re-implement annual fees just for the privilege of having the credit card and may even charge interest from day one after a credit purchase is made. And “that right there”, said Sen. Pryor, “is the problem with the credit card industry …” (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 5/21/09, pg 8a).
Sorry, Mr. Pryor, but “that right there” is not the problem. It was not that many years ago when it was not so easy to obtain a credit card. It was not that many years ago when all users paid an annual fee. And it still is that if one takes out a short-term loan from a bank, interest is charged on the loan in addition to other fees originating from day one. Once the bank cuts the check, the borrower is on the hook for the amount borrowed in addition to the fees and interest. It is how lenders make money, it is how the credit markets work, and there is nothing unfair about any of it. So what is “punitive” about a credit card issuer doing the same? If a purchase is made on a credit card, it is essentially borrowed money; no one I know of gets “free” loans. Credit costs money although judging by what this government spends, regardless of incoming revenue, Congress may not actually know this.
The worst idea to ever invade this country is revolving credit accounts. Those who were able to sell more stuff on these types of credit accounts likely believed them to be a boon to the economy and to their bottom line. They were moving more merchandise and making money hand-over-fist. Consumers could suddenly “afford” to purchase more and more … until the bills came due and the compounded interest on these revolving accounts in addition to the “other” purchases made because there was still “available credit” left on the card made the debt virtually impossible to pay off. And here we are today.
Few would dare to argue that any business practice must be above board, and any loan contract must contain all necessary information relevant to charges and the repayment of the loan. And credit cards themselves are not such a bad idea, but revolving accounts should be eliminated entirely because it is clear these types of accounts cannot be managed because these types of accounts never seem to go away. These are perpetual debts that make money on top of money month after month … with no end in sight except for those who can make payments larger than the required minimum. There is nothing good that can come from these types of accounts even if it is that stores may not move merchandise at previous levels when consumers were spending money they did not have for crap they did not need and could not save up for in the first place.
Whether Congress can actually protect the American consumer from his own stupidity and naiveté remains to be seen, but it does not mean they will not try. And in the end, what we could not previously afford will end up costing much more than anyone could ever have anticipated.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Public Debate ... or not
Carrie Prejean, Miss California and recent Miss USA runner-up, is now being considered for replacement in her capacity as Miss California. The firestorm began, of course, when she chose a truthful answer in the Miss USA pageant rather than a politically correct or socially popular (if questionable) one. How one feels about the whole gay marriage thing is not relevant to Ms. Prejean’s honest answer: she was asked for her opinion, which she gave. What she did not know, although she may have suspected, was that the homo who asked the question, Perez Hilton, was either deliberately trying to set her up or was seeking an endorsement from a potentially soon-to-be national celebrity. He may have believed he had a weak-minded “beauty queen” who would say or do anything to win and help to further his own personal political agenda. He would never have suspected he was likely dealing with a person with some sense of moral integrity and a mind of her own. And his intellect was revealed the very next day when he apparently sought to engage in public debate over the whole issue by calling Ms. Prejean a “dumb bitch”. Nice.
Now the Miss California organization has taken their own “bold step” to seek Ms. Prejean’s replacement because Miss California is currently, and wisely, laying low. Considering the firestorm that followed the Miss USA pageant and the venom and bile that has spewed forth from the likes of Hilton and other Hollywood voices who all apparently believe in one’s “rights” only if one is in agreement with them, Ms. Prejean – and the Miss California crew - would be foolish not to consider her physical safety and well-being. Homosexual advocates are flirting with legislation on the federal level now that extends hate-crime legislation to include speech, but they are only serious about it if someone says something mean about homos; they don’t mean themselves. They advocate for this ridiculous legislation that is a direct affront to one’s constitutional free-speech rights, and then violate the very spirit of the legislation they seek to endorse to the extent that a young woman would reasonably fear for her own safety. The Miss California organization is trying to use her “absence” as an excuse to replace her because she cannot fulfill her official and public duties while in hiding. Nice.
Now there are some ‘racy’ photos floating around the ‘net that Ms. Prejean did some time back as a model. I’ve seen the photos; they are no “racier” than the swimsuit competition. Let’s get real. There is no honest debate going on, and there can be no respect. The homos and their advocates fully intend to bully and intimidate not only Ms. Prejean but her potential replacement into towing the homo line. There is nothing “gay” about any of this. Pitiful. Just pitiful.
Now the Miss California organization has taken their own “bold step” to seek Ms. Prejean’s replacement because Miss California is currently, and wisely, laying low. Considering the firestorm that followed the Miss USA pageant and the venom and bile that has spewed forth from the likes of Hilton and other Hollywood voices who all apparently believe in one’s “rights” only if one is in agreement with them, Ms. Prejean – and the Miss California crew - would be foolish not to consider her physical safety and well-being. Homosexual advocates are flirting with legislation on the federal level now that extends hate-crime legislation to include speech, but they are only serious about it if someone says something mean about homos; they don’t mean themselves. They advocate for this ridiculous legislation that is a direct affront to one’s constitutional free-speech rights, and then violate the very spirit of the legislation they seek to endorse to the extent that a young woman would reasonably fear for her own safety. The Miss California organization is trying to use her “absence” as an excuse to replace her because she cannot fulfill her official and public duties while in hiding. Nice.
Now there are some ‘racy’ photos floating around the ‘net that Ms. Prejean did some time back as a model. I’ve seen the photos; they are no “racier” than the swimsuit competition. Let’s get real. There is no honest debate going on, and there can be no respect. The homos and their advocates fully intend to bully and intimidate not only Ms. Prejean but her potential replacement into towing the homo line. There is nothing “gay” about any of this. Pitiful. Just pitiful.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
A Strange Solicitation
Sitting at my office trying to work up a sermon for this coming Sunday, I took a very strange call from a man with a very heavy accent trying to get me to commit to coming to a Baptist Church in a nearby town later this month to learn the “real truth” about radical Islam and the threat it poses. Once I told the man I would not be attending and had no real interest in such things, he came pretty near to questioning my patriotism (??) and wondered how I could continue to live in my blind ignorance of the threat posed by such “jihadists”. Once I informed him that I was probably better informed about the world situation than your typical phone solicitor, I suddenly realized that I had allowed myself to be sucked into this ridiculous discussion. As I could virtually hear him shuffle for the page likely marked “successful responses to typical declinations”, I wished him a good day and hung up. Still, he obviously did not know he was talking to a "right-wing extremist" who is considered a "potential" threat to national security.
It occurred to me that during the time of Jesus, the people of Israel believed the Romans to be the real, or at least most grave, threat to the well-being of the people. When Jesus was no longer useful to them in facing this threat, they turned on Him and wished Him dead for all the good He was doing them and Israel.
It also occurred to me that my first real encounter with a so-called “clergy killer” was one who objected when I suggested that Islam and Muslims pose no threat to Christians, Christianity, or the United States … certainly no threat to the Lord Himself. Those like this particular gentleman need enemies to accommodate the pain, bitterness, loneliness, and hatred that permeates their very soul. All that soul-draining energy needs someplace to go, and Muslims are just as good a target now as blacks were in the 40’s and 50’s or the Jews in Nazi Germany in the 20’s and 30’s. Few realize how much energy it takes to hate, and that energy must have an outlet. So all anyone needs is a scape goat, something or someone to blame for their sorry lot in life. All that pain, bitterness, and hatred has to have somewhere to go.
It rarely occurs to these haters of whence the true enemy lies. And it never occurs to them what kind of energy it actually took to torture and nail to a cross an Innocent Man.
It occurred to me that during the time of Jesus, the people of Israel believed the Romans to be the real, or at least most grave, threat to the well-being of the people. When Jesus was no longer useful to them in facing this threat, they turned on Him and wished Him dead for all the good He was doing them and Israel.
It also occurred to me that my first real encounter with a so-called “clergy killer” was one who objected when I suggested that Islam and Muslims pose no threat to Christians, Christianity, or the United States … certainly no threat to the Lord Himself. Those like this particular gentleman need enemies to accommodate the pain, bitterness, loneliness, and hatred that permeates their very soul. All that soul-draining energy needs someplace to go, and Muslims are just as good a target now as blacks were in the 40’s and 50’s or the Jews in Nazi Germany in the 20’s and 30’s. Few realize how much energy it takes to hate, and that energy must have an outlet. So all anyone needs is a scape goat, something or someone to blame for their sorry lot in life. All that pain, bitterness, and hatred has to have somewhere to go.
It rarely occurs to these haters of whence the true enemy lies. And it never occurs to them what kind of energy it actually took to torture and nail to a cross an Innocent Man.
Confessions of a Right-Wing Extremist
It has come to my attention that I am considered by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be a “potential” national security threat because of my opposition to abortion, my concern that DHS and/or the Congress are not doing enough to secure our borders (a big ol’ fence?? Are you serious?? Was the Berlin Wall not once only a “fence”?), that I vehemently disagree with the strong leftward shift this government is taking, and that I am extremely concerned that the states’ constitutionally enumerated rights may actually be in jeopardy (and few seem to notice or care) by an overbearing and overbloated federal government. Though DHS’s latest document acknowledges that my cohorts nor I are actively planning any violent activities (at least, none they are actually aware of), it seems nevertheless to be issuing a subtle, yet direct, warning to me and others like me to be aware that we are apparently not fooling anyone. The DHS paper may also be suggesting, now that we domestic “threats” have been identified, that we are being watched.
This may be seen as a “tongue-in-cheek” essay to poke some fun at those on the federal level who cannot seem to justify their existence unless there is a “boogie man” lurking around some corner, but the truth is this memo from DHS could be construed as an even graver threat than any I could dream up. To think that because I have serious issues with what I consider to be an “extreme” government, I could be deemed a “threat”, potential or otherwise, merely because of my beliefs, my opposition to the Obama administration, and my willingness to make these beliefs known. The implications of such accusations simply stagger the imagination. That such a document is taken seriously by the US government on any level suggests an extreme shift far and away from the so-called “liberal” (a derivative of “liberty”) to the downright fascist. Perhaps it is that Homeland Security is having a tough time justifying its very existence and needs to continue creating threats. Who knows? What I know is that I am no threat to the US government, and I resent such imply threats on such a broad and general scale.
I suppose we should have seen this coming, especially after the reponses from many in what used to be OUR Congress, after the TEA parties (yes, you are all also highly suspect!!) held across the nation that simply expressed the dismay of many citizens that our government’s already-staggering debt, which had been at least partially blamed for the mess we were already in, was more than doubled so as to somehow make it better. I chose not to actively align myself with the local version of the national protest (not for any particular reason), but it appears I may as well have since I am already lumped into the “threat” category by DHS (assuming there are stages, or levels, of threat?), perhaps a far graver threat because of my unwillingness to come into the light.
I don’t know where this DHS paper will go or where our government may take it from here. This much I do know: I am not aware of the Arkansas congressional delegation expressing any concern for this move by DHS to essentially categorize general opposition to Obama’s government as “national security threat”. This should say something to Arkansans who re-elected the Democrat to the Senate and the three Democrats to the House but refused to vote for Obama. Something is amiss. I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but indications are that “liberal” is about to be redefined and no longer very “libre”.
This may be seen as a “tongue-in-cheek” essay to poke some fun at those on the federal level who cannot seem to justify their existence unless there is a “boogie man” lurking around some corner, but the truth is this memo from DHS could be construed as an even graver threat than any I could dream up. To think that because I have serious issues with what I consider to be an “extreme” government, I could be deemed a “threat”, potential or otherwise, merely because of my beliefs, my opposition to the Obama administration, and my willingness to make these beliefs known. The implications of such accusations simply stagger the imagination. That such a document is taken seriously by the US government on any level suggests an extreme shift far and away from the so-called “liberal” (a derivative of “liberty”) to the downright fascist. Perhaps it is that Homeland Security is having a tough time justifying its very existence and needs to continue creating threats. Who knows? What I know is that I am no threat to the US government, and I resent such imply threats on such a broad and general scale.
I suppose we should have seen this coming, especially after the reponses from many in what used to be OUR Congress, after the TEA parties (yes, you are all also highly suspect!!) held across the nation that simply expressed the dismay of many citizens that our government’s already-staggering debt, which had been at least partially blamed for the mess we were already in, was more than doubled so as to somehow make it better. I chose not to actively align myself with the local version of the national protest (not for any particular reason), but it appears I may as well have since I am already lumped into the “threat” category by DHS (assuming there are stages, or levels, of threat?), perhaps a far graver threat because of my unwillingness to come into the light.
I don’t know where this DHS paper will go or where our government may take it from here. This much I do know: I am not aware of the Arkansas congressional delegation expressing any concern for this move by DHS to essentially categorize general opposition to Obama’s government as “national security threat”. This should say something to Arkansans who re-elected the Democrat to the Senate and the three Democrats to the House but refused to vote for Obama. Something is amiss. I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but indications are that “liberal” is about to be redefined and no longer very “libre”.
Monday, April 20, 2009
The Misguided Notion - and demise - of Social Security
The Pittsburgh Tribune reported Saturday that Vice President Joe Biden has been drawing Social Security benefits since November 2008 when he turned 66 and became eligible for full benefits under the law. For those not familiar with Mr. Biden, he has been a member of the United States Senate since 1973 up until he was selected as Mr. Obama’s running mate in the 2008 presidential race. Mr. Biden’s salary in 2008 was $169,300 as a US senator. As the vice president of the nation, he will earn $227,300 for as long as he serves in that capacity.
Eventually he will retire altogether and, due to his extraordinary length of service time, will be genuinely entitled to a pretty generous government pension. The issue at hand is the “entitlement” mindset of Social Security that allows everyone to draw, regardless of work status or income bracket. That Mr. Biden had to pay taxes on a large portion of his Social Security earnings is beside the point. Why, pray tell, would he feel compelled – or entitled - to draw this money on any level, particularly while he is still drawing a substantial salary? This same article reported that the Bidens disclosed income in 2008 of $253,866, of which $6,534 was Social Security income. I would hardly consider $247,332 an income that requires subsidy. Incidentally, this same article also reported that former VP Dick Cheney, who is a year older than Mr. Biden, did not report Social Security income in 2008. Whether he will attempt to claim these benefits in 2009 or ever, I suppose, remains to be seen.
