Saturday, December 3, 2011

What the world needs much more of...

Rin Tin Tin

Alert and ready for my slightest word,
Rin Tin Tin I so often watch you stand;
Eager to serve me for that high reward-
A smile, or just a light touch of my hand.

Deaf to allurements of those standing by
when I am near, and deaf when I'm away.
Forever overjoyed at my return
However brief or lengthy is my stay.

Believing in me always, tho I fail,
Your trust you gave but once, and that to me.
Your's are the qualities that men hold high,
Strength and pride and love and loyalty.

Wherever led my path you'd walk my way.
And gladly give your life my own to save.
Enduring pain and hunger, heat and cold-
And broken hearted die upon my grave.

A real unselfish love like yours, old pal,
Is something I shall never know again;
And I must always be a better man,
Because you loved me greatly, Rin Tin Tin.

By: Lee Duncan

Source:

Rin Tin Tin: From Battlefield To Hollywood, A Story Of Friendship; <http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2011/09/24/140746523/rin-tin-tin-from-battlefield-to-hollywood-a-story-of-friendship>; 09/24/2011; accessed 12/03/2011.

SEE ALSO: Rin Tin Tin; <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rin_Tin_Tin>; accessed 12/03/2011.

Friday, November 18, 2011

Very, Very well said

If you have NOT seen the latest advertizing campaign for Benetton (a fashion company, I admit, I had not heard of before now) and their "Unhate Foundation," then I CONGRATULATE you.  (Please don't search for them.  You'll see them on a billboard near you soon enough.) The pictures are disturbing.  But then, maybe that's because I don't enjoy pictures of men kissing, even if it is only a "peck" on the lips and even if the smoochers are important and well known world political and religious leaders/presidents/dictators/etc.  So the problem must be mine--I must be a "homophobe" with a heart full of "hate."  After all, these pictures are produced and promulgated by an "UNhate" foundation.  Therefore to find them repulsive in ANY way means I am a "hater,"  Right?

From the Lady Gaga's of the world belting out "I was born this way" to the J. Crews painting little boys' toenails pink, traditional values are under full scale assault as not just "old" or "out-dated" but as "subversive" and "close-minded" and "hateful."  That's what made the article I stumbled upon this morning so refreshing.  It summarizes everything that this "campaign" of "unhate" really is.  It also speaks to the broader movements and currents within our popular society.    I encourage you to read it and I encourage you to pass it on to those, young and old, who may be feeling the pressure to "unhate."  The article is direct, and its language is fairly graphic, but so is the world we live in.  The Benetton billboards (and all the rest) along our roadways make it impossible to speak in "polite" terms about such to our children or ourselves.  Anything less than complete, uncomfortable, frank honesty will end in failure.  Faith and virtue are under siege today. And it is high time that we began to state clearly and unequivocally on which side the hate truly lies.


In Benetton's World, Gay Sex Solves Everything
     By Dr. Keith Ablow
     Published November 17, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Just like defining moments in the life of an individual, there can be defining moments in the history of an organization that reveal deep character -- the core ideals and beliefs that define that entity psychologically and morally. For the fashion house Benetton that moment is now, with the publication of advertisements for its "Unhate Foundation" that depict Pope Benedict XVI erotically kissing a Muslim imam, and President Obama erotically kissing Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and China's Hu Jintao. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is shown in a passionate moment with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

The only psychological interpretation of such ads that makes sense to me as a psychiatrist is that the corporate leaders at Benetton literally believe that homosexual sex between world leaders -- or at least homosexuality, as an orientation -- would lead to world peace. They have tipped their collective hands as a company and indicted marital fidelity, faith and heterosexuality, labeling them the real sources of hatred and suffering around the globe. In the collective mind of Benetton, if religious leaders and political figures would just have sex with one another all would be well.

Really. That is what they seem to think--or at least what they want our sons and daughters to think.

No matter, Benetton would have us believe, that we may have vast differences on human rights. No matter that we may have profound differences on religious tolerance. No matter that we may have fundamental differences on economic policies, respect for international law and child labor. All these non-issues will melt away with enough wet kisses between men who were once so backwards as to believe that ideas and ideals and knowledge of history and courage still mattered. No, Benettonians -- that new movement of homoerotic Utopians -- are telling us, homosexual sex is what matters -- and so much of it, in such unrestrained fashion as to unite men from democracies with men from dictatorships, Catholic and Muslim leaders, black men and white men. See, we had it all wrong talking about hearts and minds, about the Greatest Generation and lessons from history. We had it wrong elevating principle over pleasure and sacrifice over sexual gratification. We had it wrong thinking we could move the world forward while allowing men to be attracted to women. Our connections must be made man-to-man, with our tongues and genitals. That is the only road forward.

Make no mistake, this series of images published and posted along streets by Benetton is a declaration of psychological warfare on religious tradition and cultural mores and one that elevates narcissism and sexual gratification above intelligence and leadership. It is a direct message to the young people targeted by Benetton marketeers that theirs should be a generation defined by indulging in erotic pleasure above all else, and without regard to one's religious vows, or moral standards, or respect for one's office and public face, or one's word.

Benetton now joins J. Crew as a fashion retailer with a social agenda that is no secret. At J. Crew, Jenna Lyons made it a point to tell Americans that painting boys' toenails pink is a good thing and probably a proper antidote to their rising levels of testosterone. At Benetton, heterosexuality and faith, are now linked to all the problems in our troubled world, problems that can be reversed if men in positions of leadership would just yield to their innate desires to have sex with each other.

I have been asked, why are people so outraged by these images? What is the psychological reason? The reason is simply this: Human beings still know, thank God, when they have been attacked for who they are.

If you are heterosexual, if you are a leader who believes your position demands decorum, if you are a person of substance who believes you should be valued for your mind, not just your sexuality, if you think that countries and religion deserve respect, not ridicule, you were attacked today by Benetton. You felt it. And you shouldn't be talked out of your outrage.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Food For Thought

Who knows what it will mean, but here goes:

A great write-up on the potential for serious upheaval coming out of Occupy Wall Street, et al. (aka, "Down With Capitalism! Up With Communism!!"):
A great write-up about the potential for serious upheaval coming out of the "Arab Spring" (aka, "Down With Democracy! Up With Shariah!"):
A great video of Michael Moore desperately attempting to dodge the hypocrisy of denouncing capitalism (aka, "Down With The Rich! I'm Not The Rich!"):
And best of all, a great series of videos from 1979 in which Milton Friedman absolutely upends Phil Donahue on the topic of freedom and free enterprise (aka, PHIL.: "Down With The System!" MILT.: "Up With What, Praytell!?")

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Meet the Occupiers

I try to refrain from hyperbole about the Occupy Wall Street (et al) protesters, especially because it is so frequently and fallaciously used against the Tea Party.  The Tea Party was accused of rampant racism based on the presence of a handful of over-the-top signs that were not only not representative of the entire movement, but were also completely antithetical to it.

Thus, when a handful of atrocious signs at Occupy events are used by some on the right to paint the entire movement, I cry foul.  How do those of us outside the movement know what the majority inside of that movement stand for based on those few?  I believe it is not judging rightly to do so.

