The New Mrs. Gunderson

Congressional tarts

2008-10-07T13:58:00.005-04:00

Have you wondered why our representatives in the House flip-flopped on the bailout bill? The folks at Taxpayers for Common Sense found that the revised Senate version sweetened the deal. They added enough pork to the bill to entice the House members to come running back and vote "yea."

Here's a list of sweeteners added to the bailout bill which have absolutely nothing to do with the original purpose of the bill.

1.) Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children ($2 million)

2.) Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility ($100 million)

3.) Sec. 308. Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands ($192 million)

4.) Sec. 301. Extension and modification of research credit ($19 billion)

5.) Sec. 504. Income averaging for amounts received in connection with the Exxon Valdez litigation ($49 million)

6.) Sec. 601. Secure rural schools and community self-determination program ($3.3 billion)

7.) Sec. 201. Deduction for state and local sales taxes ($3.3 billion)

8.) Sec 502. Provisions related to film and television productions ($478 million)

9.) Sec. 325. Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products; wool research fund; wool duty refunds ($148 million)

10.) Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa ($33 million)

What's it called when a person sells their integrity for money? Let's run the prostitutes in Congress out of town.

It's time to throw the bums out of office

2008-10-06T09:53:00.005-04:00

Here's an idea: let's collectively flex our political muscle and clean house. Polls indicated that 93% of Americans were against the bailout bill. What would happen if those 93% voted the bums out of office who arrogantly thwarted the will of the people? We could overthrow this corrupt government peacefully and send a message to the Washington establishment that we're not going to take it anymore. We're done having our liberties trampled, our money squandered, and our economic freedom kidnapped by the so-called elite.

Here's a link to see how your senators voted on the bailout bill. Here's a link to see how your congressman voted. If they voted "yea" withhold your support from them in November.

I realize that this could be painful. You might find yourself voting for a candidate who does not reflect your political ideology. Either hold your nose and vote for them anyway or cast your support for a third party candidate. Let's send a clear message to those who sold us out.

The point of no return

2008-10-06T09:14:00.002-04:00

The Political Class Crosses the Rubicon

by James Ostrowski

Many of us are at a loss for words to describe the significance of the billionaire banker bailout. We wish Murray Rothbard was still here to paint a vivid picture for us.

My father would teach us that swearing is what people do when they lack the ability to express themselves clearly. I plead guilty as I have been swearing like a sailor at Congress the last few days.

I can't help but think back to Caesar and the Rubicon. I think this bailout is the modern Rubicon of the political class. This is the point of no return. As Mises taught us, this massive intervention will accelerate the amazing growth of the power, size and scope of the federal government which will soon lead to escalating and cascading crises that could bring down the regime.

One consequence of the bailout has been overlooked. It will now be impossible to argue against any new spending program that favors non-billionaires and non-millionaires. "If we bailed out Wall Street, why can't we help __________." You will hear that line ad nauseum until the kleptocracy collapses under the own weight of its own greed.

So, objectively, the corporate state regime has set in motion its own destruction. The subjective conditions for radical change have also been established. The radical libertarian view of the state as a gang of criminals will no longer be a hard sell. It is now apparent to any honest and thinking person not blinded by being on the dole that the corporate state is a bunch of criminals, degenerates, and hoodlums. They just pulled off the biggest armed robbery in human history right before our eyes. Worse yet, it can no longer be denied that these thugs steal from the poor and give to the rich! Since the libertarians have led the opposition to the bailout, we have in one week erased the lie that we are apologists for the rich.

The corporate state's false god, democracy, has also suffered a mortal wound. We all know that the crooks in Congress were besieged by calls, emails, faxes and personal visits against the billionaire banker bailout. These were ignored.

Let's be clear about what happened here. This was the greatest single outpouring of populist feeling against a bill in living memory and the Congress last week said to the American people: screw you! The people beseeched Congress not to make this mistake and the Congress responded like Caesar:

"I am constant as the northern star,
Of whose true-fix'd and resting quality
There is no fellow in the firmament."

~ Julius Caesar (III, i, 60–62)

The message is clear. If we play by their rules, we will lose. If we "win," they will just replay the game again and again until they win.

We have learned other valuable lessons this week. Both parties are useless. Both parties are enemies of the people. The MSM is useless. They were in the tank for the bailout throughout.