Former President Bush took quite a beating in his last term over Social Security in debates that never actually took place except in the media. The opposition to Mr. Bush’s privatization proposals amounted to a lot of political posturing and chest-thumping by Democratic blowhards such as Marion Berry, D-AR, who “assured” his elderly constituents that as long as he had breath in his body, he would protect their benefits even though currently paid benefits were never in jeopardy, according to Mr. Bush’s proposal. Mr. Berry never directly addressed the actual proposals, and he never made a serious contribution to the debate or discussion except to engage in a lot of name-calling and scare tactics. What he and so many others like him did was to ensure that the “sacred cow” of Social Security will continue to pay out more than it collects under this misguided notion of entitlement that does not consider genuine need, which was the founding intent of Social Security to begin with, and continues Social Security’s downward spiral toward insolvency until drastic action will be required to maintain this “entitlement”. That fund was intended to keep our nation’s elderly from starving to death; it was not meant as an income subsidy for a more lavish lifestyle or more expensive vacations or play money for slot machines.
I realize Social Security is a hot-button issue for the majority of Americans. I also recognize the political reality that if Mr. Bush had engaged in such a discussion in his first term, it is highly unlikely he would have seen a second term as US president due to this issue alone. This is the rub, though, isn’t it? The state of this nation’s mindset is such that the government has, over the years, taken so much from us that we feel somewhat compelled to take back from this government whatever we can to sort of balance the scales. It was also a mistake for the Social Security Administration to begin sending out quarterly statements to individuals so as to suggest that the fund is “holding” the money we pay in trust now for our own private, individual use later.
In simple terms, Social Security funds withheld from paychecks is a tax that is paid out directly to those who qualify for benefits. I doubt that many working Americans ever conceived of the day when we would be subsidizing the US vice president’s salary, which is paid from income and other federal taxes, while giving his total annual income a boost from the Social Security funds withheld from our earnings.
It is said by many that our current economic situation will get worse before it gets better. My guess is that the Social Security situation, as it is now, will get worse but never better because Americans and our Congress lack the courage to face up to certain realities. It has become the task of each member of the Congress to get and keep the job they have, not to actually do the job that has been entrusted to them. It will be our demise sooner or later.
Eventually he will retire altogether and, due to his extraordinary length of service time, will be genuinely entitled to a pretty generous government pension. The issue at hand is the “entitlement” mindset of Social Security that allows everyone to draw, regardless of work status or income bracket. That Mr. Biden had to pay taxes on a large portion of his Social Security earnings is beside the point. Why, pray tell, would he feel compelled – or entitled - to draw this money on any level, particularly while he is still drawing a substantial salary? This same article reported that the Bidens disclosed income in 2008 of $253,866, of which $6,534 was Social Security income. I would hardly consider $247,332 an income that requires subsidy. Incidentally, this same article also reported that former VP Dick Cheney, who is a year older than Mr. Biden, did not report Social Security income in 2008. Whether he will attempt to claim these benefits in 2009 or ever, I suppose, remains to be seen.
Former President Bush took quite a beating in his last term over Social Security in debates that never actually took place except in the media. The opposition to Mr. Bush’s privatization proposals amounted to a lot of political posturing and chest-thumping by Democratic blowhards such as Marion Berry, D-AR, who “assured” his elderly constituents that as long as he had breath in his body, he would protect their benefits even though currently paid benefits were never in jeopardy, according to Mr. Bush’s proposal. Mr. Berry never directly addressed the actual proposals, and he never made a serious contribution to the debate or discussion except to engage in a lot of name-calling and scare tactics. What he and so many others like him did was to ensure that the “sacred cow” of Social Security will continue to pay out more than it collects under this misguided notion of entitlement that does not consider genuine need, which was the founding intent of Social Security to begin with, and continues Social Security’s downward spiral toward insolvency until drastic action will be required to maintain this “entitlement”. That fund was intended to keep our nation’s elderly from starving to death; it was not meant as an income subsidy for a more lavish lifestyle or more expensive vacations or play money for slot machines.
I realize Social Security is a hot-button issue for the majority of Americans. I also recognize the political reality that if Mr. Bush had engaged in such a discussion in his first term, it is highly unlikely he would have seen a second term as US president due to this issue alone. This is the rub, though, isn’t it? The state of this nation’s mindset is such that the government has, over the years, taken so much from us that we feel somewhat compelled to take back from this government whatever we can to sort of balance the scales. It was also a mistake for the Social Security Administration to begin sending out quarterly statements to individuals so as to suggest that the fund is “holding” the money we pay in trust now for our own private, individual use later.
In simple terms, Social Security funds withheld from paychecks is a tax that is paid out directly to those who qualify for benefits. I doubt that many working Americans ever conceived of the day when we would be subsidizing the US vice president’s salary, which is paid from income and other federal taxes, while giving his total annual income a boost from the Social Security funds withheld from our earnings.
It is said by many that our current economic situation will get worse before it gets better. My guess is that the Social Security situation, as it is now, will get worse but never better because Americans and our Congress lack the courage to face up to certain realities. It has become the task of each member of the Congress to get and keep the job they have, not to actually do the job that has been entrusted to them. It will be our demise sooner or later.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
A Fool's Game
Every effort, every movement, every song, every dance must have a beginning. There is little in our physical world that is perpetual, as without beginning or ending. A finite world has finite stuff. So although I consider yesterday’s TEA parties to have been a colossal waste of time, the protest that was the theme has been looking for a voice for a very long time; it had to start somewhere. I have to say, however, that not many politicians took notice, and even fewer Democrats bothered to show at all. And why would they? It was the Democratic majority in the Congress that pushed through an $800 billion “stimulus” package that few bothered to read, and fewer still really understood. That “stimulus”, I think, is at the heart of the protest.
Here’s the thing, though. Politicians do not typically pay attention to protests, and Democrats have such a commanding majority in the Congress that they will spend no time worrying about a few Republicans in the streets scattered across the country. Politicians do not worry much about anything unless or until their political advisors tell them to worry, and that anxiety is directly related to chances for re-election. Put THAT in jeopardy, and notice the attention given such as in Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-AR, starting up her re-election campaign two years before Election Day. Obama and Hillary started a new trend with the last election, so I guess now we’re stuck with two-year-long, perpetual political campaigns.
It is noteworthy that Sen. Lincoln’s last go-round was against a Republican whom she outspent by millions … and she won re-election by the skin of her teeth. She spent millions; he spent a few thousand. Now she is cranking up her re-election machine even earlier to gather even more money, and there is no indication that she really understands the collective mind of the electorate she purports to represent. What she does know is that the last election was a bit too close for comfort, so she seems to believe that campaigning longer and making promises for her NEXT term (as opposed to staying on top of THIS term’s business) is all it will take to keep her job. The point? Voters got her attention four years ago, and she has not yet forgotten.
The apparent evidence in this particular case has not been lost on Sen. Lincoln, and it will likely be that she will vote these last two years of this term much more conservatively than she has voted in the previous four. She and her political advisors know well the short attention span of voters. Now that voters are sufficiently angry and she having won her last election by a very narrow margin, expect her to do a lot more schmoozing. Voters and circumstances have her undivided attention, and it is clear she is afraid.
Though I am not excited about the prospects of perpetual campaigns, I like the idea that a politician would know that he or she will need at least two years to convince me they are worth keeping and are worthy of the job. What I will certainly not like is the reality that these politicians and their advisors will spend these two years “marketing” their product. They will spend an inordinate amount of time trying to keep the job and not enough time actually doing the job. And this, dear reader, is the state of American politics. It is not about public policy or governing; it is about re-elections.
Beyond the money spent for re-elections, consider the federal budget. We’re now in the trillions … with a T! My guess is that most normal people cannot count that high, or comprehend that number. And all that money has to come from somewhere. And let’s be reasonable: you can screw around with wealthy people for only so long. Heck, even their money has limits. Then you and I, middle America, will be “asked” (though they never really seem to ask, do they?) to give it up for the good of the country. Only we will discovered that it is not the country, per se, more than it is the bloated government that is now completely out of control, and a budget that is geared toward getting one party or the other re-elected. “For the good of the country”, my eye. I’m not falling for it any longer, but I am not going to waste my time walking the streets or carrying signs. Nor should you.
I am not advocating term limits, though I would not be completely opposed. Term limits, however, will require constitutional amendments, and that takes a lot of time. Besides, there is a much easier way. Democrat or Republican, federal or state, no incumbents are re-elected. Then, and only then, will the Congress finally notice our protests. Clearly, there is no other way. We can march in the streets all we want but until these politicians feel threatened in their own job security, they will not care or respond. They don’t have to because of voter complacency. And as long as voters willingly roll over for the obligatory tummy scratch from a condescending politician, nothing will change except, perhaps, the tension on the leash.
Be very careful and aware, America. Our freedom is on the line, and we’re being played for fools.
Here’s the thing, though. Politicians do not typically pay attention to protests, and Democrats have such a commanding majority in the Congress that they will spend no time worrying about a few Republicans in the streets scattered across the country. Politicians do not worry much about anything unless or until their political advisors tell them to worry, and that anxiety is directly related to chances for re-election. Put THAT in jeopardy, and notice the attention given such as in Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-AR, starting up her re-election campaign two years before Election Day. Obama and Hillary started a new trend with the last election, so I guess now we’re stuck with two-year-long, perpetual political campaigns.
It is noteworthy that Sen. Lincoln’s last go-round was against a Republican whom she outspent by millions … and she won re-election by the skin of her teeth. She spent millions; he spent a few thousand. Now she is cranking up her re-election machine even earlier to gather even more money, and there is no indication that she really understands the collective mind of the electorate she purports to represent. What she does know is that the last election was a bit too close for comfort, so she seems to believe that campaigning longer and making promises for her NEXT term (as opposed to staying on top of THIS term’s business) is all it will take to keep her job. The point? Voters got her attention four years ago, and she has not yet forgotten.
The apparent evidence in this particular case has not been lost on Sen. Lincoln, and it will likely be that she will vote these last two years of this term much more conservatively than she has voted in the previous four. She and her political advisors know well the short attention span of voters. Now that voters are sufficiently angry and she having won her last election by a very narrow margin, expect her to do a lot more schmoozing. Voters and circumstances have her undivided attention, and it is clear she is afraid.
Though I am not excited about the prospects of perpetual campaigns, I like the idea that a politician would know that he or she will need at least two years to convince me they are worth keeping and are worthy of the job. What I will certainly not like is the reality that these politicians and their advisors will spend these two years “marketing” their product. They will spend an inordinate amount of time trying to keep the job and not enough time actually doing the job. And this, dear reader, is the state of American politics. It is not about public policy or governing; it is about re-elections.
Beyond the money spent for re-elections, consider the federal budget. We’re now in the trillions … with a T! My guess is that most normal people cannot count that high, or comprehend that number. And all that money has to come from somewhere. And let’s be reasonable: you can screw around with wealthy people for only so long. Heck, even their money has limits. Then you and I, middle America, will be “asked” (though they never really seem to ask, do they?) to give it up for the good of the country. Only we will discovered that it is not the country, per se, more than it is the bloated government that is now completely out of control, and a budget that is geared toward getting one party or the other re-elected. “For the good of the country”, my eye. I’m not falling for it any longer, but I am not going to waste my time walking the streets or carrying signs. Nor should you.
I am not advocating term limits, though I would not be completely opposed. Term limits, however, will require constitutional amendments, and that takes a lot of time. Besides, there is a much easier way. Democrat or Republican, federal or state, no incumbents are re-elected. Then, and only then, will the Congress finally notice our protests. Clearly, there is no other way. We can march in the streets all we want but until these politicians feel threatened in their own job security, they will not care or respond. They don’t have to because of voter complacency. And as long as voters willingly roll over for the obligatory tummy scratch from a condescending politician, nothing will change except, perhaps, the tension on the leash.
Be very careful and aware, America. Our freedom is on the line, and we’re being played for fools.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Dear President Obama
Dear President Obama,
May I first congratulate you on your hard-won victory and ascendency to the presidency. You, like many before you, have inspired new generations of young Americans who look upon such an election and finally come to realize one of the greatest blessings of this nation: anyone can aspire to one day become President of the United States. The trick is to want it badly enough to prepare for it.
I must tell you, Mr. President, that I was not among those dancing in the streets upon your election. Truth be told, I was sorely disappointed because I was then, and still am, quite uncertain about your public policy philosophy or your preparedness for such a daunting task. Given my cynicism toward campaign rhetoric, it is extremely difficult to listen objectively when I am internally convinced that public office seekers will say and do almost anything to win votes. Why else would senators and representatives have political advisors? Aside from my cynicism, you seem to believe government to be the answer to all citizen’s prayers whereas I believe government is constitutionally restricted in what it can or even should do. Having said this, however, I was prepared to embrace your election and give you the benefit of the doubt because, after all, this is my country. You are now the duly elected president. You became, therefore, my president.
I have a couple of issues, however, that have caused me to step back and question my allegiance to the office, and I will be blunt and succinct. Mr. President, with the stroke of a pen you put the people of the United States on the financial hook for worldwide abortions. Essentially it is, Mr. President, that you are forcing me to pay for abortions in other countries. The United States has gotten into the business of actually and actively exporting and promoting death, and I am sorely disappointed that any human being with a conscience would or could do such a thing, or at the very least, pretend to speak for an entire nation in moral issues as this. Life is fundamental, Mr. President. It is the foundation of our very existence; to actively promote abortion itself as a fundamental right is to deny this reality. To actually put money out there to finance such a heinous practice is, to say the least, absurd in light of the extreme economic circumstances we face here at home. At most, it is teaching younger generations that human life only has the value governments choose to assign it. This was the worst thing you could have done.
You did it, however, and you did in fact promise that you would. This great and progressive nation took a giant step backward as it pertains to defining an enduring civilization and a culture that intends to survive by announcing to the world that if there are women across the globe who want to kill their unborn children, the US will provide the necessary funds to make it happen. We publicly loathe the Chinese “one child” policy, and yet you singlehandedly have offered to finance this very policy in other parts of the world. Very poorly done, Mr. President. My disappointment cannot be adequately expressed in words, and you cannot give any speech that will salve the open sores you have agitated.
Even beyond this, however, I must also take exception to your calling upon the American people to be prepared to “make sacrifices”, presumably for the sake of the federal budget, the deficit, and ultimately the national debt. Often there have been questions pertaining to the willingness of the American public to make sacrifices for the good of the country. Many recall with fondness the evident patriotism expressed in the many sacrifices made during the WWII era, there, too, for the war effort and the “good of the country”. It was indeed a different time and a different people, a whole other generation that still believed in our government. This was a government of, by, and for the people, a government that believed in the survival of subsequent generations, not their destruction. This was the government that led the prosecution efforts at Nuremberg against Nazis for their heinous crimes against humanity. Little would we know then that one day this very government would actually embrace the abhorent practices we once prosecuted and condemned.