But what if it were not simply a handful of signs?  What if the evidence involved large groups of protesters?  What if they were voicing their assent and/or disapproval on a collective basis?  In that case, the argument can be made, validly, and without apology or fear of hyperbole, that this is what the Occupiers believe.

The following two links show videos of group "assemblies"--one at Wall Street, and one in Houston.  I cannot easily put these things into words--you simply have to watch it for yourself.  Do not be distracted by the headlines on the links.  But DO pay special attention to two specific points.  # 1, in both videos, notice the reactions of the crowds, especially their collectivist chanting/repetition.  This is the goal and aim of all communist and collectivist organizations and movements--to subsume the self within the whole, to completely destroy the individual and replace it with the collective..  This chanting is the act of surrendering self completely to the will of the whole as given voice by the "leader" (as opposed, for example, to Christianity where where men and women are "more noble" for examining the evidence for themselves [Acts 17:11], or the American ideal encapsulated in the concept that "all men...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" among which is the very private and individual "the pursuit of happiness").   #2 Notice the positions assented to by the "collective" especially in the second video: "Americans {concede?} democracy and capitalism is OVER," "explosions in technology and sexuality, everything seems to be possible, you can travel to the moon, you can become immortal by bio-genetics, you can have sex with animals or whatever..."

NOTE: I have read that the hand signs being made are apparently for showing approval without clapping, which would drown out the speakers.

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/eric-scheiner/hostile-houston-rep-jackson-lee-staffer-shouted-down-occupy-event

http://www.breitbart.tv/occupy-wall-street-chant-you-can-have-sex-with-animals/

Jesus said, "Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgement" (John 7:24).  If these large gathering are truly representative of the broader movement, then it can be righteously said, without exaggeration, that this movement is aimed at the overthrow of the American system of government and free enterprise and a wholesale departure from any resemblance of Christan ethics.

******
ADDED 10/12/2011 --> One more for good measure.  A lone voice in a sea of crazy?  Listen to the reaction of the crowd when its over!  When the sea has no moral compass and is composed of gasoline, one lone voice is the only spark needed. 

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/11/occupy-l-a-speaker-violence-will-be-necessary-to-achieve-our-goals/

Friday, September 30, 2011

Understanding Who We Face

At some point, one must fully admit who or what they are facing if they are to move forward successfully.  Several events over the past few weeks have put this clearly on display.

By and large, the modern Democratic Party, led by President Obama, is the party of Government and Government Control at the expense of individual freedom.  Normally when something like this is written, there is a lot of hyperventilation that also attends and hyperbole that obscures the actual facts.  But the more I see the actual facts--and actual statements in their own words--the more I subscribe to a little  more of that hyperventilation.

ITEM ONE: The Democratic Governor of North Carolina, Bev Perdue, speaking to a Cary, N.C. Rotary Club had this to say about how to fix the economy:

"You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things. I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that. The one good thing about Raleigh is that for so many years we worked across party lines. It's a little bit more contentious now but it's not impossible to try to do what's right in this state. You want people who don't worry about the next election." [emphasis added] [1]

Three hours later, the governor's office said the governor was using hyperbole--aka, just telling a joke!  (HA!  I know I'M laughing about the idea of suspending the democratic process! Aren't you?)  However, according to the article, "It's unclear whether Perdue, a Democrat, is serious -- but her tone was level and she asked others to support her on the idea." [1]

I listened to the audio, [2] and I have to tell you, I didn't hear anything that sounded like a joke.  She sounds completely sincere to me.

But to the main point: what is the solution and what is the problem in Ms Perdue's world-view? Government, if it was just left to itself, without the pressures and intrusions of the democratic process, would fix the economy.  The "problem" is that it has to face the electorate with its actions.  What a pity.

ITEM TWO: Former Obama Budget Director Peter Orszag, in an OpEd for The New Republic, commenting on how to "fix" our current gridlock, suggests:

"...During my recent stint in the Obama administration as director of the Office of Management and Budget, it was clear to me that the country’s political polarization was growing worse—harming Washington’s ability to do the basic, necessary work of governing. If you need confirmation of this, look no further than the recent debt-limit debacle, which clearly showed that we are becoming two nations governed by a single Congress—and that paralyzing gridlock is the result.

"So what to do? To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic." [emphasis added] [3]

I'm sure Mr. Orzag goes on to explain how a "depoliticized commission" could be created in a purely political climate or who would have the "privilege" of determining the "automatic policies."  I readily admit I read no further in the article, as I was not interested in signing up for a membership to do so.  I also haven't heard anything from Orzag's office as to whether this is a "joke" or not.

Needless to say, Mr. Orzag's "solution" and his "problem" are remarkably similar to those of Ms Perdue: Namely, government has the answers when it is allowed a free hand, unfettered by the "limitations" of democracy.  After all, reliance on such "automatic policies and depoliticized commissions" was a stellar success under the Soviet and East German regimes, right?

ITEM THREE: In July, speaking at the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza (FYI: "La Raza" means "The Race" in Spanish.  Very multicultural, no?), President Obama let his wishes be known:

"I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own.  Believe me...and...and...and, and believe me, uh, right now dealing with Congress the idea...But, but, but, believe me, uh, believe me the idea of, of doing things on my own is very tempting. It, it, I, I promise you, not, not, not just, not just on immigration reform." [4]

Now to be fair to the president, he does follow that with, "But that's not how, that's not how our system works. That's, that's, that's not how our democracy functions."  And according to the transcript he also adds, "That's not how our Constitution is written." [4]

But listen to the audio [4], and you get a better sense of the reality of the statement.  Listen to the applause that forces him to stop after his initial statement.  Listen to the roar of the crowd at the suggestion.  Listen to the extended chants of, "Yes you can! Yes you can!"  Listen to the jovial way the president uses while claiming he relishes the prospect.  And listen as he informs "The Race" it doesn't work that way.  Is that disappointment in h is voice?

The president may laugh it off with a wink and a nod, but again, the underlying world view is crystal clear: Unlimited governmental power, unfettered by the trappings of democracy and its pesky, duly elected representatives, would be a superbly wonderful thing.  Sadly, for those of like mind: "But that's not how our system works." [4]

Or does it?

ITEM FOUR: Perhaps you remember the announcement the administration made on August 18th: 

"The Obama administration said Thursday it will allow many illegal immigrants facing deportation the chance to stay in this country and apply for a work permit, while focusing on removing from the U.S. convicted criminals and those who might be a national security or public safety threat.

"That will mean a case-by-case review of approximately 300,000 illegal immigrants facing possible deportation in federal immigration courts, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in announcing the policy change." [5]

I don't know why I was so surprised when I heard this.  It is simply a natural extension of the same underlying world-view expressed above.  Forget the fact that these 300,000 "immigrants" are ILLEGAL.  With a stroke of pen, a letter handed down from above, the flexing of the convenient and unfettered arm of Government, Government simply makes their illegal status irrelevant.  Yes they ARE criminals, by virtue of the fact that they have broken the law.  But here Government makes an end run around the pesky "will of the people," enacted by duly, democratically elected representatives.  Here Government makes the clear, unfettered statement that Government knows best.