This week, the political class, drunk with hubris, crossed their own Rubicon. They had been tempted by a vision of hundreds of millions of sheep on the other side waiting to be sheared and slaughtered.

In this chess game, it’s the "sheep’s" move. I have played a little chess in my time so I suggest this move: render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Brutus said:

There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.

~ Julius Caesar Act 4, scene 3, 218–224

October 6, 2008
James Ostrowski is an attorney in Buffalo, New York and author of Political Class Dismissed: Essays Against Politics, Including "What’s Wrong With Buffalo."

My man Howard ... dropped the ball

2008-10-05T22:39:00.003-04:00

Well, I tried. I contacted my congressman as they always instructed me to do in government school, but he wimped out. I emailed Howard Coble a total of four times this week. The first time I urged him vote down the fed bailout. He followed the will of the people. The second time I thanked him for his courage in confronting the power elite of Washington and Wall Street. The third time I encouraged him to also vote against the Senate's version of the same ridiculous bill. Howard voted "yea." I guess he lost his nerve. My fourth email was a promise to do my best to remove Mr. Coble from office in the coming election cycle. I invite any other member of NC's 6th Congressional District to do the same. Feel free to skewer Senator Richard Burr as well when he's up for re-election in a few years. He approved of the Senate's bill too.

Ah ... democracy in action. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people. New definition: "the people" = Wall Street fat cats, well-financed special interest groups, and irresponsible consumers who make up an ever increasing voter block in the US.

Are Christians really this gullible?

2008-10-05T22:29:00.004-04:00

Wow! I should no longer be surprised by this, but I am. Christian spokesmen, some of whom I've respected for years, are actually in support of the bailout. The following article provides a hard-hitting look at how some of them have responded to the current economic "crisis." Are they idiots, gullible, or co-conspirators? Read and you be the judge.

Elmer Gantry Economics
by William Norman Grigg

A vast potential for infernal mischief can be found in some otherwise harmless adverbs. Let us examine the specific case of the seemingly inoffensive modifier "normally."

Incorrigible cynic that I am, I've long believed that any sentence that begins with the word "normally" is an exercise in deception, generally taking the form of special pleading. Whatever follows the word "normally" is something morally objectionable that I should summarily reject, but am being asked to countenance just this one time. Or so I'm being told to believe.

In a radio commentary for Focus on the Family broadcast yesterday before the congressional vote on the Economic Dictatorship Enabling Act, Gary Bauer quite generously vindicated my belief.

"Normally, we would not want to bail out people that made wrong decisions," Bauer began in his familiar tone of adenoidal sanctimony. In terms of making his case, Bauer lost me at "normally" – but I listened anyway, as my enraged disgust took control of my jaw and put two very expensive dental crowns at risk.

"This crisis, if left unattended, could hurt people that made right decisions," Bauer simpered. "This [bailout] is not rewarding bad decisions. This is an attempt to prevent those bad decisions from hurting people that had no part in them."

Actually, those of us who had no part in those "bad decisions" are already being hurt. And we're in for much greater pain in the future. That much is out of our hands. The Über-Bailout would do nothing to protect the relatively innocent and powerless. However, it would greatly palliate the deserved pain of those who are powerful and guilty. And it would end – "temporarily," which in the lexicon of government power is a functional synonym for "forever" – the ability of the common people to compel elected representatives to combat the schemes of the Bankster Elite.

The FED's counterfeiting press (or its digital analog) has been tirelessly churning wealth siphoned from our paychecks and savings into the butter it slathers on the bread of the corporate elite. This pilferage will continue whether or not Congress actually passes a bailout measure, as it probably will (most likely in a post-election lame duck session).

The Paulson Plan simply proposed to sever the one thin, fraying thread of accountability still connecting the economic elite to the people it is plundering. That thread is Congress's constitutional role in appropriating funds and overseeing the executive branch personnel who spend them.

Paulson, acting on behalf of the corporatist plunderbund, wanted to snip that thread decisively, albeit with a grave sense of agonized reluctance amid a unique financial crisis.

Bear in mind, of course, that this is something Paulson would not normally propose. Heh.