Today the support and the confidence is just not there. Not only do I believe that younger generations are predominately of a “me first” attitude, but I also believe that government officials who live like royalty, vote themselves pay increases, work to protect their own interests, and spend money as a means of gaining public favor (and votes) regardless of the financial or economic consequences have actually contributed to such selfish attitudes and have no right or business asking Americans to sacrifice even more, especially when it is abundantly clear that American “public servants” are unwilling to share in these sacrifices. Yes, it happens on the state level as well when, in the big middle of a horrific recession that will get worse before it gets better, our own state legislature votes itself a pay increase and justifies it, as our house speaker did, by saying, “I need the money; my wife’s pregnant.” Clueless, Mr. President. Or complacent. Or selfish.
Let us be clear, Mr. President. I do not percieve that you are a leader; it seems more that you are willing to follow the Democratic majority in the Congress, this same Congress (regardless of party dominance, incidentally) which has been running roughshod over the American public for far too long. But because far too many members of this Congress have ignored the people of this country for far too long by working to protect their own interests above the interests of the nation, I for one am no longer willing to offer any sort of “sacrifice” to this or any other government. I once proudly wore the uniform of the US armed forces and was willing to do my part in defense of this nation. But until I see more of a willingness from you and the members of Congress to give more of themselves, I am no longer interested in “sacrifice”. My country is not my God.
I do not pretend to speak for others, Mr. President, though many may agree with me. And this piece may never make it beyond my own personal blog, but I do hope these thoughts and the upcoming TEA PARTY’s which will be held across the nation this April 15 may actually survive to the next election, and I sincerely hope that at least half the current members of Congress lose their jobs. Only then, I am convinced, will this government begin to turn around and actually represent the people rather than the party.
Respectfully,
Michael P. Daniel
Magnolia AR
May I first congratulate you on your hard-won victory and ascendency to the presidency. You, like many before you, have inspired new generations of young Americans who look upon such an election and finally come to realize one of the greatest blessings of this nation: anyone can aspire to one day become President of the United States. The trick is to want it badly enough to prepare for it.
I must tell you, Mr. President, that I was not among those dancing in the streets upon your election. Truth be told, I was sorely disappointed because I was then, and still am, quite uncertain about your public policy philosophy or your preparedness for such a daunting task. Given my cynicism toward campaign rhetoric, it is extremely difficult to listen objectively when I am internally convinced that public office seekers will say and do almost anything to win votes. Why else would senators and representatives have political advisors? Aside from my cynicism, you seem to believe government to be the answer to all citizen’s prayers whereas I believe government is constitutionally restricted in what it can or even should do. Having said this, however, I was prepared to embrace your election and give you the benefit of the doubt because, after all, this is my country. You are now the duly elected president. You became, therefore, my president.
I have a couple of issues, however, that have caused me to step back and question my allegiance to the office, and I will be blunt and succinct. Mr. President, with the stroke of a pen you put the people of the United States on the financial hook for worldwide abortions. Essentially it is, Mr. President, that you are forcing me to pay for abortions in other countries. The United States has gotten into the business of actually and actively exporting and promoting death, and I am sorely disappointed that any human being with a conscience would or could do such a thing, or at the very least, pretend to speak for an entire nation in moral issues as this. Life is fundamental, Mr. President. It is the foundation of our very existence; to actively promote abortion itself as a fundamental right is to deny this reality. To actually put money out there to finance such a heinous practice is, to say the least, absurd in light of the extreme economic circumstances we face here at home. At most, it is teaching younger generations that human life only has the value governments choose to assign it. This was the worst thing you could have done.
You did it, however, and you did in fact promise that you would. This great and progressive nation took a giant step backward as it pertains to defining an enduring civilization and a culture that intends to survive by announcing to the world that if there are women across the globe who want to kill their unborn children, the US will provide the necessary funds to make it happen. We publicly loathe the Chinese “one child” policy, and yet you singlehandedly have offered to finance this very policy in other parts of the world. Very poorly done, Mr. President. My disappointment cannot be adequately expressed in words, and you cannot give any speech that will salve the open sores you have agitated.
Even beyond this, however, I must also take exception to your calling upon the American people to be prepared to “make sacrifices”, presumably for the sake of the federal budget, the deficit, and ultimately the national debt. Often there have been questions pertaining to the willingness of the American public to make sacrifices for the good of the country. Many recall with fondness the evident patriotism expressed in the many sacrifices made during the WWII era, there, too, for the war effort and the “good of the country”. It was indeed a different time and a different people, a whole other generation that still believed in our government. This was a government of, by, and for the people, a government that believed in the survival of subsequent generations, not their destruction. This was the government that led the prosecution efforts at Nuremberg against Nazis for their heinous crimes against humanity. Little would we know then that one day this very government would actually embrace the abhorent practices we once prosecuted and condemned.
Today the support and the confidence is just not there. Not only do I believe that younger generations are predominately of a “me first” attitude, but I also believe that government officials who live like royalty, vote themselves pay increases, work to protect their own interests, and spend money as a means of gaining public favor (and votes) regardless of the financial or economic consequences have actually contributed to such selfish attitudes and have no right or business asking Americans to sacrifice even more, especially when it is abundantly clear that American “public servants” are unwilling to share in these sacrifices. Yes, it happens on the state level as well when, in the big middle of a horrific recession that will get worse before it gets better, our own state legislature votes itself a pay increase and justifies it, as our house speaker did, by saying, “I need the money; my wife’s pregnant.” Clueless, Mr. President. Or complacent. Or selfish.
Let us be clear, Mr. President. I do not percieve that you are a leader; it seems more that you are willing to follow the Democratic majority in the Congress, this same Congress (regardless of party dominance, incidentally) which has been running roughshod over the American public for far too long. But because far too many members of this Congress have ignored the people of this country for far too long by working to protect their own interests above the interests of the nation, I for one am no longer willing to offer any sort of “sacrifice” to this or any other government. I once proudly wore the uniform of the US armed forces and was willing to do my part in defense of this nation. But until I see more of a willingness from you and the members of Congress to give more of themselves, I am no longer interested in “sacrifice”. My country is not my God.
I do not pretend to speak for others, Mr. President, though many may agree with me. And this piece may never make it beyond my own personal blog, but I do hope these thoughts and the upcoming TEA PARTY’s which will be held across the nation this April 15 may actually survive to the next election, and I sincerely hope that at least half the current members of Congress lose their jobs. Only then, I am convinced, will this government begin to turn around and actually represent the people rather than the party.
Respectfully,
Michael P. Daniel
Magnolia AR
Monday, April 06, 2009
Palm Sunday 2009 ... "What Triumph?"
Mark 11:1-11
There are a couple of items related to Mark’s text that should be noted. First, it is said by some scholars that Mark may be the first known Gospel text and that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a reference. There is also a belief that a disciple named “Mark” may have actually been a disciple of St. Peter’s. Though I don’t know it can be proved, it is believed by some that “Mark” may have actually written this account as told to him by Peter which would give the account substantial credibility. Second, verse 10 of the text may be the truest indicator and best summary of exactly what was on the minds of those who were enthusiastically greeting Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem: “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David!”
It finally comes down to this. Jesus is about to enter into the city of Jerusalem and is hailed as something of a conquering hero even though nothing has been conquered … at least not yet. What is worse is that the people who are greeting Him are very likely clueless as to exactly what is taking place or what is about to take place. What they do know is that they are Jews, and the pagan Romans are in charge of their lives and their homeland, the land once known as the “Promised Land”, the land of a Covenant. What they also know is that this Man coming into town on a donkey’s colt is the One often referred to as the “Son of David”, David being the late, great warrior king, the eagerly anticipated “ancestor” and protector of that “Covenant Land”.
What they also know is that theirs is a miserable lot in life living under the thumb screws of the overbearing and secular “state”, a “state” that does not share their values or their God, and they would like to see some changes. Serious, radical, and QUICK changes. For an anxious people of faith, scripture such as Psalm 37:7 should offer some solace: “Rest in the Lord and wait patiently for Him”, yet patience seems no longer an affordable luxury. And Scripture is not what these people want to hear. It is what they NEED, but it is not what they are after. The LORD is not what they desire at this moment unless the LORD is willing to agree with them and give them what they want.
“Hosanna”, translated, means “Save us, we ask”. It is an invocation of the people and should be a prayerful appeal to the Lord, but I don’t think this is true in this particular instance. And this parade is marked by these same people who are eagerly laying palm branches and even their cloaks on the road in front of Jesus and who are also calling out to Him, “Blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord!” It would be easy to characterize this gathering as a prayerful event sort of like a revival, but I think such a characterization would be wrong, or at the very least, misleading. It is an event filled with hope and anticipation, to be sure, but what the people seem to desire – or expect - is not necessarily consistent with the will of the Lord because the true “enemy” has yet to be exposed. For the time being, the Romans will have to do.
So what is happening? This event which is unfolding, commonly referred to as the “triumphal entry”, has often been presented as a sort of “conquest”, a “triumph” as if something has been won. It seems to read as though Jesus is now “large and in charge” and masses of people are finally handing their lives over to Him, but events as they unfold will indicate anything but. We would like to believe that the “kingdom of heaven is at hand” but for all intents and purposes, nothing is really happening. At least, not what the people want or expect. And if we stop and think it through, nothing much really changed after Jesus’ crucifixion … at least not in Jerusalem and certainly not in the lives of those who would herald His arrival now and curse His presence later.
Humans are a fickle bunch, not much given to reason. And over the course of some 2000 years, this reality has not changed. And yet Jesus, knowing this, walked right into the big middle of it. Our own Bishop Crutchfield said it best: He had a decision to make. It was a fear-filled moment. He could give in to the fear and go home to Galilee, or He could trust God and go on into Jerusalem. He chose to trust God. The people gathered around Him like a surging ocean. The shouts of the crowd accented the power of the hope in their hearts. It was a demonstration of power the Romans hated and the religious leaders feared. It was a scene that could provoke a massive reaction. He had a decision to make. He chose not to give way to fear of reprisal. He chose to trust God.
Jesus was about to enter into a very dangerous world, a snake pit really, a world filled with hatred and violence. A world filled with weapons of destruction and men trained and willing to use them. A world in which only a handful of men could make decisions that would affect whole regions filled with people who were powerless to stop them. A powder keg of a world marked by a short fuse. And Jesus surely knew the Pharisees and other religious leaders were walking with a lighted match. It was only a matter of time before the anger, the fear, the hatred, the anticipation of better days that would not come soon, would be ignited.
Yet He pressed on. There was one simple focus that drove Jesus to press on even when He knew He had other options, options that would have saved Him, options that would have been far more pleasing to His physical self AND to those who truly loved Him. The focus, of course, was the Holy Father. It was not for the people who would call on Him and praise Him when they had need or hope but would turn on Him when their own desires were not fulfilled. There was no spite for these “fair weather friends”; only compassion, pity, and mercy. Yet it was still His love for and focus on the Lord God that moved Him forward.
In the Church calendar, we mark such days as if we were there. It is much easier to embrace, even appreciate such things when we can actually find a way to be a part of the whole experience. Yet it is also fair to say that even after hundreds of re-enactments of this fateful day throughout church history, not much has changed nor will it. After this worship service, we will pretty much go on about our lives as before and all will be well. As in Jerusalem, nothing will really change.
Why should it? Why should there be any change? It seems we have it all now. We can have our cake and eat it, too. We can declare our own salvation, and continue as before. No harm, no foul. Nothing much left to do. We can continue to insist that the will of God is best defined as that which pleases us. We can continue to contribute to weapons designed to maim and kill, we can continue to proclaim “In God We Trust” when in reality it is the money upon which such a cheesy motto is imprinted that we actually and truly trust. We can and will continue to fit the Lord in whenver we find the time … after we’ve done everything else. After we have first pleased ourselves and taken care of our own needs.
Yet in spite of this sea of selfishness and greed, we are offered the Blessed Sacrament of Holy Communion. We can choose to come forward and receive this wondrous gift, never truly understanding it, but perhaps appreciating it for what it is: a moment of complete and total union, we with one another and with our brethren around the world – and most certainly with Him who is seated at the Right Hand of our Heavenly Father. He who will, by the compassion of His own heart, grant to us the peace we so desperately need, forgive us our sins and our betrayal – IF we are truly penitent - and ask us to do better while He offers to us the strength of His Blessed and Holy Spirit to endure and persevere. And in the end, all He asks is for us to REMEMBER.
Until or unless we do, nothing will change. Now or ever
There are a couple of items related to Mark’s text that should be noted. First, it is said by some scholars that Mark may be the first known Gospel text and that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a reference. There is also a belief that a disciple named “Mark” may have actually been a disciple of St. Peter’s. Though I don’t know it can be proved, it is believed by some that “Mark” may have actually written this account as told to him by Peter which would give the account substantial credibility. Second, verse 10 of the text may be the truest indicator and best summary of exactly what was on the minds of those who were enthusiastically greeting Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem: “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David!”
It finally comes down to this. Jesus is about to enter into the city of Jerusalem and is hailed as something of a conquering hero even though nothing has been conquered … at least not yet. What is worse is that the people who are greeting Him are very likely clueless as to exactly what is taking place or what is about to take place. What they do know is that they are Jews, and the pagan Romans are in charge of their lives and their homeland, the land once known as the “Promised Land”, the land of a Covenant. What they also know is that this Man coming into town on a donkey’s colt is the One often referred to as the “Son of David”, David being the late, great warrior king, the eagerly anticipated “ancestor” and protector of that “Covenant Land”.
What they also know is that theirs is a miserable lot in life living under the thumb screws of the overbearing and secular “state”, a “state” that does not share their values or their God, and they would like to see some changes. Serious, radical, and QUICK changes. For an anxious people of faith, scripture such as Psalm 37:7 should offer some solace: “Rest in the Lord and wait patiently for Him”, yet patience seems no longer an affordable luxury. And Scripture is not what these people want to hear. It is what they NEED, but it is not what they are after. The LORD is not what they desire at this moment unless the LORD is willing to agree with them and give them what they want.