Beyond the simple frustration of such lies the much darker reality.  In this action Government has made itself the sole arbiter of who wins and who looses, who stays and who goes, who is completely illegitimate and who is quasi, semi, "temporarily-for-now"-legitimate, who must stay in the shadows and who, though removed from the shadow, must forever remain in a state of limbo.  With no basis in law, the rule now becomes the fiat command of those "in charge"--the fiat decree of Government and It's Will.  Some see this as a change for the better.  Some see it as an improvement.  Others would see it as the repetition of so many failed pages in history.  They would see it as the initial steps in a long series that lead inevitably to tyranny and totalitarianism.  And in that they are at least partially right; from the backs of such small steps much larger ones have been taken in other places and times.

What these small steps will mean in the long run of American history has yet to be seen.  Is this a passing expansion that will, as has happened before in our past, contract with the next application of "unruly" democracy. Or will there be broader implications? Will average citizens face the arbitrary application of law based solely on the whim of Government?  Who can say?  But if we are to prevent such an outcome in the end we must understand who it is we that face: those who see more democracy as the problem and more Government as the solution.

**********
[1] Perdue jokes about suspending Congressional elections for two years; <http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/perdue_suggests_suspending_congressional_elections_for_two_years_was_she_serious>; 09/27/2011; accessed 09/28/2011

[2] New audio: NC governor struck serious tone on suspending congressional elections; <http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/new-audio-nc-governor-struck-serious-tone-on-suspending-congressional-elections/>; 09/28/2011; accessed 09/28/2011

[3] Too Much of a Good Thing; <http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/94940/peter-orszag-democracy>; 09/14/2011; accessed 09/28/2011

[4] Obama: "The Idea Of Doing Things On My Own Is Very Tempting"; <http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/25/obama_the_idea_of_doing_things_on_my_own_is_very_tempting.html>; 07/25/2011; accessed 09/28/2011

[5] Many Undocumented Immigrants Without Criminal Records Facing Deportation Will Stay In U.S.; <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/18/breaking-undocumented-immigrants-can-stay-in-us_n_930668.html>; 08/18/2011; accessed 09/28/2011

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Accountabilty: The Ideology or the Man?

Great article drawing the distinction between when an ideology should be held responsible for influencing or inciting an individual's actions, and when it is simply an individual, who may claim an ideology, but who is acting in ways that espoused ideology would never permit.

When is an Ideology Responsible For Murder by Ben Shapiro;  <http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2011/07/27/when_is_an_ideology_responsible_for_murder/page/full/>; accessed 8/31/2011

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Fixed It? Think Again.

I wrote the following in a rush of frustration on Tuesday evening.  Little did I know how behind the times it would actually be.  The new debt limit, increased by $400 billion, was intended to take us through December.  But on Tuesday, the Treasury Department used up 60% of that amount on the very same day the new debt limit that was signed into law (Source: Washington Times, 8/03/2011).  That means the US borrowed $239 billion in a matter of hours (nearly $1,000 for every man woman and child in the country on top of the current $46+ thousand--more on that below).  That number also reaches another milestone:  The US now officially owes more money than its annual GDP (Source: AFP via YahooNews, 8/03/2011).   Add to that the debt downgrade by S&P this past Friday (Source: Standard & Poor's, 8/05/2011) and the possibility of a downgrade by Moody's (Source: The Hill, 8/08/2011).  Where does it end?


*******************************


Written 8/02/2011

For all the talk in Washington and the media, here is the reality that our newest law does not even begin to address:

     --> Total US Population:  311,901,458 (Source: US Census Bureau, @ 2:19 PM CST, 8/02/2011)

     --> Total US Debt:  $14,342,358,440,969.10 (yes, trillion) (Source: US Treasury Direct, 08/01/2011)

     --> US Debt per US Resident:  $46,697.97 (Source: freakishly scary basic math)

That means RIGHT NOW:
        ...YOU owe $46,697.97
        ...Your SPOUSE owes $46,697.97
        ...Every CHILD owes $46,697.97
        ...Every GRANDCHILD owes $46,697.97

CONGRATULATIONS!  You and every man, woman, and child residing in these United States could have purchased a 2011 Porsche Boxter Convertible, but instead you are now the proud owner of a nearly equivalent chunk of national debt!  Enjoy!

But all that is OLD news.  If all goes "right," the brand spankin'est new law in the land (S.365) will raise the debt limit 2,400,000,000,000 (trillions, again) by the end of 2012. (Source: MSNBC, 8/02/2011)

     --> Potential US Debt increase per person: $7694.73

     --> Grand Total Debt Per Person (potentially yours, Christmas 2012): $54,392.70

HURRAH!!!

"But," you on-the-ball-types say, "Does the bill just passed demand any cuts in the budget, so we don't HAVE to borrow more?"

Why yes!  $1.5 trillion worth of cuts over 10 years!

"But," you astute-mathematician-types say, "Isn't that a lot less than the amount we are raising the limit?  Doesn't that only work out to 150 billion each year?  Wouldn't that mean by the end of next year, we could LEGALY add 2.4 trillion to our debt but only cut 300 billion in the same time?"

Why yes again! Isn't getting out of debt wonderful!

"But," you really-astute-mathematician-types say, "Wouldn't that just INCREASE our debt? How can it possibly get us out of debt to borrow 87.5% more than we cut?"

Why yes once more!  But now, with this shiny new law in place, it is projected US debt will decrease from $24 trillion to a mere $22 trillion by 2021 (Source: CBS, 8/01/2011)!

"But," you annoyingly-astute-mathematician-types say, "How is $22 trillion a DECREASE?  If we owe 14.3 trillion now, doesn't that mean, even with this deal, we are still projected to add roughly 7.7 trillion over the next decade?  If we maintain the 2011 estimated population growth rate of 0.963% (Source: CIA World Fact Book, accessed 8/02/2011), won't we have a population around 343,273,178 by then?  And wouldn't that mean every man woman and child is projected to owe $64,088.89?"

Why yes yet another time!  But we won't ever let it get that high!

"But," you increasingly-threatening-sounding-and-disturbingly-numbers-driven-types say,"Didn't debt more than double in the last 10 years--from $5,674,178,209,886.86 in September of 2000 to $13,561,623,030,891.79 in September 2010 (Source: US Treasury Direct, 09/30/2010)? If this new law doesn't fix the problem in any serious way, won't it just keep going up?"

Why yes once another time more!  But don't worry--the "rich" will pay for it!

"But," you increasingly-frightening-and-mercilessly-facts-oriented-types say, "Didn't the latest Census data conclude that per capita income in the US was $26,862 in 2009 (Source: US Census Bureau, 9/2010)?"

Why yes yet again for another time more!  But "median" income doesn't matter, since we will only take it from the "rich!"

"But," you increasingly-terroristic-and-racist-sounding-types say, "Using those numbers, even if we took every penny of the income from EVERYBODY who earned any in the US, wouldn't that only be a little over  $8 trillion dollars?  Doesn't that come out to only 58% of what we owe?