Bauer's moral reasoning, such as it is, dictates that while it's a sin to steal a hundred dollars to feed your family, stealing $700 billion to salve the bank accounts of wealthy criminals is an act of Christian statecraft. Both of those acts are sins and crimes, of course. And it's important to remember that the Christian Gospels – regarded as the truth, or merely an interesting collection of moral teachings – make it clear that Jesus didn't define sin on a sliding scale favoring the rich and powerful.

The remedy for sin, in all circumstances, is repentance – acknowledgement of the evil one has done, an attempt to make restitution, and an earnest effort fully to turn away from the sin. None of this would be accomplished by the Über-Bailout whose purported necessity provided Gary Bauer with an opportunity to display his utter moral idiocy.

Joining Gary Bauer in offering a sermon on the supposed virtue of shaking down the poor to comfort the rich was Christian financial advisor Rob West.

"I really believe that we will see most of this money returned to the taxpayer," West began in the unctuous tone of a practiced con-man, "because as they buy up these loans at a discount the government will use their balance sheet to hold these loans and then sell them once market prices recover and stabilize.... There really is good evidence that the government can get most of this back." (Emphasis added.)

This is an exquisite example of a multi-layered lie – a veritable Napoleon pastry of prevarication, in fact.

Let's begin with the italicized words "taxpayer" and "government." When West began this exercise in artful dishonesty, he assured the anxious listener that the money spent to provide a cushion for corrupt financial institutions would be returned to the taxpayers from whom it would be taken. By the end, we're told that the money would actually be "returned" to the government. Obviously, this not the same thing as returning it to those from whom the money would be stolen.

In the middle of this noxious confection we find a blend of two related and thoroughly toxic untruths. The first is that government, through coercive redistribution of wealth, can inject "value" into something innately worthless, such as a pile of irredeemably corrupt mortgage securities. The second is that the inflated prices that we saw during the housing bubble were normal, and that the ongoing decline is an aberration.

What West doesn't explain is this: If these feculent mortgage bonds are such a spectacular bargain, why aren't they being snapped up by contrarian investors?

Behind West's assurances we can find the tacit understanding that the purpose of the Über-Bailout is to continue the process of inflation, the ongoing theft of the value of what we earn and save through adulteration of the currency. Yet West – whose advice is worth at least as much as, but no more than, a Zimbabwean dollar – maintains that the Bailout would have no inflationary impact:

"Certainly the American family has already felt increased prices at the gas pump and the grocery store. And I don't think necessarily that we'll see a marked increase in that just based on this proposal alone[.]"

Here we see West taking refuge in another mischievous adverb – "necessarily" – while pretending that "this [$700 billion] proposal alone" would be the sole and final act of larceny.

Like so many other sycophants in saintly guise, West couples his solicitude for the powerful with stern advice for the weak. It may be a moral duty to relieve the super-rich of their self-inflicted burdens, but the poor and struggling are owed no similar succor.

"One of the messages for the American Christian is that we have to heed the counsel of scripture," cooed West. "Take the opportunity now to make sure you live within your means. Take the opportunity to start paying off your debt and shoring up your financial foundation. Make sure you have some long-term plans."

All of this is impeccably sound advice, but it is difficult to see how any of us can reinforce our financial foundation when the FED and its accomplices can fatally undermine it through inflation. West is demanding that people support a policy that will bring their conscientious efforts to nought, and nullify any long-term plans they make.

The ever-deepening financial crisis presents us with an opportunity and necessity to do something that is no fun at all: Repent.

To repent, once again, is to turn completely away from one's present course. As individuals and as a nation we cannot continue to live on debt (or on "credit," as it's commonly called). There are already plentiful indications that American households are reining in their spending, foregoing luxuries of various kinds, and "hoarding cash." Banks are engaging in the same behavior. All of this is good and necessary – and, admittedly, painful. In other words, it is a species of repentance, one the Big Bailout (and the subsequent interventions) would be intended to discourage, if not reverse.

Economic repentance, to be effective, can't be merely the private affair of the public. The government ruling us cannot continue the imperial foreign policy that has received the conspicuous benediction of Palace Prophets like James Dobson and Gary Bauer – the latter being Dobson's representative in the neo-"conservative" warmaking network.