“Hosanna”, translated, means “Save us, we ask”. It is an invocation of the people and should be a prayerful appeal to the Lord, but I don’t think this is true in this particular instance. And this parade is marked by these same people who are eagerly laying palm branches and even their cloaks on the road in front of Jesus and who are also calling out to Him, “Blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord!” It would be easy to characterize this gathering as a prayerful event sort of like a revival, but I think such a characterization would be wrong, or at the very least, misleading. It is an event filled with hope and anticipation, to be sure, but what the people seem to desire – or expect - is not necessarily consistent with the will of the Lord because the true “enemy” has yet to be exposed. For the time being, the Romans will have to do.
So what is happening? This event which is unfolding, commonly referred to as the “triumphal entry”, has often been presented as a sort of “conquest”, a “triumph” as if something has been won. It seems to read as though Jesus is now “large and in charge” and masses of people are finally handing their lives over to Him, but events as they unfold will indicate anything but. We would like to believe that the “kingdom of heaven is at hand” but for all intents and purposes, nothing is really happening. At least, not what the people want or expect. And if we stop and think it through, nothing much really changed after Jesus’ crucifixion … at least not in Jerusalem and certainly not in the lives of those who would herald His arrival now and curse His presence later.
Humans are a fickle bunch, not much given to reason. And over the course of some 2000 years, this reality has not changed. And yet Jesus, knowing this, walked right into the big middle of it. Our own Bishop Crutchfield said it best: He had a decision to make. It was a fear-filled moment. He could give in to the fear and go home to Galilee, or He could trust God and go on into Jerusalem. He chose to trust God. The people gathered around Him like a surging ocean. The shouts of the crowd accented the power of the hope in their hearts. It was a demonstration of power the Romans hated and the religious leaders feared. It was a scene that could provoke a massive reaction. He had a decision to make. He chose not to give way to fear of reprisal. He chose to trust God.
Jesus was about to enter into a very dangerous world, a snake pit really, a world filled with hatred and violence. A world filled with weapons of destruction and men trained and willing to use them. A world in which only a handful of men could make decisions that would affect whole regions filled with people who were powerless to stop them. A powder keg of a world marked by a short fuse. And Jesus surely knew the Pharisees and other religious leaders were walking with a lighted match. It was only a matter of time before the anger, the fear, the hatred, the anticipation of better days that would not come soon, would be ignited.
Yet He pressed on. There was one simple focus that drove Jesus to press on even when He knew He had other options, options that would have saved Him, options that would have been far more pleasing to His physical self AND to those who truly loved Him. The focus, of course, was the Holy Father. It was not for the people who would call on Him and praise Him when they had need or hope but would turn on Him when their own desires were not fulfilled. There was no spite for these “fair weather friends”; only compassion, pity, and mercy. Yet it was still His love for and focus on the Lord God that moved Him forward.
In the Church calendar, we mark such days as if we were there. It is much easier to embrace, even appreciate such things when we can actually find a way to be a part of the whole experience. Yet it is also fair to say that even after hundreds of re-enactments of this fateful day throughout church history, not much has changed nor will it. After this worship service, we will pretty much go on about our lives as before and all will be well. As in Jerusalem, nothing will really change.
Why should it? Why should there be any change? It seems we have it all now. We can have our cake and eat it, too. We can declare our own salvation, and continue as before. No harm, no foul. Nothing much left to do. We can continue to insist that the will of God is best defined as that which pleases us. We can continue to contribute to weapons designed to maim and kill, we can continue to proclaim “In God We Trust” when in reality it is the money upon which such a cheesy motto is imprinted that we actually and truly trust. We can and will continue to fit the Lord in whenver we find the time … after we’ve done everything else. After we have first pleased ourselves and taken care of our own needs.
Yet in spite of this sea of selfishness and greed, we are offered the Blessed Sacrament of Holy Communion. We can choose to come forward and receive this wondrous gift, never truly understanding it, but perhaps appreciating it for what it is: a moment of complete and total union, we with one another and with our brethren around the world – and most certainly with Him who is seated at the Right Hand of our Heavenly Father. He who will, by the compassion of His own heart, grant to us the peace we so desperately need, forgive us our sins and our betrayal – IF we are truly penitent - and ask us to do better while He offers to us the strength of His Blessed and Holy Spirit to endure and persevere. And in the end, all He asks is for us to REMEMBER.
Until or unless we do, nothing will change. Now or ever
Monday, March 30, 2009
A Dangerous Precedent
Today President Obama announced the government-mandated resignation of General Motor’s CEO, Rick Wagoner, as a condition for more government aid. And he did all this without consulting the Congress. Even more strangely, Mr. Wagoner stepped down immediately. Stranger (or scarier) still, Mr. Obama rejected GM’s and Chrysler’s restructuring plans because he felt the plans did not do enough to make either company “viable”. Sen. Carl Levin, D-MI, was “sad” upon learning of this development and expressed concern regarding a “double standard in the treatment of the US auto makers and the financial industry” (TheHill.com). Now, according to President Obama, warranties on new GM vehicles will be backed by the US government rather than the manufacturer.
The government, regardless of who is at the helm, has been virtually out of control for a number of years as it grows larger and larger and thinks up new ways to be more things to more people – and on a much grander and more expensive scale. The promises Obama made while campaigning for president guaranteed that we would see government on an even larger scale than before. Now with control of GM, and to a lesser extent Chrysler, seemingly settled into the Oval Office, I fear we ain’t seen nothing yet. President Obama says the government is not in the car-making business, but evidence to the contrary would indicate otherwise since one word from the White House would cause the sudden “retirement” of GM’s CEO. And the US government is going to back auto warranties? What is this if not “control”?
This is not a good move, and it does not restore my confidence in the industry since I have virtually no confidence in a US government that cannot seem to manage itself. Now Mr. Obama is an auto industry expert, so much so that he alone can determine whether a restructuring plan will be adequate.
I fear the worst is yet to come.
The government, regardless of who is at the helm, has been virtually out of control for a number of years as it grows larger and larger and thinks up new ways to be more things to more people – and on a much grander and more expensive scale. The promises Obama made while campaigning for president guaranteed that we would see government on an even larger scale than before. Now with control of GM, and to a lesser extent Chrysler, seemingly settled into the Oval Office, I fear we ain’t seen nothing yet. President Obama says the government is not in the car-making business, but evidence to the contrary would indicate otherwise since one word from the White House would cause the sudden “retirement” of GM’s CEO. And the US government is going to back auto warranties? What is this if not “control”?
This is not a good move, and it does not restore my confidence in the industry since I have virtually no confidence in a US government that cannot seem to manage itself. Now Mr. Obama is an auto industry expert, so much so that he alone can determine whether a restructuring plan will be adequate.
I fear the worst is yet to come.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
The Greater Purpose
Jeremiah 31:31-34 Psalm 51:1-12 Hebrews 5:5-10 John 12:20-33
Having a sense of purpose is the reason we do what we do, whatever it may be. Having a sense of purpose moves us beyond a mere existence, drives us forward, and defines our very being and sense of self. We become whatever it is we choose to do. For good or bad, it is who and what we are. For instance, I am not a professional writer though I still hope to one day be published AND paid for my work. Until such time, however, an inspiring article told me that if I think about writing and study about writing and enjoy writing, then I AM A WRITER. But in that effort, it’s not simply about writing for writing’s sake. Writing is not the end; it is a means to an end. I hope to inspire and persuade through whatever I choose to write about. So writing – and preaching – cannot be considered “ends” unless they each serve a useful purpose beyond themselves.
Watching a favorite movie the other night, I was reminded (by a simple line in the movie!) that as hectic and overwhelming and burdensome as our lives can often be, there is really only “one thing” that truly matters. In the movie, “City Slickers”, the trail boss, Curley, is explaining to “Mitch” that ‘city slickers’ spend 50 weeks out of the year getting knots in their rope, and then go on a trail/cattle drive as they were on, thinking 2 weeks on such a trip will untie those knots and clear their heads. “None of ‘em get it”, Curley says. Then he asks if ‘Mitch’ knows the secret of life. When ‘Mitch’ says no, Curley holds up his index finger and says, “One thing. Just one thing. You figure that out and stick with it, and all the other stuff just won’t matter.”
Having a clear sense of purpose actually defines what we do and determines whether what we do will have a profound effect on the outcome, or if the outcome will merely be a natural result. In other words, does our sense of purpose exceed our sense of self so that we are focused not on how something may affect only us in the end but, rather, on whether what we will achieve will ultimately serve a greater good, something far beyond self. Will the result be purposeful or simply incidental to the act which created that result?
In John’s Gospel (12:20-33), Jesus has a clear purpose. Though at first glance Jesus may seem to come across as somewhat haughty when these Greeks wanted to see Him (vs 20, 21), perhaps to learn more about their own conversion from the Teacher, the Rabbi many were likely talking about. If these Greeks were the Jewish converts some scholars believe them to have been, then it is interesting that since Judaism is relatively new to them, they would certainly like to talk to the Man who seems to be challenging the Jewish faith, or at least what they have come to understand about Judaism.
Think about the religion the Pharisees taught and the many confrontations between Jesus and them. The religion the Pharisees pushed was a cult of rules and regulations (the means) which seemed to do nothing more than to suppress and oppress. Its only end seemed to be toward keeping people in line. It’s not unlike the cattle drive of the movie in which the cattle are moved in a particular direction, surrounded by cowboys as “enforcers”. The cattle will move as they are directed to move and under some circumstances may even panic (stampede), but they can be quickly brought back under control. And throughout this whole ordeal, the cattle have no idea where they are headed or why.
In reality, however, Jesus is not trying to re-invent the wheel; His whole ministry is about reorienting the way the faithful think about and approach the Lord God. He is challenging a man-made religion that came to feed and serve only itself and had little to do with the Lord God Himself. That religion which Jesus sought to destroy served no legitimate purpose except to create a “ruling class” of pharisees who were served by the people who were kept “in line” by their sense of fear. The Pharisees created a “god” more aligned to their own image of self as merciless enforcers and task-masters.
Still for the moment, it must be remembered that “the hour has come” (vs. 23) and Jesus has something profoundly important to do. Distractions such as unexpected guests could not be allowed because The Greater Purpose is now on track to be fulfilled. There can be nothing more important than this. And when we stop to think about it, it is such distractions that perhaps created a scenario as this one which finally made such a Sacrifice necessary in the first place, to create a New Means of Reconciliation between mankind and the Holy Father.
In a busy world such as the ones we have created for ourselves, it is easy to get knocked off course when we are on track to do the things we need to do even beyond those more practical and mundane, day-to-day tasks that mark the moments in our day. Yet there are so many other tasks we have before us that we never seem to get around to because of the busy-ness of our world and our lives. Our necessary focus on that purpose for which we were created is profoundly diminished when we are distracted by other things, especially things which serve only themselves.
Yet we live in a society that values “multi-tasking”, meaning that one can do many things at the same time with some careful juggling of priorities. The truth that actually comes out of such efforts, however, is that no matter how many tasks we are able to juggle at the same time, it can rarely be said that we can do any ONE thing really well not because we are incapable but because we are distracted (jack of all trades, master of none!). It is not unlike the argument and safety concern about cell phones. One cannot be fully engaged with the task of operating a vehicle AND fully engaged in a phone conversation at the same time. One or the other is going to suffer as a result of a distracted mind, and the purpose of neither one will be adequately served or fulfilled. In fact, it can be said that more harm than good will result.
When Jesus challenges His followers – then and now - to “take up their cross” and follow Him, there is a Greater Purpose in such a journey that transcends our own personal needs or wishes. And the Journey itself is a Purposeful Means because the Journey cannot be the ultimate Destination. We must also necessarily notice and embrace verses 27-28. Therein lies our Purpose: to please, honor, and glorify our Holy Father, to make Him well-known to those whose existence lacks Purpose, to give to the “last, least, and lost” clarity and meaning.
Faithfully purposeful, dear friends, we will hear the Immortal Words we long to hear: “I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sins no more” (Jeremiah 31:34).
Having a sense of purpose is the reason we do what we do, whatever it may be. Having a sense of purpose moves us beyond a mere existence, drives us forward, and defines our very being and sense of self. We become whatever it is we choose to do. For good or bad, it is who and what we are. For instance, I am not a professional writer though I still hope to one day be published AND paid for my work. Until such time, however, an inspiring article told me that if I think about writing and study about writing and enjoy writing, then I AM A WRITER. But in that effort, it’s not simply about writing for writing’s sake. Writing is not the end; it is a means to an end. I hope to inspire and persuade through whatever I choose to write about. So writing – and preaching – cannot be considered “ends” unless they each serve a useful purpose beyond themselves.
Watching a favorite movie the other night, I was reminded (by a simple line in the movie!) that as hectic and overwhelming and burdensome as our lives can often be, there is really only “one thing” that truly matters. In the movie, “City Slickers”, the trail boss, Curley, is explaining to “Mitch” that ‘city slickers’ spend 50 weeks out of the year getting knots in their rope, and then go on a trail/cattle drive as they were on, thinking 2 weeks on such a trip will untie those knots and clear their heads. “None of ‘em get it”, Curley says. Then he asks if ‘Mitch’ knows the secret of life. When ‘Mitch’ says no, Curley holds up his index finger and says, “One thing. Just one thing. You figure that out and stick with it, and all the other stuff just won’t matter.”
Having a clear sense of purpose actually defines what we do and determines whether what we do will have a profound effect on the outcome, or if the outcome will merely be a natural result. In other words, does our sense of purpose exceed our sense of self so that we are focused not on how something may affect only us in the end but, rather, on whether what we will achieve will ultimately serve a greater good, something far beyond self. Will the result be purposeful or simply incidental to the act which created that result?
In John’s Gospel (12:20-33), Jesus has a clear purpose. Though at first glance Jesus may seem to come across as somewhat haughty when these Greeks wanted to see Him (vs 20, 21), perhaps to learn more about their own conversion from the Teacher, the Rabbi many were likely talking about. If these Greeks were the Jewish converts some scholars believe them to have been, then it is interesting that since Judaism is relatively new to them, they would certainly like to talk to the Man who seems to be challenging the Jewish faith, or at least what they have come to understand about Judaism.