Why yes one more time again than the last time!  We should probably take some of the "rich's" assets too!

"But," you dangerously-treasonous-and-Tea-Party-esque-types say,"Doesn't the combined net worth of all the billionaires in the US only total 1.53 trillion dollars (Source: Forbes, 3/2011)?  And wasn't the deficit this past year alone $1,651,794,027,380.04 (trillion) (Source: US Treasury, 09/30/2010)?  Doesn't that mean that if you seized the ENTIRE net worth of ALL 412 of them, you would still be more than 120 BILLION dollars short of paying for LAST YEAR?

Why yes to the nth power!  Looks like we'll have to take some from those nasty corporations and other "not-as-rich" types too.

"But," you clearly-parent-and-child-hating-and-probably-murdering-types say, "Wasn't the entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the US 14.66 trillion in 2010 (Source: CIA World Fact Book, accessed 8/02/2011)?  So even if we took everything that everyone and every company in the US made and every service they offered--every cow and calf and chicken, every ear of wheat or corn or grain of rice, every car and truck and tractor, every shoe and shoelace and can of shoe polish, every pen and pencil and ream of paper and notebook and crayon and eraser, every book and movie and magazine and newspaper, every computer and phone and television, every foot of lumber and nail and shingle, every steak and potato and bottle of water and canned drink and sandwich and salad and package of crackers, every auto and home and business and sign and clock and doll repairman's repairs, every musician's and deliveryman's and waiter's and  tip, every hour of effort of every fireman and policeman and teacher, every hour of every lawyer's advice and doctor's treatment and nurse's care and computer technician phone call and lawn mower's cutting and shoe shiner's shining, every trip to every ski resort and theme park and hotel and movie and dollar menu restaurant, every single thing made and every service paid for in these United States for the entire year--even if we took all that away from everybody, we would NOT be able to cover our new potential debt (14.7 trillion as of 8/02/2011) and would only be able to barely cover our current debt (14.3 trillion as of 8/01/2011)?"

Why, yes to infinity!  Why not, if it would solve the problem?

"But," you swastika-loving-Nazi-worshiping-types say, "How would it solve the problem?  What would prevent the government from putting us right back into debt again? And what will be left for us or for our children?"

Why, you really are selfish terrorists after all, aren't you?

So remember folks, the next time you look into the eyes of your child or grandchild, or even into your own eyes in the mirror, repeat the following: "Anybody who says we can't keep spending money like a junkie on a bender or talks about cutting spending, is just a racist, hate-mongering, hostage-taking, terrorist, Tea Partying, Nazi, 'rich' person who deserves to have their wealth and property 'redistributed.'  Anything less would be irrational and inhumane."

*******************************

I have used sarcasm liberally, especially in the last section, but the point I am trying to make is deadly serious. To get a small sense of the proportions, visit USDebtClock.org and watch the numbers fly.  Especially note the projected astronomic cost of our "Unfunded Liabilities"--things we have agreed to pay but have not provided funding for--Social Security, Medicare, & Medicare Part D (Prescription Drugs).

I pray that I have misunderstood the vile, political rhetoric spewing out of Washington.  But if history, especially current history, is any guide, I have not.  How will we deal with this issue?  No option available to us will be without pain.  But the worst of all options, in my humble opinion, is the one which our leaders have chosen: to stare into the abyss and blink and chart a course that simply takes us further in.  May those with the courage to say, "ENOUGH!" win the day in the end.

This debate will continue through this year as the Joint Select Committee created by S.365 (Source: MSNBC, 8/02/2011) hammers out debt deals in order to attempt to raise the debt limit another 500 billion.  If we do not make our voices heard in this process, I submit that the status quo will continue unabated--in other words, nothing will change.  If we make our voices heard, the responsibility then lies in the hands of others.  If we do not make our voices heard, who then bears the blame?

I encourage you to send this email to any and all who should be aware of the situation their country faces.

You can find and contact your Representative in the top right corner of House.gov.
You can find and contact your Senator in the top right corner of Senate.gov.
You can contact the President at WhiteHouse.gov.

Until each of us believes and embraces the ancient wisdom of Proverbs 22:7--The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender--our country will sink further into the mire of debt, ultimately destroying itself and its freedoms thereby.  Until no one among us is willing to reach into another man's pocket--whether the pocket of a parent, or a child, or a grandchild, or whoever happens to have more--in order to pay for our own way of life, we will never strike at the root cause of our debt.  Only when every man is willing to live within his means rather than by the means of others, we will ever truly be free.

May we determine and summon within ourselves the strength to think, to act, to stand, and to live as men who are truly free.

Friday, July 8, 2011

The essence of conservatism

It is not often that a website reply/post/comment seeks to lay out the rationale of conservatism.  Most people, on whatever corner of the spectrum, would probably think it is a useless waste of time.  Let it be entered into the record that such does not deter me!

After following a Drudge Report link about the new Margaret Thatcher movie, I was struck by a comment posted by one "Tony."
Can any of you Drudge Report types name a SINGLE good law or policy conservatives have passed in the US in a half century. Just one. I dare you to think of it.
Or are you just interested in your tribe, right or wrong?
What struck me was that I could not, on the spur of the moment, come up with one.  Not one.  Initially I wondered, "Does he have a point?  Have conservatives really done NOTHING worthwhile in the last half century?"  But as I considered further, the light-bulb came on, and I posted the following response to "Tony." 

This is a false dilemma, Tony. The real issue is that the mindset of conservatism is a full 180 degrees from that of liberal-progressivism. Instead of measuring success by what policy or law was passed, conservatism measures success by what individual freedom or liberty has been preserved or regained--in short, what policies or laws have been averted or repealed so that personal liberty can be “conserved.” That does not mean we champion anarchy--there IS a role for government to play in our lives. But conservatives believe two fundamental things. First, that no government, regardless of how large or powerful it is, can ever protect each individual form the realities of the “winds of fortune.” And second, that history has always taught that the more government attempts to intrude into every facet of the lives of its citizens, even in the name of “good,” the worse those lives become--religiously, socially, politically, and economically. In that respect, any number of conservatives could easily point to numerous issues, from the boiler plate (the defunding of Planned Parenthood which #1 reestablishes a respect for each individual life thereby #2 reducing the size and scope of government fiscally thereby #3 allowing individuals more economic freedom from higher taxes) to the bipartisan (the welfare reform passed in the 90's under President Clinton which #1 returned more of the responsibility for an individual's actions to the individual thereby, as above, #2 reducing the government fiscally and thereby #3 increasing individual freedom economically) to the seemingly contradictory (the 2007 largely CONSERVATIVE opposition to conservative Texas Governor Rick Perry’s executive order mandating the HPV vaccine and the eventual reversal of that mandate by the Texas legislature which #1 retains essential personal decisions for parents and #2 reduces the size and scope of government in our lives), that a conservative considers successful. Thus, rather than pointing to laws & policies established, conservatives find more satisfaction in laws or policies modified or abolished to the benefit of personal, individual liberty.