Why would a Christian political spokesman such as Gary Bauer miss such an obvious opportunity to preach repentance? Why would he choose to placate the powerful at the expense of the poor?

I suspect the answer may have something to do with Bauer's other affiliations.

Bauer was a founding member of the Project for a New American Century, the Beltway camarilla that was the womb in which the Iraq war gestated for several years. He is on the board of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a group that wishes to organize the entire world around the nucleus of U.S.-Israeli military domination.

A similar ambition animates the Jerusalem Summit, an organization on whose international advisory board sits the same Gary Bauer. The Jerusalem Summit's chief objective is to create an Israel-centered, armed "League of Democracies." That proposal that has been taken up by John McCain, the deranged, senescent, foul-mouthed adulterer who won the endorsement of James Dobson – the country's foremost self-appointed Christian family counselor – by convincing a mother of five children, including a newborn infant with a serious handicap, to forsake home and hearth for the vice presidential hustings.

Like too many "Christian" Right leaders, Dobson and Bauer are devout servants of the War Machine, which cannot operate without the fiat money system inflicted on our nation in 1913. They profess to worship Christ, while serving Mars and Mammon. That may explain the double-mindedness displayed by Bauer and West in their homily in support of the post-Housing Bubble Heist.

Bailout round 2

2008-10-01T10:35:00.004-04:00

If at first you don't succeed (to reward bad CEO behavior, to save malinvestments in an obvious housing bubble, to saddle American taxpayers with a generational debt burden, to further erode the value of the dollar, to avoid a sharp, short recession in exchange for a deeper, wider one, to thwart the Constitution, to implement the advice of the former CEO of a failed bank whose now the most powerful bureaucrat in the country, to prop up the flagging legacy of a lame duck president), try, try again. That's exactly what the Senate is about to do. Yet another knee jerk bailout bill is being strung together as you read.

Take action friends. They will listen if we make enough noise. Contact your senators and tell them to vote against the bailout. The Senate may be a lost cause, however. Thankfully, there's still the House of Representatives. They're closer to their constituencies and actually listen. (My man Howard Coble voted against the first bill because of opinion against it.) Definitely contact your congressman. To find contact information or to figure out who your representative is, click here.

An open letter to the bailout cowards in Congress

2008-09-28T23:02:00.004-04:00

I haven't heard of this guy until today. I don't know him, but I like him. He opposes the bailout unlike most of the sheep now bleating in Congress as they mindlessly follow the chief shepherd, Henry Paulson. I hope and I pray that there are more representatives like Mike Pence of Indiana. Perhaps there's still a chance that the financial markets won't be nationalized. Pence and Paul make two votes against the bailout. Well, it's a start.

Here's Pence's letter to Congress:

From Congressman Pence's Office
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Congressman Mike Pence sent the following letter to his colleagues today in opposition to the deal struck last night on the bailout of the financial services sector:

Dear Colleagues:

Our nation has been confronted by a serious crisis in our financial markets. The President and this Congress were right to act with all deliberate speed in addressing this crisis.

We now have a deal that promises to bring near-term stability to our financial turmoil, but at what price?

Economic freedom means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail.

The decision to give the federal government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupts this basic truth of our free market economy.

Republicans improved this bill but it remains the largest corporate bailout in American history, forever changes the relationship between government and the financial sector, and passes the cost along to the American people. I cannot support it.

Before you vote, ask yourself why you came here and vote with courage and integrity to those principals.

If you came here because you believe in limited government and the freedom of the American marketplace, vote in accordance with those convictions.

Duty is ours, outcomes belong to God.

We have fought the good fight. Now we need to finish the race and make sure that posterity and the American people know there were conservatives who opposed the leviathan state in this dark hour.

And if you do this I promise you, I will stand with you and, I believe with all my heart, the American people will stand with you as well.

MIKE PENCE

Bailout? Just do nothing!

2008-09-27T08:07:00.002-04:00

Here's the clearest and most reasonable advice I've read so far concerning our forthcoming government bailout. I'm not sure who this guy is, but he's right on target and has a way cool first name.