Think about the religion the Pharisees taught and the many confrontations between Jesus and them. The religion the Pharisees pushed was a cult of rules and regulations (the means) which seemed to do nothing more than to suppress and oppress. Its only end seemed to be toward keeping people in line. It’s not unlike the cattle drive of the movie in which the cattle are moved in a particular direction, surrounded by cowboys as “enforcers”. The cattle will move as they are directed to move and under some circumstances may even panic (stampede), but they can be quickly brought back under control. And throughout this whole ordeal, the cattle have no idea where they are headed or why.
In reality, however, Jesus is not trying to re-invent the wheel; His whole ministry is about reorienting the way the faithful think about and approach the Lord God. He is challenging a man-made religion that came to feed and serve only itself and had little to do with the Lord God Himself. That religion which Jesus sought to destroy served no legitimate purpose except to create a “ruling class” of pharisees who were served by the people who were kept “in line” by their sense of fear. The Pharisees created a “god” more aligned to their own image of self as merciless enforcers and task-masters.
Still for the moment, it must be remembered that “the hour has come” (vs. 23) and Jesus has something profoundly important to do. Distractions such as unexpected guests could not be allowed because The Greater Purpose is now on track to be fulfilled. There can be nothing more important than this. And when we stop to think about it, it is such distractions that perhaps created a scenario as this one which finally made such a Sacrifice necessary in the first place, to create a New Means of Reconciliation between mankind and the Holy Father.
In a busy world such as the ones we have created for ourselves, it is easy to get knocked off course when we are on track to do the things we need to do even beyond those more practical and mundane, day-to-day tasks that mark the moments in our day. Yet there are so many other tasks we have before us that we never seem to get around to because of the busy-ness of our world and our lives. Our necessary focus on that purpose for which we were created is profoundly diminished when we are distracted by other things, especially things which serve only themselves.
Yet we live in a society that values “multi-tasking”, meaning that one can do many things at the same time with some careful juggling of priorities. The truth that actually comes out of such efforts, however, is that no matter how many tasks we are able to juggle at the same time, it can rarely be said that we can do any ONE thing really well not because we are incapable but because we are distracted (jack of all trades, master of none!). It is not unlike the argument and safety concern about cell phones. One cannot be fully engaged with the task of operating a vehicle AND fully engaged in a phone conversation at the same time. One or the other is going to suffer as a result of a distracted mind, and the purpose of neither one will be adequately served or fulfilled. In fact, it can be said that more harm than good will result.
When Jesus challenges His followers – then and now - to “take up their cross” and follow Him, there is a Greater Purpose in such a journey that transcends our own personal needs or wishes. And the Journey itself is a Purposeful Means because the Journey cannot be the ultimate Destination. We must also necessarily notice and embrace verses 27-28. Therein lies our Purpose: to please, honor, and glorify our Holy Father, to make Him well-known to those whose existence lacks Purpose, to give to the “last, least, and lost” clarity and meaning.
Faithfully purposeful, dear friends, we will hear the Immortal Words we long to hear: “I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sins no more” (Jeremiah 31:34).
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Kids, Condoms, and Common Sense
Pope Benedict has been quoted as having said that condoms are not the solution to the HIV/AIDS problem and, in fact, actually make matters worse though the story did not say exactly how the pontiff justified his remarks. What he actually said, as quoted by Timesonline.com/uk is: “AIDS is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".
If there is one thing that can rile a Protestant, it is a Catholic telling them that artificial birth control is a ‘bad thing’. As a Methodist pastor who grew up in the Catholic Church, I have seen these arguments go back and forth and accomplish very little. I have seen Protestants (and many Catholics) arm themselves with very worldly, though pretentiously pious arguments in favor of birth control while the pope has been intent on defending Church traditions and teachings, both claiming to know the mind and will of the Lord. Is it possible that one is wrong? Or could it be that Protestants will not take the pope seriously because, well, that wouldn’t be very ‘protestant’ of them, now would it?
In the past there have been those ridiculous arguments that the Roman Church, and specifically the pope, are responsible for the AIDS epidemic and world over-population by telling the “ignorant masses” that artificial birth control is a sin and against the historic teachings of the Church. I don’t know how much more ridiculous an argument can be, but a reason to reject such teachings out of hand - because these teachings seem so out of touch with the contemporary world - may be the very reason why the faithful, even contemporary ones, should give pause and consider more closely exactly what is being said.
Abstinence is ridiculed by so many as “unrealistic”, a violation of the rights and natural responses of human beings. Abstinence does not consider the animalistic nature of the human mammal. Abstinence solves nothing. 90% chance of safety with a rubber is a far cry better than a 100% chance with abstinence (??). And these statements are made with a straight face. And yet not one statement supposes to tell those whose “rights” may be violated that rights come with responsibilities, and there is also that possibility that some rights may even have consequences. Of course, we don’t want to hear this. We only want to know what our rights are (self-designated is much preferable, though) and how we go about not only exercising these rights but how we go about securing a reasonable safety net that will protect us from ourselves as we exercise our rights with no mind toward imminent results for which we are not prepared.
Whether abstinence is unrealistic is a matter of what is most important to us. Bristol Palin, the teenaged daughter of Alaska governor Sarah Palin, has been quoted by the national media as saying teenage abstinence is unrealistic. Along with those who suggest (or rather, demand) that abstinence on the continent of Africa is also unrealistic, these arguments fall flat when defending our humanity and our human instincts with the notion that we are mindless, instinctive animals with no control over our urges. We demand that governments clean up after we exercise our natural rights to engage in whatever sex we choose. We demand abortions even though we know that pregnancy is a very natural result of sex. We demand government solutions to STD’s, including HIV/AIDS, even while we reasonably recognize such as a quite natural result of sex with multiple partners. Not once do we consider that, as humans with the capacity to reason, we have the ability to control these “natural” urges; that what we actually lack is the will.
That which “aggravates the problem”, as Pope Benedict has pointed out, is not only that condoms offer no absolute guarantees, only a reduced risk, but that we are more willing to put such absolute faith in man-made products and mindlessly (though instinctively) go on about just doing what feels natural. The pope is right on the money in this. Condoms will not solve problems, birth control pills will not solve problems, abortions most certainly only compound and multiply existing problems, because the problems are not the results we actually hope to avoid. The problem, instead, is humanity’s lack of self-responsibility and self-control beforehand. The problems, as they are, are exacerbated when we demand rights but reject responsibilities.
If there is one thing that can rile a Protestant, it is a Catholic telling them that artificial birth control is a ‘bad thing’. As a Methodist pastor who grew up in the Catholic Church, I have seen these arguments go back and forth and accomplish very little. I have seen Protestants (and many Catholics) arm themselves with very worldly, though pretentiously pious arguments in favor of birth control while the pope has been intent on defending Church traditions and teachings, both claiming to know the mind and will of the Lord. Is it possible that one is wrong? Or could it be that Protestants will not take the pope seriously because, well, that wouldn’t be very ‘protestant’ of them, now would it?
In the past there have been those ridiculous arguments that the Roman Church, and specifically the pope, are responsible for the AIDS epidemic and world over-population by telling the “ignorant masses” that artificial birth control is a sin and against the historic teachings of the Church. I don’t know how much more ridiculous an argument can be, but a reason to reject such teachings out of hand - because these teachings seem so out of touch with the contemporary world - may be the very reason why the faithful, even contemporary ones, should give pause and consider more closely exactly what is being said.
Abstinence is ridiculed by so many as “unrealistic”, a violation of the rights and natural responses of human beings. Abstinence does not consider the animalistic nature of the human mammal. Abstinence solves nothing. 90% chance of safety with a rubber is a far cry better than a 100% chance with abstinence (??). And these statements are made with a straight face. And yet not one statement supposes to tell those whose “rights” may be violated that rights come with responsibilities, and there is also that possibility that some rights may even have consequences. Of course, we don’t want to hear this. We only want to know what our rights are (self-designated is much preferable, though) and how we go about not only exercising these rights but how we go about securing a reasonable safety net that will protect us from ourselves as we exercise our rights with no mind toward imminent results for which we are not prepared.
Whether abstinence is unrealistic is a matter of what is most important to us. Bristol Palin, the teenaged daughter of Alaska governor Sarah Palin, has been quoted by the national media as saying teenage abstinence is unrealistic. Along with those who suggest (or rather, demand) that abstinence on the continent of Africa is also unrealistic, these arguments fall flat when defending our humanity and our human instincts with the notion that we are mindless, instinctive animals with no control over our urges. We demand that governments clean up after we exercise our natural rights to engage in whatever sex we choose. We demand abortions even though we know that pregnancy is a very natural result of sex. We demand government solutions to STD’s, including HIV/AIDS, even while we reasonably recognize such as a quite natural result of sex with multiple partners. Not once do we consider that, as humans with the capacity to reason, we have the ability to control these “natural” urges; that what we actually lack is the will.
That which “aggravates the problem”, as Pope Benedict has pointed out, is not only that condoms offer no absolute guarantees, only a reduced risk, but that we are more willing to put such absolute faith in man-made products and mindlessly (though instinctively) go on about just doing what feels natural. The pope is right on the money in this. Condoms will not solve problems, birth control pills will not solve problems, abortions most certainly only compound and multiply existing problems, because the problems are not the results we actually hope to avoid. The problem, instead, is humanity’s lack of self-responsibility and self-control beforehand. The problems, as they are, are exacerbated when we demand rights but reject responsibilities.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Failure & Ideological Perspective
Rush Limbaugh has a unique way of getting under one’s skin especially if one happens to disagree with him. Like President Obama. Or White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Or White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. And especially if Mr. Limbaugh makes such a disdainful statement as expressing a hope that President Obama will fail. Well, this is not exactly what Limbaugh said, but for purely political purposes it is what is being interpreted and expressed by those who care nothing for, or completely misunderstand, what Limbaugh and conservatives really stand for and believe. Instead, the White House would prefer you and me to believe that anyone who disagrees with Mr. Obama is either a racist who resents a black man being in the White House or an elitist who does not care for the poor. It is not unlike the accusations against President Bush and his crew for those who were not “patriotic”. Name-calling. It’s what’s for dinner (talk). And in the midst of all these charges and counter-charges, nothing gets done.
This Congress seems clueless about what the country needs right now, and I’m not so sure the President or his economic team even knows what must be done next. And in the absence of a firm grasp of this economic melt-down, President Obama sees it as an opportunity to push a social restructuring agenda. Since the Congress is unsure about what must happen next, they do the next best thing: give-aways and ear-marks. These items translate into dollars in terms people can understand, and these dollars translate into a misunderstanding about how much the Democratic Party “cares” about Americans. This, in turn, translates into votes from the misinformed and the allegedly disenfranchised.
The failure that Mr. Limbaugh is hoping for is purely ideological, not financial or economic. The very idea that government can solve all our problems and the problems of the world if it just spends more money, particularly on social programs, is outrageous both practically and historically. The failure Mr. Limbaugh is talking about is this very notion that we can only succeed with government’s help. The failure would be the people coming to realize that overarching government creates dependency, and the Democrats seek to exploit that dependency by seeking to convince these people who are dependent that their lives would be in shambles without government support.
Just as dependency breeds dependency, success breeds success. Even failures which come, from time to time, as a result of entrepreneurial initiative breed success. These are the initiatives successful business leaders across this nation have taken their lumps in and learned from to ensure eventual success. And these initiatives have never been borne of a government’s intervention and/or control. Mr. Obama and company will ultimately fail because their first failure has been an utter refusal to acknowledge this ideological reality of capitalism. And failure breeds failure.
This Congress seems clueless about what the country needs right now, and I’m not so sure the President or his economic team even knows what must be done next. And in the absence of a firm grasp of this economic melt-down, President Obama sees it as an opportunity to push a social restructuring agenda. Since the Congress is unsure about what must happen next, they do the next best thing: give-aways and ear-marks. These items translate into dollars in terms people can understand, and these dollars translate into a misunderstanding about how much the Democratic Party “cares” about Americans. This, in turn, translates into votes from the misinformed and the allegedly disenfranchised.
The failure that Mr. Limbaugh is hoping for is purely ideological, not financial or economic. The very idea that government can solve all our problems and the problems of the world if it just spends more money, particularly on social programs, is outrageous both practically and historically. The failure Mr. Limbaugh is talking about is this very notion that we can only succeed with government’s help. The failure would be the people coming to realize that overarching government creates dependency, and the Democrats seek to exploit that dependency by seeking to convince these people who are dependent that their lives would be in shambles without government support.
Just as dependency breeds dependency, success breeds success. Even failures which come, from time to time, as a result of entrepreneurial initiative breed success. These are the initiatives successful business leaders across this nation have taken their lumps in and learned from to ensure eventual success. And these initiatives have never been borne of a government’s intervention and/or control. Mr. Obama and company will ultimately fail because their first failure has been an utter refusal to acknowledge this ideological reality of capitalism. And failure breeds failure.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Mighty Hand of ... Caesar
There is little that sickens me more than to see photos in the newspaper of legislators slapping each other the “high five” or patting one another’s behinds as the governor or president signs a tax increase into law (most recently in Arkansas). In the case of Arkansas, the latest tax increase on tobacco is just that: a tax increase. The funds are not attached in any way, so we are completely at the mercy of the legislature and the governor as to where this money will actually end up. And political promises being what they are, consider that the grocery tax is still there in spite of talk and promises during a political campaign. And make no mistake: this government would much rather see you go without than they.
Having said this, however, I find myself becoming increasingly agitated at the ever-expanding, yet inconsistent, role of government in daily life. Take, for instance, the recently passed tobacco tax increase. Out of one side of the mouth, the government wants us to stop smoking. Out of the other side, however, this money is already spent (at least in the governor’s own mind) on new or expanded health-related programs (it must be noted, however, that the money will simply be collected. These programs do not currently have legislation to fund or create them). According to proponents of this tax increase, “all” Arkansans will benefit, yet only a few Arkansans are being burdened with the responsibility of paying for it. And all the while, these same proponents are secretly hoping all tobacco usage will stop? Puhleez.
An adult does not have to wear a motorcycle helmet, but this same adult must wear a seat belt when riding in an automobile. A parent can no longer buy an off-road ATV or motocross motorcycle for a child under 12 (or parts for already-owned bikes!), but these same parents can buy their 16-year-old a street-legal “crotch rocket”, a racing style motorcycle that has power to spare, so that “Junior” can go tearing down the road at 100mph and put MY life, or the lives of those whom I love, in danger with his youthful exuberance, testosterone, and corresponding stupidity.