(Only later, after composing this mini-treatise, did I realize that, a few posts down, "Rob" had encapsulated the same thought much more succinctly before I did.

Your premise is flawed. True conservativism typically isn't about passing laws or policies, but rather the exact opposite -- getting rid of countless unnecessary laws and regulations passed by progressives.
 
Oh well!)

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Hurrah!

Pardon me in advance  if  when I am rude, but I am sick to death of the way bashing America, its founding fathers, its founding principles, and its founding documents has become fashionable.  I do not claim that there were not flaws--they were only human after all.  But for countless seemingly willfully ignorant myriad to trash the truly monumental foundation that they laid is wearying to the bone.  Whether it is CNN commentators denigrating the Constitution because, for example, "the structure of the Senate is...undemocratic" since it doesn't equate to "one man, one vote" (Note to Fareed: please get a clue and at a bare minimum spend some time on Wikipedia before you spout off.  "Constitutional Convention (United States)" would be a great place to start.  Try following the link to the "Connecticut Compromise"if you still don't get it.) to the truly insightful (sarcasm alert!!) question raised by Time Magazine's managing editor--"Does It [The Constitution] Still Matter?"--perfectly timed to coincide with the week of our greatest national holiday (Extra! Extra!  Get your July 4th "Trash The US" edition here!) and including such insightful analysis as "if the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so" (Note to Stengel: Link to Wikipedia's article on the TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, supplied HERE free of charge.  You're welcome.), I want to shout at the all the mindless drones so willing to spew their invective at that which makes their very mindlessness possible.  I cannot help but cheer, then, when I encounter those who clearly and succinctly expose their drivel for what it is. (2nd Note to Stengel: Indeed it DOES, you blithering windbag!.  Indeed it does!)  And so, without further ado, "July 4th," by Thomas Sowell.

Not quite sure what to say about this one

Nope, still not sure.
 
----------
National Education Association’s retiring top lawyer, Bob Chanin, speaking at the NEA’s annual meeting in July, 2009:
"And that brings me to my final and most important point: which is why, at least in my opinion, NEA and its affiliates are such effective advocates.
Despite what some among us would like to believe it is NOT because of our creative ideas. It is NOT because of the merit of our positions. It is NOT because we care about children and it is NOT because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power.
“And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year, because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them, the unions that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees.”
“This is not to say that the concern of NEA and its affiliates with closing achievement gaps, reducing dropout rates, improving teacher quality and the like are unimportant or inappropriate. To the contrary. These are the goals that guide the work we do. But they need not and must not be achieved at the expense of due process, employee rights and collective bargaining. That simply is too high a price to pay.” 
[Emphasis added]
 
SOURCE: http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/02/23/teachers-union-big-wig-says-its-not-about-kids-its-about-power

------

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

If The Foundations Be Destroyed...

I am watching the defense of Anthony Weiner (D-NY), shocked, aghast, and frankly more depressed than ever about the moral situation of our country.  I am tired of the Limbo, tired of one more round of "How Low Can You Go?"

And yet there always seems to be another round.

First he was being railroaded and smeared, hacked and hounded unjustly because of his politics.  Before his admission, I was incredulous, but willing to concede on that point.  If I am unwilling to accept the words coming out of the mouth of a man, with no real evidence to the contrary, I am a sad human being.

But then it turned out to be false.  All of it.  Every statement he had made--ALL a lie.

And still he is defended.   

He is the victim of a smear campaign.  In fact, he is like the Christians who were thrown to the lions. Even though HE was the one who originated, emailed, tweeted, took, phoned, etc, etc, etc, lewd, indecent, wicked emails, tweets, photographs, phone calls, etc, etc, etc AND blatantly & vociferously lied about it to every human being on the planet.  
 
All he did was lie after all--we do it to our girlfriends all the time, right, so what's the big deal with him betraying his WIFE and every human being on the planet (or offering his porn star liaisons PR help so THEY can lie too, for that matter)?

He made all of his initial defenders look like idiots, but hey, that's no reason to speak out against him now!  You don't want the other side to win, do you?  DO YOU?!?

51% of polled New Yorkers say he should not resign. (Should I be shocked?  Why am I not?)  This despite the fact that he has betrayed every semblance of trust--not simply by his actions, but by his blatant & vociferous lying--to every human being on the planet.  Some of whom happen to be New Yorkers. Some of whom happen to be his constituents.  (For the love of anything decent, where, at a bear minimum, is the self respect of these 51% of people??  HE LIED TO YOUR FACE AS IF YOU WERE A STUPID CHILD!!)

And the over-arching excuse dejour repeated ad-nauseam by a host of liberal elitists is,  "After all, he didn't do anything wrong because he didn't do anything illegal."  It wasn't illegal!  Therefore it wasn't wrong!  Case closed, end of story, get over it already.  Don't get all hung up in morality!  Don't start hyperventilating over ethics!  Put those old-fashioned ideas of right and wrong back in the stone age where they belong!

But the reality is that what Anthony Wiener did IS wrong!  Even before any material legally deemed "pornographic" emerged, IT WAS AND IS WRONG! It is not gray, or grey, or any other shade.  It is WRONG.  To misuse and abuse the trust placed upon you by the office held, even if not illegal IS WRONG!  To engage in sexual imagery, dialogue,  conversations, etc with someone who is not your spouse, even if NOT illegal IS WRONG!  To lie, vociferously and blatantly to EVERYONE--wife, constituents, public at large--even if not illegal IS WRONG!

When such a one cannot be called to account for his actions on the basest of excuses--namely that what occurred was not "illegal"--then we have reached a place that is beyond disheartening.  It is corrupt, devoid of any moral fiber, and drowning in the cesspool of relativism that is our modern world.  When such a man who has done such things cannot be called what he is--an unfaithful man, a dishonest man, and yes, even--GASP--a wicked man--we have lost something of deep and abiding value that cannot be recovered easily.

I do not despise Anthony Wiener.  I do not revel in his fall.  I do not say he has done things that are unique in the history of the world, that his actions are more egregious that others before him, or that he should be punished more severely than others who have done the same.  I am simply saddened by the depth of decay on display in the myriad voices seeking to excuse his actions as nothing of significance.  And I am saddened for the eyes that now witness these things and will build upon them in future days.  If the foundations be thus weakened today, where, how stands tomorrow?  

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34 
If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?  Psalm 11:3

Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of thy name: and deliver us, and purge away our sins, for thy name's sake.  Psalm 79:9

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Surprise: Hollywood is Liberal!