Bailout? Just do nothing
No matter what, it's going to be ugly. So let's just save the $700 billion.
Joel Stein September 26, 2008

I am a huge proponent, at all times, of doing nothing. Remember when everyone was filling bunkers with millet because computers wouldn't be able to handle a year with three zeros in it? I stayed Calvin Coolidge cool. After America was attacked on 9/11, I suggested keeping our armies home. When John McCain responded to the economic crisis he'd have to deal with as president by suspending his campaign, I started to think that maybe he's my guy after all.

Even though I understand so little about economics that much of my long-term investments are tied up in Costco products, I feel pretty sure that letting Congress give Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson $700 billion to buy super-crappy mortgages is not the right call.

Sure, like any American, when I see a photo on the Internet of an adorable little investment bank and find out it's at risk of being put to sleep, I want to throw in $2,000 to $3,000 of my own money to adopt it. But instead of jacking up inflation, letting the dollar sink further and paying higher taxes so we can keep up cheap borrowing -- which is what this plan amounts to -- I think we need to let those who made bad loans get burned. We need to accept that credit will dry up and that maybe -- for just a bit -- we'll have to stop buying more than we can afford.

Because it's not just the Wall Street bankers who over-leveraged their companies who are to blame. Do you have credit card debt? Did you buy a house with less than 20% down, or with an adjustable-rate mortgage, assuming that skyrocketing equity would let you refinance or flip it? Of course you didn't, because you're a super-intelligent reader of my column. But don't you think every single Rosa Brooks reader did?

Americans have been living beyond our means, and we should have recognized that fact the moment we saw those glass Voss water bottles. But we can recover from our misbehavior through a little austerity, like having only one house -- perhaps one NBA players couldn't play chicken in. More than the mistakes made along the way, however, I fear the overreaction to them, a lesson I learned from chief economist Wyle E. Coyote.

So let's not stop the short-selling of financial stocks -- the only brake on overindulgence -- as Paulson did last week. Let's not strip Congress of yet another power by giving the Treasury secretary the right to decide where to dole out a large portion of our budget. Let's not encourage more risky loans by making profits private and losses public. And let's not create some bastardized form of communism in which the new rule is, "From each according to his ability, to each according to the size of the investment bank he owns shares in."

And if we really are going to give money to the rich, let's at least follow the rules we demand other countries adopt when the International Monetary Fund bails them out: slash spending, balance budgets and eliminate trade restrictions and subsidies. We also sometimes force them to come here and clean our houses, do our gardening and watch our kids. I foresee a not-too-distant future when Chinese guys complain about how every time their cheap Google phone breaks, they can't understand the tech-support guy because his Mandarin has a thick Minnesotan accent.

More than 100 of the nation's top economists -- from the left and right as well as other countries -- signed a letter to Congress warning it not to let Paulson have his way. We can't panic at a dropping Dow Jones industrial average, rising interest rates or companies going under; capitalism means that our over-excitement will lead to some down years after a lot of good ones. But the best economic system is still one in which $700 billion of decisions are spread among all of us, not one guy who used to run Goldman Sachs and who, just this summer, said that the economy was fine.

We've got a basically sound banking system that got a little under-regulated during the Clinton administration. We just have some unsound banks that I hope will be replaced by ones with much more exciting names, such as Citi :) or the Bank of OMG. This recession is going to be ugly no matter what we do. Which is why I suggest doing nothing.

Great quotes from the RNC

2008-09-04T17:24:00.003-04:00

Thanks to my buddy Mike for compiling this list. (As if he had a choice. I stole it from him.) I'm not sure if he copied this quotes while listening or downloaded them from another site. Whatever the case, I hope you enjoy these and cheer as much as I did last night.

"Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems -- as if we all didn't know that already. But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all." -- Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in speech to the convention.

"I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone. But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country." -- Excerpt from Palin's speech.

"There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state Senate," -- Palin's speech.

"But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot, what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger, take more of your money, give you more orders from Washington and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy, our opponent is against producing it." -- Palin's speech.

"This is not a personal attack. It's a statement of fact - Barack Obama has never led anything." -- Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, in a speech to the convention.

"He is the least experienced candidate for president of the United States in at least the last 100 years." -- Giuliani's speech

"I'm sorry that Barack Obama feels that her home town isn't cosmopolitan enough. I'm sorry Barack that it isn't flashy enough. Maybe they cling to religion there." -- Giuliani's speech.