I am a Republican in a sea of Democrats. It is clear that I can climb aboard their life raft but only if I am willing to compromise what I believe for the sake of “unity”. My thoughts and opinions are not welcome, I am not allowed my say (except on a “blog” few read anyway), and I effectively have no representation because I will write to a state or US representative or senator and “might” get a response several months later, if at all.
I am surrounded by abortion proponents who refuse to acknowledge the certain reality about life but will, instead, celebrate the “right” to destroy that life. Yes, you have a right to have an abortion (even while refusing to exercise a right not to reproduce), but you do not have the right to buy your 11-year-old child an off-road vehicle. And we are reaching a critical state in which it may soon become a government “obligation” (read, against my Republican will) to sustain one’s “right” to destroy a human life, even if unborn, by offering full funding (Obama’s executive order) against my wishes and in spite of my objections on any grounds.
Additionally, we may well be coming to a point in government services in which artificial birth control will also be deemed a “right” so much so that government would financially obligate itself to pay for it, but only for poor folks.
In the midst of the gloom and doom of the worst recession to hit this nation in 25 years (or since the Great Depression, depending on who is doing the talking), our state legislature gives itself a raise with the governor’s blessing and all but gives the people of Arkansas the finger while it does so. And then to “help” us, they raise taxes on tobacco in conjunction with a pending federal tobacco tax increase, and create new spending programs to “save lives” even though such salvation does not include unborn (read, unwanted) children.
This is only a drop in the bucket. I am not sure how the immediate future is going to unfold, but I am quite certain that government will soon own us all lock, stock, and barrel unless or until we draw a line in the sand. The only ones who will have any freedom will be the very rich and the very elected. The worst part is that a complacent electorate will continue to reelect these who are slowly and surely chipping away at what we once knew as “free to live our own lives”.
Silly people.
Having said this, however, I find myself becoming increasingly agitated at the ever-expanding, yet inconsistent, role of government in daily life. Take, for instance, the recently passed tobacco tax increase. Out of one side of the mouth, the government wants us to stop smoking. Out of the other side, however, this money is already spent (at least in the governor’s own mind) on new or expanded health-related programs (it must be noted, however, that the money will simply be collected. These programs do not currently have legislation to fund or create them). According to proponents of this tax increase, “all” Arkansans will benefit, yet only a few Arkansans are being burdened with the responsibility of paying for it. And all the while, these same proponents are secretly hoping all tobacco usage will stop? Puhleez.
An adult does not have to wear a motorcycle helmet, but this same adult must wear a seat belt when riding in an automobile. A parent can no longer buy an off-road ATV or motocross motorcycle for a child under 12 (or parts for already-owned bikes!), but these same parents can buy their 16-year-old a street-legal “crotch rocket”, a racing style motorcycle that has power to spare, so that “Junior” can go tearing down the road at 100mph and put MY life, or the lives of those whom I love, in danger with his youthful exuberance, testosterone, and corresponding stupidity.
I am a Republican in a sea of Democrats. It is clear that I can climb aboard their life raft but only if I am willing to compromise what I believe for the sake of “unity”. My thoughts and opinions are not welcome, I am not allowed my say (except on a “blog” few read anyway), and I effectively have no representation because I will write to a state or US representative or senator and “might” get a response several months later, if at all.
I am surrounded by abortion proponents who refuse to acknowledge the certain reality about life but will, instead, celebrate the “right” to destroy that life. Yes, you have a right to have an abortion (even while refusing to exercise a right not to reproduce), but you do not have the right to buy your 11-year-old child an off-road vehicle. And we are reaching a critical state in which it may soon become a government “obligation” (read, against my Republican will) to sustain one’s “right” to destroy a human life, even if unborn, by offering full funding (Obama’s executive order) against my wishes and in spite of my objections on any grounds.
Additionally, we may well be coming to a point in government services in which artificial birth control will also be deemed a “right” so much so that government would financially obligate itself to pay for it, but only for poor folks.
In the midst of the gloom and doom of the worst recession to hit this nation in 25 years (or since the Great Depression, depending on who is doing the talking), our state legislature gives itself a raise with the governor’s blessing and all but gives the people of Arkansas the finger while it does so. And then to “help” us, they raise taxes on tobacco in conjunction with a pending federal tobacco tax increase, and create new spending programs to “save lives” even though such salvation does not include unborn (read, unwanted) children.
This is only a drop in the bucket. I am not sure how the immediate future is going to unfold, but I am quite certain that government will soon own us all lock, stock, and barrel unless or until we draw a line in the sand. The only ones who will have any freedom will be the very rich and the very elected. The worst part is that a complacent electorate will continue to reelect these who are slowly and surely chipping away at what we once knew as “free to live our own lives”.
Silly people.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Interesting Comparison
Interesting perspective in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette editorial (Perspective, please) on 2/6/09 regarding Dr. Dan Hawkins’ appointment to the governor’s Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Advisory Committee and his idea that lawmakers can possibly be held criminally and civilly liable for “pro-tobacco (pro-death for profit) votes injurious to the public health”. More interesting still is the reference to the post-WWII Nuremberg trials of the Nazis without reference to the Nuremberg Code of Medical Ethics, which came as a result of the findings of these trials and the horrific medical experiments conducted on unwilling human subjects.
Could it be possible, then, that such lawmakers who can be held accountable for such “pro-death” legislation as allowing tobacco consumption can then be expected to answer, both criminally and civilly, for pro-abortion legislation, up to and including President Obama’s recent executive order that essentially puts the US government in the unique position of financing and exporting this particular mode of death internationally?
A comparison to Carrie Nation “busting up a saloon” is not fair. Government revenue for a new spending program in the midst of a massive recession that is getting worse by the day was not at stake. The ideal and goal was the prohibition of alcohol consumption, not new or additional taxes to finance new and expanded programs while “hoping” people stop drinking. That movement was not talking out of both sides of the proverbial mouth. Arkansas legislators and the governor are.
Could it be possible, then, that such lawmakers who can be held accountable for such “pro-death” legislation as allowing tobacco consumption can then be expected to answer, both criminally and civilly, for pro-abortion legislation, up to and including President Obama’s recent executive order that essentially puts the US government in the unique position of financing and exporting this particular mode of death internationally?
A comparison to Carrie Nation “busting up a saloon” is not fair. Government revenue for a new spending program in the midst of a massive recession that is getting worse by the day was not at stake. The ideal and goal was the prohibition of alcohol consumption, not new or additional taxes to finance new and expanded programs while “hoping” people stop drinking. That movement was not talking out of both sides of the proverbial mouth. Arkansas legislators and the governor are.
Last Word
How much more can be written about the proposed tax increase on tobacco in Arkansas? Once this measure passed the state House, I was tempted to simply give in and stop worrying about it. It is clear that Democrats in this state legislature believe it is the government’s task to save us from ourselves, and it seems clearer still that too many Republicans would rather go along than to stand up for a clear political philosophy that distinguishes one party from the other. It is not a matter of being “obstructionist”, as the accusations go, but it must necessarily be a distinction that holds firm to the premise that there is only so much government can do and that no matter how much government takes from a staggering economy, ostensibly to “help” us, they still cannot save us from ourselves.
Trauma is trauma, wounds resulting from, more often than not, avoidable accidents that will continue to occur, some still resulting in death, in spite of a government decree to the contrary or even the greatest trauma system on the face of the planet. We still cannot help but to drive drunk, or drive too fast for conditions, or apply makeup while driving, or talk on cell phones while driving, or fail to take all precautionary measures as “bothersome” before undertaking a dangerous job. And let us not forget that drug dealers will still shoot other drug dealers, and anyone else for that matter, if things don’t go the way they expect them to go.
None of this is to say that we cannot take reasonable action to enforce safety measures, and none of this is to say that we simply write trauma victims off as deserving of whatever befalls them as the result of their carelessness or neglect.
Still, people die. It is an incontrovertible reality that mortal humans are faced with every single day. No government spending program, no tax increase, no bureaucratic mandate will change this. We as individuals can take reasonable measures and precautions to avoid dangerous situations and we as individuals can take responsibility for our own health situations, but we cannot avoid death. It is not even reasonable to suggest that we can delay death because we do not know when or where or even how our lives will end. This is well outside our realm.
Let us be more reasonable about what we ask and expect of our government. Let us be mindful of the current environment in which normal citizens have stopped spending money out of fear and uncertainty about tomorrow, and let us demand of our government that they, too, be mindful of certain realities. Our Arkansas legislature gave itself a raise, secure in the knowledge that in two years when they are up for reelection, they will be either termed out of office or we will have long forgotten.
Let us, finally, be mindful that we are not only responsible for our individual choices, but we are also responsible for the members of the legislature. We put them there, and we can take them out. They work in our behalf, and they need to be reminded of this absolute. No more incumbents; no more lifetime, career politicians.
Now give me a minute while I hold my breath till this all comes to pass.
Trauma is trauma, wounds resulting from, more often than not, avoidable accidents that will continue to occur, some still resulting in death, in spite of a government decree to the contrary or even the greatest trauma system on the face of the planet. We still cannot help but to drive drunk, or drive too fast for conditions, or apply makeup while driving, or talk on cell phones while driving, or fail to take all precautionary measures as “bothersome” before undertaking a dangerous job. And let us not forget that drug dealers will still shoot other drug dealers, and anyone else for that matter, if things don’t go the way they expect them to go.
None of this is to say that we cannot take reasonable action to enforce safety measures, and none of this is to say that we simply write trauma victims off as deserving of whatever befalls them as the result of their carelessness or neglect.
Still, people die. It is an incontrovertible reality that mortal humans are faced with every single day. No government spending program, no tax increase, no bureaucratic mandate will change this. We as individuals can take reasonable measures and precautions to avoid dangerous situations and we as individuals can take responsibility for our own health situations, but we cannot avoid death. It is not even reasonable to suggest that we can delay death because we do not know when or where or even how our lives will end. This is well outside our realm.
Let us be more reasonable about what we ask and expect of our government. Let us be mindful of the current environment in which normal citizens have stopped spending money out of fear and uncertainty about tomorrow, and let us demand of our government that they, too, be mindful of certain realities. Our Arkansas legislature gave itself a raise, secure in the knowledge that in two years when they are up for reelection, they will be either termed out of office or we will have long forgotten.
Let us, finally, be mindful that we are not only responsible for our individual choices, but we are also responsible for the members of the legislature. We put them there, and we can take them out. They work in our behalf, and they need to be reminded of this absolute. No more incumbents; no more lifetime, career politicians.
Now give me a minute while I hold my breath till this all comes to pass.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Who's In Control?
Deuteronomy 18:15-20
These past several weeks as I have been thinking through a particular situation, I have had to constantly remind myself that none of us is enslaved to any particular thing or person or concept – unless we choose to surrender to that thing or person or concept. We have minds that can reason and a free will that can respond according to what pleases us or that suits a particular situation. So even though we are bound to a certain degree by legal and moral obligations, for instance, we are simultaneously free at any time to do as we please, go where we please, believe as we please, and love whom we choose – all in spite of any legal or moral obligations. It is that we are in complete control, right? We just have to be willing to live by the consequences that come as a result of our choices.
I am reminded of a woman I knew years ago who got caught up in an adultrous affair. “Caught up”? How about “jumped in”? She reasoned that their illicit union must surely have been the will of God because, she reasoned, they couldn’t help falling in love. She says they didn’t mean to (the affair destroyed a marriage, by the way) but that it just happened. What she was tellling me, then, was that she and her boyfriend had been compelled by something beyond their nature and ability to reason and had essentially forced them to act against their will. Oh, if I had known then even what little I think I know now.
She was talking smack, and her thoughts and ideas were pure rubbish. She was an adulteror, and her boyfriend was no less guilty. He left his wife and children to be with this new “love” – this “love”, incidentally, which did not last a couple of years. But between the two of them, they just could not help themselves. What did actually make this thing worse was that while the man claimed no real religious affiliation, she was all too quick to point out that she was a “saved” Christian. I guess that’s how she figured everything she would do is pretty much ok by the Lord because, after all, do we not pray the Lord to “lead us NOT into temptation …”?? So if something tempts us beyond our perceived ability to resist, it must be the Lord’s fault … or His will. Right? Because do we not believe, overall, that the Lord is ultimately in control of all things?
It is downright blasphemous to insinuate on any level that the Lord is the author of sin or that He would allow us to lead such a sinful life that is biblically prohibited from everyone else. It is the epitome of arrogance to suggest that the Lord makes exceptions for some when the Bible clearly says otherwise.
But is there a certain level at which the Lord functions entirely on His own and independently of man’s desire and will? For instance, the United Methodist Church, among many others, teaches that the baptism of an infant, as a Sacrament of the Church, is as valid as the baptism of an adult who is making his or her profession of faith for the very first time. The reason is simple: the baptism is an act of God, not of man. Therefor if He does it at all, He does it right. There is no valid reason to require such a thing to be done again.
John Wesley once taught, and United Methodists still believe, that prevenient grace is that act by which the Holy Spirit is at work within us long before we call out to Him. It is a matter of Who loves whom … first. Even still, fundamental control might still be an issue especially on this level. I think there is no question that in the grand scheme of things, clearly the Lord God is ultimately in charge. Jesus Himself tells us that “the end” as we may think of it will come only when the Lord God decrees it, and not one moment before. No doubt, then, about who is “large and in charge” and clearly in control ... of the big picture.
Moses reminds the Israelites in Deuteronomy that there will come an end to his time but that another prophet “like him” will come from among them who “shall speak to them everything that I [the Lord] command.” (18:18) Here’s the kicker, though: “Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in My name, I myself will hold accountable.” (18:19) There is an element of man’s free will to decide for himself whether he will receive and embrace the prophet’s words, but there may also be consequences depending on man’s response.
What defines Christianity, however, is not a matter of who is ultimately in control. Christianity, instead, is relational without coercion. That is to say, this incredible thing which took place some 2000 years ago is that thing we commemorate today. In spite of our sinful nature and in spite of the harsh reality of man’s rejection, the Lord still chose to redeem us in an incomprehensible way. It was HIS act then; it is HIS act now. Our response, or lack of response (which is a response in itself) does not change the essential element of what took place – or why it took place. And yet we are still entirely free to choose. That’s love. And our response will determine whether we were ever His to begin with, as the saying goes: “If you love something, set it free. If it returns to you, it is yours and always will be. If not, it never was.”