Just in case you didn't realize it: YES, Hollywood is liberal.  And the liberals admit it. AND its NOT just liberal shows.  Of course Friends is.  But what about COPS, or MacGyver?  Surely they don't have liberal biases, right?  Surely its not THAT pervasive, is it?  Surprise! Think again.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tv-executives-admit-taped-interviews-193116

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Sometimes you find a gem

I stumbled across this piece.  And I don't know whether it is my own simplistic need to have others agree with me to feel like I really know what I'm talking about or if what I think every now and again is actually, truly, right and I am just refreshed to see others see what I see (si?), but the elegance and honesty of the this piece struck home with me.  Blanket caveat: I don't / can't agree with everything.  And yes, it has a few words that no one should abide.  With that out of the way, I am glad to say I agree with almost everything.  And it makes me think that maybe, just maybe, the future may be a little bit brighter after all.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-03-11/news/why-i-am-no-longer-a-brain-dead-liberal/full

[Originally emailed 4/22/2011]

Thursday, February 24, 2011

I'm so frustrated, I have to throw this post at you

So, the people who have run away from their responsibility in Wisconsin can hijack the entire political process, but still get to vote on committee via phone and fax?  Seriously?!  Apparently so.

http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/2472-wisconsin-democrats-phone-it-in-literally

I disagreed vehemently with the nationalization of health care (just for starters) that was rammed through this last congress, but I would have been disgusted if those I agreed with acted like little children and ran and hid because they couldn't get their way.  It would have been wrong and nothing less than the hijacking of the legitimate process of government.  And what is exactly what is happening in Wisconsin and Indiana.

In other news, New Math meets "Pay no attention to the massive mound of Red behind that curtain!" So you heard the president and his advisers say they balanced the budget did you?  Halving the deficit and adding no new debt?  Uh-huh.  Except for that little * at the end--namely that their own proposals have an increase in the debt from 13 to 26 TRILLION over the same 10 year period!  WHAT?  OH!  RIGHT! That's because they didn't count interest payments, which balloon from south of 200 billion to north of 800 BILLION in 10 years.  Because YOU can say YOUR finances are balanced if you ignore what you already have on your credit card, right?.  And if you try to point out the inconsistency, you are engaging in silly hypotheticals or not "respecting" other people--who apparently do not understand basic arithmetic.  The only thing that makes me smile even a little bit is the last three video links below.  Its nice to feel like SOMEBODY else gets it (although the chart Sessions flashes scares the socks of me.  But then, I always thought large red numbers were pretty scary.  Apparently, I just need to give them a hug!).

---- The numbers by Politifact - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/15/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-white-house-budget-would-not-add/
---- Yes, we add a minimum of 600 BILLION to the total debt EVERY YEAR in the coming decade - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMQwic-JdxQ
---- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says "Its unsustainable" - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/02/17/geithner_admits_obligations_in_presidents_budget_unsustainable.html
---- :\ But it'll all be OK because its simple "math and economics" (& smoke & mirrors.  Everybody loves a good carnival!) - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/02/17/rep_ryan_to_geithner_how_can_you_say_youre_not_adding_to_the_debt.html
---- :\ Budget director Jack Lew tells Jeff Sessions, "Can't we all just get along?" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTuzmyMwH7E&NR=1
---- :\ Jake Tapper (ABC News) "Are you speaking English?" http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/jake-tapper-questions-jay-carney-budget-12932183

PS - For anybody keeping score at home, I was almost as angry when President Bush & CO funded the wars outside of the normal budget.  And when they coughed up a TARP ball.  At some point, be honest with the fact that these are REAL $$ that some one, somewhere is REALLY going to have to pay for (aka, my children)!  PLEASE!

Inspiration from a man who has slept for the past 12 days

[NOTE: Originally written on February 8, 2011]

I have been watching things in Egypt unfold with a mix of hope, fear, and frustration.  Hope that in the end all will work out well, fear that it may not or that worse things may rise from the ashes, and frustration that in some way, however so tangential, I have a hand in the troubles these Egyptians are seeking to cast off because of some of the actions my government has taken over the past 30 years.

Then I hear about men like Wael Ghonim.  Wael Ghonim, a 30 year old Egyptian living in the United Arab Emirates who was instrumental in the internet tidal wave that preceded the events of the last few weeks.  Wael Ghonim, who took a leave of absence from his work (yes, under false pretense--he claimed it was a family emergency), absence from work as the Head of Marketing of Google Middle East and North Africa, to join a peaceful protest in the streets of his home country.  Wael Ghonim, who for 12 days was "disappeared" by his government, and who was released less than 48 hours ago.  I commend his story to you and encourage you to listen to it--more accurately read it as it is in Arabic with English subtitles.  I cannot imagine that you will not be moved.

It is men such as this--brimming with honesty, humility, determined action in the face of danger, and a commitment to peace even in the midst of turmoil--that give me hope that Egypt and the broader world itself can indeed one day be a better place.  And even if that may dream not be, that maybe, just maybe, I can be a better man myself.

http://egypt.alive.in/2011/02/07/dream-tv-interview-with-wael-ghonim-part-1-with-english-subtitles/
http://egypt.alive.in/2011/02/08/dream-tv-interview-with-wael-ghonim-part-2-with-english-subtitles/
http://egypt.alive.in/2011/02/08/dream-tv-interview-with-wael-ghonim-–-part-3-–-with-english-subtitles/
http://egypt.alive.in/2011/02/08/dream-tv-interview-with-wael-ghonim-–-part-4-–-with-english-subtitles/
http://egypt.alive.in/2011/02/08/dream-tv-interview-with-wael-ghonim-–-part-last-3-–-with-english-subtitles/

I did not like the 5th and final segment, as it seems to be a classic journo-cinematic emotional ploy (US media does not have a monopoly on this market it appears).  It would be completely embarrassing were it not for the fact that it was a selection was made by the interviewer, not Ghonim himself, and that it was completely unable to taint in any way the noble spirit portrayed by this man.

May we have the clarity to see the true greatness of the nation we possess in the liberties and freedoms she still affords.  May we have the courage to stand in defense of the same.  May we have the conviction to make the world a better place for every man, when and where we can.  And may we have the strength to point that world to the God who proved the value of every man by the price that he paid for us all.

"Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift."  2 Cor 9:15

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Watching history unfold

The possibilities are tantalizing and fascinating.  A people rise up to shake off 30 years of rule by a single autocrat, a man swept to power by a militant Islamic attack that struck down his more open predecessor who had dared to make peace with the enemy.  Had I the power to change it, I would not.  Freedom is far too precious, though it often brings with it heavy costs.  Even if those who have been given it chose to use it for evil ends, it is better for them to have it.  Only freedom, true freedom, can serve as the antidote to repression--by government or religion.

For now we must wait.  And wonder.  Who will come next?  A true champion of secular democratic principle?  A hard-line theocracy in the mold of Iran?  Something in the middle?  Or another autocratic strong man?  What will the next days and years bring for Egypt's neighbors in the region?  Stability?  Peace?  Or war aggression and war? Only time will tell.

Until time does tell, one such as myself, so far outside the daily workings of Egyptian life, can only absorb the comments of the skeptics and the optimists (of both persuasion) and wonder where it all will end and what it will mean for me and mine.

But in that interum lies an intriguing concept--at times like these, I am witness to history.  I watch with the knowledge that so many words and deeds from days long past serve as the precedents to the very events that we are witnessing, only played out in past tense.  They have become history.  We are witness to history in  present, history becoming history, history in the making. 