“I hope for his sake, Joe Biden got that VP thing in writing,” -- Giuliani's speech

“John has been tested. Barack Obama has not. Tough times require strong leadership, and this is no time for on the job training.” -- Giuliani's speech

“"In the Illinois Senate, he voted ‘present’ nearly 130 times. He couldn’t figure out whether to vote yes or no. It was too tough, I didn’t know about this vote ‘present’ when I was mayor of New York City. Sarah Palin didn’t have this vote ‘present’ when she was mayor or governor. It doesn’t work in an executive job. The president of the United States is not good enough to be ‘present.’ You have to make big decisions.” -- Giuliani's speech

“His rise is remarkable in its own right — it’s the kind of thing that could happen only in America, but he’s never run a city, he’s never run a state, he’s never run a business, he’s never run a military unit. He’s never had to lead people in crisis." -- Giuliani's speech

“I am so tired of hearing about her lack of experience, I want to tell you folks something. She got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States.” -- Mike Huckabee

“John McCain doesn’t want the kind of change that allows the government to reach deeper into your paycheck and pick your doctor, your child’s school or even the kind of car you drive or how much you inflate the tires." -- Mike Huckabee

“He doesn’t want to change the very definition of marriage from what it has always meant throughout recorded human history. It is not above John McCain’s pay grade to grasp the simple fact that human life begins at conception, and he is committed to protecting it." -- Mike Huckabee

What's the big deal about Sarah?

2008-09-04T10:06:00.006-04:00

It didn't take the dogs very long to start rummaging through the trash when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate. The attempts to discredit started within 24 hours. Have you wondered why they're so vicious? Colson nails it in the article below.

Clashing Worldviews
by Chuck Colson

Last week, 40 million TV viewers watched Barack Obama become the first African-American nominee of a major political party.

And 24 hours later, Republican candidate John McCain set the political world on its ear by selecting a little-known woman governor from Alaska, Sarah Palin, as his running mate.

Either way the election turns out, history will be made.

Social conservatives reacted to Palin’s election with near euphoria. Social liberals reacted with fury. Why? How could a governor from a politically small state spark such strong emotions?

I believe it is this: In the life of Sarah Palin, we see the clash of worldviews playing out before our own eyes. Consider every major controversial issue in American politics and culture right now . . . and somehow, they touch her personally. Start with the most obvious: abortion.

Palin, a mother of five, is staunchly pro-life. And, as you know by now, her fifth child, Trig, has Down syndrome. Knowing full well the challenges such a baby would become, Mrs. Palin chose to bring the baby to term. Then, over the weekend, the Palin family announced that their oldest daughter was pregnant out-of-wedlock—and that the daughter would have the baby.

Both sides of the life issue reacted swiftly. The pro-abortion crowd mocked Palin for her support of abstinence-only sex education, which, they say, failed her own daughter. Some commentators took the ad hominem approach, claiming that it is fine for Mrs. Palin and her daughter to bring their babies to term; after all, they’ve got money and a supportive family.

At the same time, the pro-life side hailed Palin and her daughter as heroes for living out what they believe. I think, however, that we ought to look at this as a test for ourselves. Would your belief in the sanctity of life have stood the test if you had found yourself in the Palins’ situation? Either as a middle-aged working mom, or as the father of a pregnant teenage girl? How supportive is your church of young, unwed mothers?

Next, let’s take the war in Iraq. Mrs. Palin’s oldest son enlisted in the Army and is preparing to deploy. Critics of the war have not said much about this young man’s love of country. But his actions, like those of his mother, should cause those who support the war to reflect for a moment: How would you react to your son’s enlisting? For putting his money where his mouth is, so to speak?

Pick any other issue . . . homosexual “marriage”: She is against it. But her first act as governor of Alaska was to veto legislation that would have denied state-funded health benefits for gay partners.

Or oil drilling: She is for it—even in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, and even though she loves the great outdoors as a hunter. Earmarks? She helped scuttle the infamous bridge to nowhere. But it also seems that as a small-town mayor, she hired lobbyists to help secure millions in federal dollars to benefit her community.

Like all of us, she wrestles with her own convictions. Every flashpoint in American politics and culture seems to come together in this woman from Alaska. I am not telling you how to vote, but for once, I will urge you to watch the news and the political commentaries. Because if you can see through the smoke, you will be able to witness the clash of worldviews in real time.