It is important, particularly on any occasion in which the Sacrament of Holy Communion is to be shared, that we bear in mind what it means to make a choice to come forward and receive the Body and the Cup of Christ. Such an occasion must never be reduced to a mere act we choose to do because we are “supposed” to. Rather, this must necessarily be for us the ultimate reminder that even as evil seems to triumph – remember that man tortured and murdered Jesus because they didn’t like what they were hearing – in the end the ultimate control over life and death is clearly and firmly in the hands of the Almighty God and Author of Life.
He chose Life when He chose you. And He chose you when He asked Christ to go to the Cross. This must be known and embraced before this Bread and this Cup will ever mean anything to you or me. And He is FIRMLY IN CONTROL because this was HIS CHOICE for you … and even for me.
AMEN.
These past several weeks as I have been thinking through a particular situation, I have had to constantly remind myself that none of us is enslaved to any particular thing or person or concept – unless we choose to surrender to that thing or person or concept. We have minds that can reason and a free will that can respond according to what pleases us or that suits a particular situation. So even though we are bound to a certain degree by legal and moral obligations, for instance, we are simultaneously free at any time to do as we please, go where we please, believe as we please, and love whom we choose – all in spite of any legal or moral obligations. It is that we are in complete control, right? We just have to be willing to live by the consequences that come as a result of our choices.
I am reminded of a woman I knew years ago who got caught up in an adultrous affair. “Caught up”? How about “jumped in”? She reasoned that their illicit union must surely have been the will of God because, she reasoned, they couldn’t help falling in love. She says they didn’t mean to (the affair destroyed a marriage, by the way) but that it just happened. What she was tellling me, then, was that she and her boyfriend had been compelled by something beyond their nature and ability to reason and had essentially forced them to act against their will. Oh, if I had known then even what little I think I know now.
She was talking smack, and her thoughts and ideas were pure rubbish. She was an adulteror, and her boyfriend was no less guilty. He left his wife and children to be with this new “love” – this “love”, incidentally, which did not last a couple of years. But between the two of them, they just could not help themselves. What did actually make this thing worse was that while the man claimed no real religious affiliation, she was all too quick to point out that she was a “saved” Christian. I guess that’s how she figured everything she would do is pretty much ok by the Lord because, after all, do we not pray the Lord to “lead us NOT into temptation …”?? So if something tempts us beyond our perceived ability to resist, it must be the Lord’s fault … or His will. Right? Because do we not believe, overall, that the Lord is ultimately in control of all things?
It is downright blasphemous to insinuate on any level that the Lord is the author of sin or that He would allow us to lead such a sinful life that is biblically prohibited from everyone else. It is the epitome of arrogance to suggest that the Lord makes exceptions for some when the Bible clearly says otherwise.
But is there a certain level at which the Lord functions entirely on His own and independently of man’s desire and will? For instance, the United Methodist Church, among many others, teaches that the baptism of an infant, as a Sacrament of the Church, is as valid as the baptism of an adult who is making his or her profession of faith for the very first time. The reason is simple: the baptism is an act of God, not of man. Therefor if He does it at all, He does it right. There is no valid reason to require such a thing to be done again.
John Wesley once taught, and United Methodists still believe, that prevenient grace is that act by which the Holy Spirit is at work within us long before we call out to Him. It is a matter of Who loves whom … first. Even still, fundamental control might still be an issue especially on this level. I think there is no question that in the grand scheme of things, clearly the Lord God is ultimately in charge. Jesus Himself tells us that “the end” as we may think of it will come only when the Lord God decrees it, and not one moment before. No doubt, then, about who is “large and in charge” and clearly in control ... of the big picture.
Moses reminds the Israelites in Deuteronomy that there will come an end to his time but that another prophet “like him” will come from among them who “shall speak to them everything that I [the Lord] command.” (18:18) Here’s the kicker, though: “Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in My name, I myself will hold accountable.” (18:19) There is an element of man’s free will to decide for himself whether he will receive and embrace the prophet’s words, but there may also be consequences depending on man’s response.
What defines Christianity, however, is not a matter of who is ultimately in control. Christianity, instead, is relational without coercion. That is to say, this incredible thing which took place some 2000 years ago is that thing we commemorate today. In spite of our sinful nature and in spite of the harsh reality of man’s rejection, the Lord still chose to redeem us in an incomprehensible way. It was HIS act then; it is HIS act now. Our response, or lack of response (which is a response in itself) does not change the essential element of what took place – or why it took place. And yet we are still entirely free to choose. That’s love. And our response will determine whether we were ever His to begin with, as the saying goes: “If you love something, set it free. If it returns to you, it is yours and always will be. If not, it never was.”
It is important, particularly on any occasion in which the Sacrament of Holy Communion is to be shared, that we bear in mind what it means to make a choice to come forward and receive the Body and the Cup of Christ. Such an occasion must never be reduced to a mere act we choose to do because we are “supposed” to. Rather, this must necessarily be for us the ultimate reminder that even as evil seems to triumph – remember that man tortured and murdered Jesus because they didn’t like what they were hearing – in the end the ultimate control over life and death is clearly and firmly in the hands of the Almighty God and Author of Life.
He chose Life when He chose you. And He chose you when He asked Christ to go to the Cross. This must be known and embraced before this Bread and this Cup will ever mean anything to you or me. And He is FIRMLY IN CONTROL because this was HIS CHOICE for you … and even for me.
AMEN.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
I Wish ...
I wish I knew (or cared) more about the situation with Illinois’ governor and his impeachment so that I could make an intelligent commentary on it. That’s the rub, though, and it is what the national media should observe: that it is Illinois’ problem and that the Illinois legislature is dealing with it in due process.
I wish I knew all the details of this massive, $819 billion stimulus package that has passed the US House because I care deeply. The nation overwhelmingly elected a new president, leaving no doubt as to preference, but the give-aways this package is said to contain – such as funding for Medicaid to give away birth control – seem to have little to do stimulating the economy to create jobs, which was (or is) the stated purpose of the package in the first place.
I wish people had not booed when President Bush took the stage at Mr. Obama’s inauguration, and I especially wish that House Speaker Pelosi had not made her comment that “a 10-pound anvil had been lifted from her head”. Some people in this country are just plain nasty and are ungracious even in victory.
I wish we could just let Mr. Obama be “the” president, period. That he is the first African-American elected to the nation’s highest office is a bright spot in American history, but that moment has passed. We now have a man – just a man – serving as president. Why not leave it at that? To me, it is further evidence that even his supporters clearly qualify (and sometimes marginalize) human beings based purely on the color of another’s skin. Dr. King would not be pleased, I should think.
I wish I knew why Democrats have such a problem with Rush Limbaugh. Again, we’re talking about a mere mortal man, though “with brains on loan from God” (Limbaugh’s line). Reckon the Democrats really believe this to be true? I suppose this might explain why one media person can upset the entire party from the president on down.
I wish I knew why it is that during WWII, POW’s captured by the US were put in POW camps and held for the duration of the war without trial, but the detainees at Guantanamo Bay as POW’s are somehow entitled to a fair trial, having been captured by US forces during a battle. I am especially confused in knowing that some have been released only to turn up in similar battles elsewhere.
I wish I knew why Christians seem more intent on pointing out the flaws of others than in spreading the Good News.
I wish I knew (or cared) more about global warming.
I wish I knew why the world shows virtually no concern for Hamas rocket attacks against Israeli citizens but gets completely bent out of shape when Israel, after giving a week’s worth of firm warnings, finally gets enough and retaliates.
I wish I knew what the Arkansas legislature was thinking in giving itself a raise in the middle of the worst recession, some say, since the Great Depression. Now I am truly depressed.
I wish I knew why the Arkansas legislature and its governor thinks raising any tax during such an economic crisis and creating new spending programs is a good idea.
I wish I knew why governments and individuals seem so intent on eradicating death. With so many life-saving measures and other programs designed to save people from themselves, it is as if the government thinks it can outsmart the inevitable.
I wish I knew why we voters don’t pay more attention to our elected officials and their records at re-election. If we really knew or cared, my guess is most of the incumbents would not be incumbents.
I wish I knew why military deserters who object to the war in Iraq, or war in general, don’t change their status to “conscientious objector” and face that music rather than spending the rest of their lives running and hiding.
I wish I knew what convinces young people that alcohol can solve anything or is “fun”. And I wonder this as a former “believer” in the wonders and powers of alcohol. I guess I don’t remember because, well, I might have been drunk at the time.
I wish I knew why politics has to be so nasty rather than an honest debate and discussion about public policy. I suspect it has more to do with the corruptible nature of man, but I would like to believe there could be more.
I wish I knew why Pope Benedict would restore a cardinal who apparently at one time denied the reality of the Holocaust.
I wish I knew why the Catholic Church refuses to allow priests to marry. Sure would take care of that priest shortage we hear so much about.
I also wish I knew the intelligence level of those who believe that priests in the past would not have been child molesters if they had been married.
I wish I knew why anyone thought credit was a good idea.
I wish more writers would admit to what they don’t know.
I wish I knew all the details of this massive, $819 billion stimulus package that has passed the US House because I care deeply. The nation overwhelmingly elected a new president, leaving no doubt as to preference, but the give-aways this package is said to contain – such as funding for Medicaid to give away birth control – seem to have little to do stimulating the economy to create jobs, which was (or is) the stated purpose of the package in the first place.
I wish people had not booed when President Bush took the stage at Mr. Obama’s inauguration, and I especially wish that House Speaker Pelosi had not made her comment that “a 10-pound anvil had been lifted from her head”. Some people in this country are just plain nasty and are ungracious even in victory.
I wish we could just let Mr. Obama be “the” president, period. That he is the first African-American elected to the nation’s highest office is a bright spot in American history, but that moment has passed. We now have a man – just a man – serving as president. Why not leave it at that? To me, it is further evidence that even his supporters clearly qualify (and sometimes marginalize) human beings based purely on the color of another’s skin. Dr. King would not be pleased, I should think.
I wish I knew why Democrats have such a problem with Rush Limbaugh. Again, we’re talking about a mere mortal man, though “with brains on loan from God” (Limbaugh’s line). Reckon the Democrats really believe this to be true? I suppose this might explain why one media person can upset the entire party from the president on down.
I wish I knew why it is that during WWII, POW’s captured by the US were put in POW camps and held for the duration of the war without trial, but the detainees at Guantanamo Bay as POW’s are somehow entitled to a fair trial, having been captured by US forces during a battle. I am especially confused in knowing that some have been released only to turn up in similar battles elsewhere.
I wish I knew why Christians seem more intent on pointing out the flaws of others than in spreading the Good News.
I wish I knew (or cared) more about global warming.
I wish I knew why the world shows virtually no concern for Hamas rocket attacks against Israeli citizens but gets completely bent out of shape when Israel, after giving a week’s worth of firm warnings, finally gets enough and retaliates.
I wish I knew what the Arkansas legislature was thinking in giving itself a raise in the middle of the worst recession, some say, since the Great Depression. Now I am truly depressed.
I wish I knew why the Arkansas legislature and its governor thinks raising any tax during such an economic crisis and creating new spending programs is a good idea.
I wish I knew why governments and individuals seem so intent on eradicating death. With so many life-saving measures and other programs designed to save people from themselves, it is as if the government thinks it can outsmart the inevitable.
I wish I knew why we voters don’t pay more attention to our elected officials and their records at re-election. If we really knew or cared, my guess is most of the incumbents would not be incumbents.
I wish I knew why military deserters who object to the war in Iraq, or war in general, don’t change their status to “conscientious objector” and face that music rather than spending the rest of their lives running and hiding.
I wish I knew what convinces young people that alcohol can solve anything or is “fun”. And I wonder this as a former “believer” in the wonders and powers of alcohol. I guess I don’t remember because, well, I might have been drunk at the time.
I wish I knew why politics has to be so nasty rather than an honest debate and discussion about public policy. I suspect it has more to do with the corruptible nature of man, but I would like to believe there could be more.
I wish I knew why Pope Benedict would restore a cardinal who apparently at one time denied the reality of the Holocaust.
I wish I knew why the Catholic Church refuses to allow priests to marry. Sure would take care of that priest shortage we hear so much about.
I also wish I knew the intelligence level of those who believe that priests in the past would not have been child molesters if they had been married.
I wish I knew why anyone thought credit was a good idea.
I wish more writers would admit to what they don’t know.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Making Sense of Nonsense
It is difficult to conceive of an Arkansas legislative session in which some tax and/or legislative pay is not raised in some way; thank goodness for consistency in 2009. I had suggested earlier that the people of Arkansas would be better served during this time of extreme economic challenge if the members of Arkansas’ legislature would at least pretend they have a clue about what is happening across the state and the nation, indeed the world, but it appears by recent actions that not only are they seemingly unaware (or unconcerned) of dangers lurking but that they may in fact be incapable of seeing beyond the end of their collective nose. What is even worse is the level of arrogance that has been on display in some of the comments made by the alleged “leaders” of this state and its General Assembly.
A 3.8% pay raise has been approved by the General Assembly for all elected officials and signed by the governor who also stated that he would refuse his raise “because of the economy”. Puhleeze, Gov. Beebe. Leadership would have demanded that if you truly believed this, you would have vetoed the entire package as inappropriate for the time. House Speaker Robbie Wills is equally clueless when he says that he and his wife are expecting a new baby soon and that he “needs” this raise, which comes to about $400 per year for him. I wonder how many expectant parents in Arkansas have recently lost their jobs with no new job prospects or who are about to lose their jobs who will not see any raises anytime soon; that is, if they are lucky enough to keep their jobs? For that matter, how many Arkansans will see raises this year at all?
Sorry, Gov. Beebe, but you completely missed the boat on this one. You showed total disregard for certain reality even while acknowledging this very same reality, you made a feeble attempt to show some sense of solidarity with the working folk of this state, and you showed the people who entrusted to you the keys to the entire state that you will do only what is in the best interests of the legislature. After all, you never know when you may need them to return the favor, huh? That kind of trickery does indeed show how all your legislative experience helps. I sincerely hope all those who supported you come to realize they are getting exactly what they asked for and that all those who supported someone else knew exactly what would come sooner or later.
There is another certain reality among Arkansas households that when things are tight and jobs scarce, the last thing to do (if at all) is to take on a new financial obligation or expand current obligations, no matter how badly it seems to be needed. Each member of the Arkansas General Assembly, as individuals, is probably no exception to this general rule. However, put all these particular individuals in the same room, and suddenly conventional wisdom takes a back seat to standard government practice: think up ways to spend money, and then do the “responsible” thing by raising taxes to pay for it. And let’s not forget that folks hate smokers, so that’s an easy tax to go after. And to show the soon-to-be-fleeced that the legislature really has their best interests at heart, statements will be made to the effect that, “well, we really hope you quit smoking.” Let’s top it all off with a rally at Arkansas Children’s Hospital. Who’s gonna say no to the kids?