I do not know where it will all end.  I hope and pray for the best, yet feel a tinge of uncertainty and doubt.  I believe it will likely be a precarious ride.  At best, it may be a wild one.  Either way, it will be fascinating.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Sticks and stones and words, words, words

Mere hours after Jared Loughner gunned down 6 people in Tuscon, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik took to the airwaves to, among other things, lay the blame at the feet of the “vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.”[1]  Some immediately bristled at the statement, reading in the words a not-too-subtle attack on the side of the spectrum that largely dominates those two media venues—specifically the so called “political right” or “conservatives.”  After several rounds of back and forth, such speculation was seemingly confirmed by Mr. Dupnik himself, when, in an interview with Diana Sawyer, he further focused his remarks as follows:

“The kind of rhetoric that flows from people like Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment he is irresponsible, uses partial information, sometimes wrong information, attacks people, angers them against government, angers them against elected officials and that kind of behavior in my opinion is not without consequences.”[2]

If such statements were only being made by a single Sheriff in Arizona, the issue would most likely have been moot.  But the talking point was soon picked up and trumpeted by the political “left” with amazing speed.  And while the aspersions were often subtle, they were aspersions, none-the less.  Jesse Jackson, for example, managed in three sentences to say that “right wing” groups were both not guilty and incapable of escaping guilt:

“There is no evidence that Jared Loughner, the alleged gunman in Tucson, was a member of a right-wing hate group. He was clearly a young man whose mind was unraveling. But it is exactly the mentally unstable who are most likely to be influenced by an atmosphere filled with hate and murderous rhetoric.”[3]

But in the rush (for once, no pun intended) to lay the blame for Loughner’s heinous crime on voices from the political “right,” one important detail was lacking: namely, facts.  With the information supplied by Jared’s one time friend, Zach Osler, some of those are finally being revealed.

" ‘He did not watch TV, he disliked the news,’ Zach Osler said. ‘He didn't listen to political radio, he didn't take sides, he wasn't on the left, he wasn't on the right.’ ” [4]

So much for blaming “right-wingers” on “talk-radio” and television.  What then might have been the real influences on Loughner?  The ABC interview with Mr. Osler highlights several things:  heavy alcohol use (including at least one hospitalization for alcohol poisoning), hallucinogenic drugs, and a supposed documentary called ‘Zeitgeist.’[4]  A cursory review of the Wikepida page for “Zeitgeist: The Movie” reveals it makes three primary assertions: that Jesus was a myth, the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by the US government, and that the current banking system is a conspiracy to “manipulate the international monetary system and the media in order to consolidate power.”[5]

Now based on these facts, an interesting question arises:  which of the extreme political boxes in this country would Loughner best fit into?  Would the “far-left” or the “far-right” be more likely to champion hard alcohol & drug use, a “Christ myth,” government complicity in 9/11, or an international banking conspiracy?

But lest someone misconstrue the point of this writing, let me clarify:  I am NOT attempting to turn the tables and pin the blame for Loughner’s actions on the “left.”  As Jon Stewart so aptly stated on The Daily Show on January 10th, 2011, “You can’t outsmart crazy.”[7]  NOR am I attempting to cast a mantle of protection over those spewing “vitriol.”  I do not hold Michael Moore any more responsible than Rush Limbaugh.  Nor do I condone the inflammatory or partisan statements either may utter.  The point I am attempting to make is very simple and very ancient and stated far more succinctly by a better mind than mine: 

“Judge not, that ye be not judged.  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?  Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?  Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:1-5)

Good is never served by scoring verbal points at the expense of truth.  Correction will never be made at the point of an insult or threat.  If cooler heads are to prevail, cooler heads must be engaged from the start.  Our words can come to haunt and mock us if we do not use them wisely.  And that will always be the case—left, right, or center.

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath (James 1:19)
__________________________________________________________

[1] Dupnik Denounces 'Vitriolic Rhetoric' With Left-Wing Vitriolic Rhetoric; http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2011/01/13/dupnik_denounces_vitriolic_rhetoric_with_left-wing_vitriolic_rhetoric, accessed 1/13/2011

[2] Arizona Sheriff Blasts Rush Limbaugh for Spewing 'Irresponsible' Vitriol; http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/arizona-sheriff-blasts-rush-limbaugh-spewing-irresponsible-vitriol/story?id=12583285; 1/10/2011, accessed 1/13/2011

[3] Hate Speech in Arizona; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-jesse-jackson/hate-speech-lit-blaze-in_b_807485.html; 1/11/2011, accessed 1/13/2011

[4] Tucson Shooting: Jared Loughner Stopped for Traffic Violation Hours Before Shooting; http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-shooting-friend-jared-loughner-speaks-motive-alleged/story?id=12597092; 1/12/2011, accessed 1/13/2011.

[5] Zeitgeist: The Movie; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist,_the_Movie; accessed 1/13/2011

[6] The Daily Show; http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-january-10-2011-denis-leary; 1/10/2011; accessed 1/13/2011

Monday, January 10, 2011

Welcome to the "Brave New World"

Aldous Huxley's dystopian depiction of the decoupling of reproduction from procreation, the inverting of sexual norms, drug-induced societal controls, pervasive authoritarian government, and protagonists aware of yet largely apathetic to all of it no doubt seemed disturbing in 1932.  I know it was for me when my wife first encouraged me to read it.  But that was nearly 13 years ago. Today the most disturbing facet of the book is not that it described such a society, but how  how much closer to such we have come in 2011.  Modern in vitro fertilization techniques render the formerly "nuclear" family moot and antiquated.  The rise of the "hook-up" and the promulgation of casual sex engaged in by teenagers and elderly alike has decoupled the sexual act from any form of true love or romance (indeed we march ever more toward that "brave" new "norm" where its is promiscuity that allays our friends fears and monogamy that raises their eyebrows).  Drugs, both illegal and proscription, have coated every nook and cranny of our lives, and deadened our every anxiety much like Huxley's Soma.  The expansion of governmental power, and its intrusion into and control of almost every corner of our lives continues at an astonishing rate.  And above it all, our society seems to care more about ogling Idols who win their fame on television and idles who win their fame simply by being famous than about considering in any depth the absolutely transformative nature of the chains being wound about us.

One more "small" link in those chains will be forged in February of this year when the State Department expunges from Passport applications the words "mother" and "father" and replace them with the much more  "global" terms "parent one" and "parent two."  This which will allow "many different types of families to be able to go and apply for a passport for their child without feeling like the government doesn’t recognize their family."  Such makes me wonder how I should feel if I prefer the terms mother and father, how I should feel if I am glad that I had them, or how I should feel if indeed I believe there is an inherent value in having not just a certain number of generic "parents," but of actually having one be a mother and one be a father.

" 'Mother,' 'Father' Changing to 'Parent One,' 'Parent Two' on Passport Applications " http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/07/passport-applications-soon-gender-neutral/

The change follows one made to "passports and consular reports of birth abroad" begun on the 10th day of "Gay Pride" month (June) last year, wherein "the State Department no longer requires that individuals provide proof that they have had sex reassignment surgery, but only requires certification from an 'attending physician' that the individual received 'appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition,' which may or may not include surgery."  If I were truly unloving and unkind, I might wonder if such changes might facilitate an enterprising terrorist in "reassigning" himself as a female in order to wear a burka.  But such a question would surely be hurtful to the transgendered and the terrorist alike, and therefore should certainly never be asked.  I suppose it might be less hurtful but perhaps just as foolish to ask just what such documents are even recording anymore, if such old fashioned terms as "mother" and "father," "male" and "female" no longer have relevance in our modern world.

"State Dept. Changes Passport Policy to Accomodate People Who Change Gender, Even Without Surgery" http://www.cnsnews.com/node/67708

These may be small signs, but they are touchstones to a much more fundamental shift being promulgated in our nation and our world.  Lest someone someone accuse me of over-reacting ("it is after all only words on one simple little form"), consider the following:  on December 23rd, no less than the Chairman of the House Finance Committee, openly homosexual congressman, Barney Frank, "own[ed] up" to a "radical homosexual agenda" (his own words) and issued a clear and confident challenge to any who would hold differing views or attempt to oppose such an agenda: "...for those who are worried about the radical homosexual agenda, let me put them on notice – two down, two to go."

"Barney Frank: ‘Let Me Own Up’ to the ‘Radical Homosexual Agenda’ " http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barney-frank-let-me-own-radical-homosexu

In that light, his comments made two days earlier that the belief that heterosexuals should not be forced to shower together with open homosexuals exhibits "a degree of discrimination that goes far beyond this" is startling at best, and ominous at worst.  No longer is my discomfort with with making myself an object of objectionable desire simply petty or backward--it is now, in fact, discriminatory.  It does not take much creativity (or paranoia) to hear in his follow up comments that "people who don't want to shower with gay people, then they better not play sports, they better not belong to gyms, they better not go to colleges where not everyone has their own bathroom" the foggy undertones of threat, the creak of the wheels of history turning completely about, or the "freedom" of today becoming the "obligation" of tomorrow.  How long until the showering together of males and females moves from the column of that which will "disrupt people" (Frank's own inexplicable and possibly hypocritical words) to the column of just another thing people "better" accept?  And is it too far-fetched to imagine the list of "better nots" growing?  "...they better not go to the store, they better not go to the school, they better not go to a job, they better not buy a house, they better not speak their mind, they better not..."  I pray I extrapolate much too far.

"Barney Frank: Not Allowing Gays and Straights to Shower Together is ‘Discrimination’ " http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-frank-straight-and-gay-soldiers-must

It is not my aim to be paranoid or reactionary.  But neither do I believe it a sign of wisdom to allow history to be rewritten without comment.  As a nation we once tried to obscure the indelible.  We attempted to demote the value of a man from "created equal" and "endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights" to a mere "three-fifths."  We paid for the undoing of that folly with the blood of half a million lives in war and untold thousands more in the ensuing 100 years of "peace."  Now even clearer markers are being slowly chipped away.  Seemingly brick by brick, the nation that was founded some 235 years ago is being dismantled.  Line by line, foundational precepts that have under-girded human civilization for some 4000 years and more, since its very inception, are being turned upside-down.    Who but the fool cannot but tremble at the "wonders" we now work?

I ask that you pray for us, that we give in neither to hysteria nor despair, paranoia nor sorrow.  Pray for our children, that they have the strength to face the even braver world that we may yet leave to them.  And "follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14).

Jeremiah 5:30-31  A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?
Jeremiah 8:12  Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they fall among them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.
Jeremiah 6:16  Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

Matthew 5:16  Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Never fight with logic. Its really sharp and pokey and you might get hurt.

Note the title of the following article on AOL:

"Study: Alcohol More Lethal Than Heroin, Cocaine" [1]

Now, before you get all panicky, the author will ease your fears by inserting the mandatory caveat: "When drunk in excess, alcohol..." [emphasis added].  Phew!  And another one, just for good measure (and to lessen that panicky feeling even more): "Heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetamine, or crystal meth, were the most lethal to individuals." [emphasis added].  Double Phew!

BUT....even with those caveats, the findings were attention-getting to say the least:  "When considering their wider social effects, alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine were the deadliest."  In fact, "overall, alcohol outranked all other substances..."  Even the "when drunk in excess" phrase (and "excess" is never defined, by the way) is followed by some pretty serious stuff: "...alcohol damages nearly all organ systems. It is also connected to higher death rates and is involved in a greater percentage of crime than most other drugs, including heroin."  In fact even without the "excess" thrown in, the article states that alcohol "has devastating consequences not only for drinkers but for those around them."  Apparently it ranks so much higher than the others "because it is so widely used."  Wim van den Brink "a professor of psychiatry and addiction at the University of Amsterdam" goes so far as to say "Drugs that are legal cause at least as much damage, if not more, than drugs that are illicit."

Whoa, Whoa WHOA!   I thought alcohol was just a socially-acceptable, adult beverage that helped you be healthy and happy and brought joy and brotherhood to the broader society. But if the above information is true...  Hmm...  And if it is the case alcohol is so damaging because of its wide use, wouldn't it make sense to consider limiting said wide use.  Someone might even (gasp) suggest something like limiting its access.

But no, because "experts said it would be impractical and incorrect to outlaw alcohol."  (Well, if EXPERTS say it, then...)  In the best argument yet to avoid the backward-headedness of one who might put two and two together and come up with four (legal alcohol + serious detriment = at least a consideration of the effect on society if it is no longer legal), Leslie King, "an adviser to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and one of the study's authors"  gives the following air tight defense of setting up another round: "We cannot return to the days of prohibition. ... Alcohol is too embedded in our culture and it won't go away."  And If that doesn't convince you, maybe you will be swayed by what van den Brink points out: "...considerations about revenue and taxation, like those garnered from the alcohol and tobacco industries, may influence decisions about which substances to regulate or outlaw."  Well, why didn't you say so in the first place?

There you have it folks: the final word from the experts. I shall summarize in the following illogical sillygism:

1) Experts know alcohol is devastating
2) Experts know alcohol has a worse impact than heroin, cocaine, crack, meth, or [insert name of any other illegal drug here]
3) Experts know alcohol has such a massive impact because it is readily available
4) Experts know alcohol is readily available because it is legal

 THEREFORE:

5) Experts know alcohol cannot be limited in any way because that would be impractical and incorrect, would return us to the days of Al Capone et al, would deprive the State of lots of revenue, and, besides, its just too hard to do.

The logic is inescapable and air-tight, as you can clearly see.  So stop worrying about it already.  And remember, there are lots of things that aren't "embedded in our culture" and that "experts" have not yet said are "impractical...to outlaw," so there are still plenty of evils we can rid society of, like: stopping people from driving without a seat-belt, making sure people put 7 year-olds in booster seats, making sure every American purchases health care (whether they want/need/can afford it or not), preventing stores from selling "evil' incandescent bulbs (beginning 2013), etc, etc, etc.

After all, we don't get any taxes from those things, right?

________________
1. Maria Cheng, "Study: Alcohol More Lethal Than Heroin, Cocaine"; <http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/31/study-alcohol-more-lethal-than-heroin-cocaine/>; 10/31/2010; accessed 12/16/2010.