I have never seen anything in history or civics classes that ever held that one of the state’s enumerated purposes for existence was to serve itself or purposely seek to enhance its own revenue. My understanding has always (apparently very wrongly) been that the state’s income is incidental to what is happening in the real world; that if things are not going so great out there, the state may actually have to tighten its own belt while citizens are forced to do the same. Apparently this is not true in Little Rock AR. I’m just gratified that they care so much and that I can perhaps take some solice and comfort in the fact that some things never change.
A 3.8% pay raise has been approved by the General Assembly for all elected officials and signed by the governor who also stated that he would refuse his raise “because of the economy”. Puhleeze, Gov. Beebe. Leadership would have demanded that if you truly believed this, you would have vetoed the entire package as inappropriate for the time. House Speaker Robbie Wills is equally clueless when he says that he and his wife are expecting a new baby soon and that he “needs” this raise, which comes to about $400 per year for him. I wonder how many expectant parents in Arkansas have recently lost their jobs with no new job prospects or who are about to lose their jobs who will not see any raises anytime soon; that is, if they are lucky enough to keep their jobs? For that matter, how many Arkansans will see raises this year at all?
Sorry, Gov. Beebe, but you completely missed the boat on this one. You showed total disregard for certain reality even while acknowledging this very same reality, you made a feeble attempt to show some sense of solidarity with the working folk of this state, and you showed the people who entrusted to you the keys to the entire state that you will do only what is in the best interests of the legislature. After all, you never know when you may need them to return the favor, huh? That kind of trickery does indeed show how all your legislative experience helps. I sincerely hope all those who supported you come to realize they are getting exactly what they asked for and that all those who supported someone else knew exactly what would come sooner or later.
There is another certain reality among Arkansas households that when things are tight and jobs scarce, the last thing to do (if at all) is to take on a new financial obligation or expand current obligations, no matter how badly it seems to be needed. Each member of the Arkansas General Assembly, as individuals, is probably no exception to this general rule. However, put all these particular individuals in the same room, and suddenly conventional wisdom takes a back seat to standard government practice: think up ways to spend money, and then do the “responsible” thing by raising taxes to pay for it. And let’s not forget that folks hate smokers, so that’s an easy tax to go after. And to show the soon-to-be-fleeced that the legislature really has their best interests at heart, statements will be made to the effect that, “well, we really hope you quit smoking.” Let’s top it all off with a rally at Arkansas Children’s Hospital. Who’s gonna say no to the kids?
I have never seen anything in history or civics classes that ever held that one of the state’s enumerated purposes for existence was to serve itself or purposely seek to enhance its own revenue. My understanding has always (apparently very wrongly) been that the state’s income is incidental to what is happening in the real world; that if things are not going so great out there, the state may actually have to tighten its own belt while citizens are forced to do the same. Apparently this is not true in Little Rock AR. I’m just gratified that they care so much and that I can perhaps take some solice and comfort in the fact that some things never change.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Exporters of Death
President Obama, according to Fox News, is going to sign an executive order today which will provide federal funds to international agencies that provide and promote abortion, effectively overturning President Bush’s ban on such funds being made available to international abortion providers. It is bad enough that the US has this scourge on our national consciousness; do we really have to export such vile practices and “values” to other nations as well?
I had written earlier that Mr. Obama became my president on 20 January 2009 even though I did not support him among the Democrats nor did I vote for him in the general election. His political ideology and relative inexperience were the deciding factors for me, and I make no apology for either. In spite of my objections, however, I was prepared to accept the winner because it is how our system works. I am compelled to respect the wishes of the majority.
Now I am not so sure that I can support this man on any level, and I will try to explain why. Life is fundamental to our very existence as a people and as a nation. Our very Declaration of Independence hails life as the “unalienable” right of each human person. Such a right is infallible and inseparable; it is the core of our being. We are divinely called into life and no man, no government may remove from our being the “unalienable” right to exist not according to our wishes and desires but according to Divine Law which calls us into being. To deny the “unalienable” is to deny our humanity.
Because life is the foundation of existence, anything after this revolves around enhancing not only our own lives but the lives of others, especially those who stand defenseless against a world that seems inclined toward anarchy, the natural tendency seemingly bent toward that most base instinct of “survival of the fittest”. Without protections as they are, we are at the mercy of men and/or governments who may decree that some lives are more or less valuable than others according to arbitrary standards, standards that shift from generation to generation or, in the case of the United States, from Republican president to Democratic president (President Reagan instituted this abortion ban in 1984, and it stood until the time of President Clinton, was re-instated by President Bush and now is about to be removed by President Obama).
It is also a very curious, if alien, act when considering that such a move commits the United States (that’s you and me) to the financial burden of providing these abortions against our religious objections. This comes at a time when the US Treasury is 10 TRILLION dollars empty, the Congress and the President are debating on how to pay bills AND put Americans back to work AND fund Social Security AND provide universal health care and/or insurance … AND … AND …
It is difficult to support a man whose priorities include promoting death as a means of enhancing life. The issue of government involvement in such an endeavor goes far beyond the “choice” argument that supposedly applies to individuals according not to the will of the people but by judicial fiat. We are actually exporting the slaughter of innocents as a product of the United States. King Herod would be so proud to know us.
I had written earlier that Mr. Obama became my president on 20 January 2009 even though I did not support him among the Democrats nor did I vote for him in the general election. His political ideology and relative inexperience were the deciding factors for me, and I make no apology for either. In spite of my objections, however, I was prepared to accept the winner because it is how our system works. I am compelled to respect the wishes of the majority.
Now I am not so sure that I can support this man on any level, and I will try to explain why. Life is fundamental to our very existence as a people and as a nation. Our very Declaration of Independence hails life as the “unalienable” right of each human person. Such a right is infallible and inseparable; it is the core of our being. We are divinely called into life and no man, no government may remove from our being the “unalienable” right to exist not according to our wishes and desires but according to Divine Law which calls us into being. To deny the “unalienable” is to deny our humanity.
Because life is the foundation of existence, anything after this revolves around enhancing not only our own lives but the lives of others, especially those who stand defenseless against a world that seems inclined toward anarchy, the natural tendency seemingly bent toward that most base instinct of “survival of the fittest”. Without protections as they are, we are at the mercy of men and/or governments who may decree that some lives are more or less valuable than others according to arbitrary standards, standards that shift from generation to generation or, in the case of the United States, from Republican president to Democratic president (President Reagan instituted this abortion ban in 1984, and it stood until the time of President Clinton, was re-instated by President Bush and now is about to be removed by President Obama).
It is also a very curious, if alien, act when considering that such a move commits the United States (that’s you and me) to the financial burden of providing these abortions against our religious objections. This comes at a time when the US Treasury is 10 TRILLION dollars empty, the Congress and the President are debating on how to pay bills AND put Americans back to work AND fund Social Security AND provide universal health care and/or insurance … AND … AND …
It is difficult to support a man whose priorities include promoting death as a means of enhancing life. The issue of government involvement in such an endeavor goes far beyond the “choice” argument that supposedly applies to individuals according not to the will of the people but by judicial fiat. We are actually exporting the slaughter of innocents as a product of the United States. King Herod would be so proud to know us.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Inauguration Day 2009
Is it sour grapes? Am I a sore loser? Do I really have a problem only with Mr. Obama’s policies, or can I honestly disagree with his ideology? Surely I am not dismissing him before he even gets started exclusively because of his political party affiliation, and heaven have mercy if I truly am writing Mr. Obama off only because of the color of his skin! Do I wish him ill in the hopes that Americans will wake up and recognize that Democrats are bad altogether and very expensive to maintain?
These are questions I have been forced to honestly assess for myself on this Inauguration Day 2009 when Barack H. Obama will be sworn in as the nation’s 44th president. I wish I could be as excited as so many seem to be, but I also cannot grasp that so many Obama supporters are as much supporting him as they are grateful that Mr. Bush’s administration has ended. This is what I get from a friend who refuses to let go of the Supreme Court’s involvement in the 2000 election when Florida apparently could not count or could not distinguish a “hanging chad” and determine if the vote that chad represented was legitimate or not.
I am as ambivalent as I have ever been about a new president coming into office. I was excited when Mr. Reagan was elected and then re-elected. I was pleased when George H.W. Bush was inaugurated, and I was sorely disappointed when President Clinton came into the office. I was gratified when George W. Bush was ELECTED (not appointed, you people who cannot seem to let that one go!), but his successor was not so distinguishable early on within the Republican ranks. John McCain was written off early on but came back to finally secure the Republican nomination, Republicans failing to remember the days of the elderly and somewhat crusty Bob Dole’s failed challenge to a younger and far more charismatic Bill Clinton. Needless to say, I was not a John McCain supporter.
Now I will support Mr. Obama not because I “must” as a last or only alternative but, rather, as an opportunity and a privilege. I take this position as a citizen grateful for the genius of this republic’s founders, whose shared vision and common experiences enlightened them to recognize the success of some and the failures of other, societies and governing bodies that embodied ideals or violated basic principles. I am privileged that I “get to” respect the wishes of the majority of Americans and embrace our new president as further evidence of the success of this which is commonly referred to as the “great experiment”.
This is also a unique time in American history only in that Mr. Obama is the first African-American to be sworn in as the US president, but it is also a time of intense economic challenge, not so unique; we’ve been here before. Such as it is, Mr. Obama has referred often to the late President Franklin D. Roosevelt who took office while the nation was in the grip of the Great Depression. In his first inaugural address, Mr. Roosevelt said, in part, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”
If ever there was a time in US history when we need to put aside our political differences and personal prejudices, it is now. We can no longer afford to pretend, for instance, that unregulated markets will police and correct themselves, witnessing as we have the painful reality that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. We have seen too many among the rich and powerful clamor for more at the expense of the many who entrusted to these the fruit of their life’s work. We have witnessed a government intent on creating such a housing market and opportunity for ownership open the door to intense greed and sense of entitlement to rich and poor alike.
We have seen, and are still seeing, hundreds of thousands being put in the unemployment lines and out of their homes because of many corporations protecting the profit margins, and we have seen thousands upon thousands of jobs shipped to overseas, and substantially less expensive labor markets manufacturing the products they ultimately intend to sell back to the very workers they put out of work.
Our economy is upside down, and our government for the past two years during a particularly brutal and grueling presidential campaign seemed intent only in fixing the blame rather than the problems. Now that a new president is sworn into office and after all the din of the parties and celebrations subside, may we get down to the business of our business. May we put aside our ideological differences and work in unison toward a common objective. May we offer prayers and support to our new president, and hold to the proverbial fire the feet of our elected representatives and senators to stay focused on the matters at hand.
And may we remind them all, as we remember ourselves, that if one is not part of the solution, one is surely part of the problem. Anyone can point a finger, but it takes a real leader to step up to and face the challenges ahead. May we be so blessed that we have truly elected a leader.
These are questions I have been forced to honestly assess for myself on this Inauguration Day 2009 when Barack H. Obama will be sworn in as the nation’s 44th president. I wish I could be as excited as so many seem to be, but I also cannot grasp that so many Obama supporters are as much supporting him as they are grateful that Mr. Bush’s administration has ended. This is what I get from a friend who refuses to let go of the Supreme Court’s involvement in the 2000 election when Florida apparently could not count or could not distinguish a “hanging chad” and determine if the vote that chad represented was legitimate or not.
I am as ambivalent as I have ever been about a new president coming into office. I was excited when Mr. Reagan was elected and then re-elected. I was pleased when George H.W. Bush was inaugurated, and I was sorely disappointed when President Clinton came into the office. I was gratified when George W. Bush was ELECTED (not appointed, you people who cannot seem to let that one go!), but his successor was not so distinguishable early on within the Republican ranks. John McCain was written off early on but came back to finally secure the Republican nomination, Republicans failing to remember the days of the elderly and somewhat crusty Bob Dole’s failed challenge to a younger and far more charismatic Bill Clinton. Needless to say, I was not a John McCain supporter.
Now I will support Mr. Obama not because I “must” as a last or only alternative but, rather, as an opportunity and a privilege. I take this position as a citizen grateful for the genius of this republic’s founders, whose shared vision and common experiences enlightened them to recognize the success of some and the failures of other, societies and governing bodies that embodied ideals or violated basic principles. I am privileged that I “get to” respect the wishes of the majority of Americans and embrace our new president as further evidence of the success of this which is commonly referred to as the “great experiment”.
This is also a unique time in American history only in that Mr. Obama is the first African-American to be sworn in as the US president, but it is also a time of intense economic challenge, not so unique; we’ve been here before. Such as it is, Mr. Obama has referred often to the late President Franklin D. Roosevelt who took office while the nation was in the grip of the Great Depression. In his first inaugural address, Mr. Roosevelt said, in part, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”
If ever there was a time in US history when we need to put aside our political differences and personal prejudices, it is now. We can no longer afford to pretend, for instance, that unregulated markets will police and correct themselves, witnessing as we have the painful reality that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. We have seen too many among the rich and powerful clamor for more at the expense of the many who entrusted to these the fruit of their life’s work. We have witnessed a government intent on creating such a housing market and opportunity for ownership open the door to intense greed and sense of entitlement to rich and poor alike.
We have seen, and are still seeing, hundreds of thousands being put in the unemployment lines and out of their homes because of many corporations protecting the profit margins, and we have seen thousands upon thousands of jobs shipped to overseas, and substantially less expensive labor markets manufacturing the products they ultimately intend to sell back to the very workers they put out of work.
Our economy is upside down, and our government for the past two years during a particularly brutal and grueling presidential campaign seemed intent only in fixing the blame rather than the problems. Now that a new president is sworn into office and after all the din of the parties and celebrations subside, may we get down to the business of our business. May we put aside our ideological differences and work in unison toward a common objective. May we offer prayers and support to our new president, and hold to the proverbial fire the feet of our elected representatives and senators to stay focused on the matters at hand.
And may we remind them all, as we remember ourselves, that if one is not part of the solution, one is surely part of the problem. Anyone can point a finger, but it takes a real leader to step up to and face the challenges ahead. May we be so blessed that we have truly elected a leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)