Stop screwing with "the least of these"

2008-08-28T20:20:00.003-04:00

Senator Barak Obama, it's painfully obvious to me that though you profess Christ, you do not have a biblical worldview. I can live with that. Neither do most Baptists. I am, however, really getting sick of you ripping scripture out of context to promote your wealth redistribution policies. When Jesus said, "Whatever you've done to the least of these (Liberals conveniently leave out the phrase "my brothers") you've done to Me," He was not talking about the poor, marginalized, and oppressed per se. "The least of these" were Jesus' apostles. Try actually reading the gospel of Matthew and you'll see what I mean. Because I'm such a great guy, let me direct you to a former post that explains Matthew 25:31-46.

Politically-minded evangelicals, it's painfully obvious to me that though you profess Christ, you do not have a thoroughly biblical worldview. I am really sick of you using "the least of these" as a technique to manipulate people into serving, voting, picketing or whatever you want us to do. Although the unborn do deserve our voice and efforts at protection, you are using the wrong passage to make your case. The prisoners and the poor do need our help and message, but Matthew 25 should not be the motivational tool you use to make your case. "The least of these" are Jesus' apostles. People who do not receive them, do not receive Christ. That's the point of the teaching. If "the least of these" includes all the hungry, thirsty, imprisoned, naked, and babies in the womb then we're all doomed. Jesus said (which you conveniently omit), "Whatever you did not do for the least of these, you did not do for Me." Are we saved by grace or by works? Because I'm such a great guy, let me direct you to a former post that explains Matthew 25:31-46.

Back to school ... losers

2008-08-18T12:10:00.003-04:00

Sorry about the title of this post. It's loosely based on the following article, but mainly for shock effect so that every student viewing this blog will read it. The following is by Mike Adams, a professor at UNC Wilmington. I wish I'd been educated by teachers like this.

*Added bonus: Click here for a funny, but totally unrelated story about the image above

Welcome back UNCW Students!

If you have not yet heard (or read) about me, I am an outspoken Christian professor who has, at times, been critical of certain aspects of evolution. I mention this because it affects the way I see you and the way I will treat you this semester.

Rather than seeing you as the mere product of random mutation, I see you as a unique individual who is of infinite worth to his Creator. Each one of you has unique and special talents and along with that a distinct purpose in life that makes you not just unique but irreplaceable.

Unfortunately, I sometimes have students who resist fulfilling their God-given potential. Often, they do things in college that hurt their chances of success in life. One good example is a fellow named Davidson Myers whom I first taught in the fall of 1999.

Davidson, who aspired to be a lawyer, came into my class late on several occasions. He was also prone to turning around in his seat and yapping in class with another student by the name of Paula Tyndall. This went on for weeks until Davidson the aspiring lawyer got back his first test grade. It was a “C” in a class called “Criminal Law and Procedure” that was central to his career aspirations. He was devastated so he came by the office to see me.

When Davidson came by he told me he could not afford to be getting “Cs” because he was going to be a lawyer. My response to Davidson was simple: “No, you’re never going to be a lawyer. Not until you get your (offensive term deleted) together.”

A truly bizarre thing happened to Davidson after I told him to get to class on time and pay attention or he would never amount to anything. He actually did what I told him to do. In other words, he took responsibility for his actions like a man, not a victim. (Author’s Note: The terms “victim” and “man” are as incompatible as “compassionate” and “Marxist”).

In addition to getting an “A” on my next exam he took another of my courses the next semester. He got an “A.” Today, he is a lawyer married to another lawyer. He and his wife have a successful practice here in North Carolina. When I called him to ask permission to share his story he laughed uncontrollably. I consider him a friend and someone I would hire were I to get into trouble with the law.

By the way, here is the (threefold) reason I am sharing Davidson’s story with you today:

1. Every time you enter my class late – even one second late as you should be in your chair before the class begins – I will send you an email with the question “Who is Davidson Myers?” in the subject line. If you can tell me who he is, I will only deduct one point from your final average. If you cannot, I will deduct a letter grade.

2. Every time you flap your jaws with one of your classmates while I am lecturing I will send you an email with the question “Who is Davidson Myers?” in the subject line. If you can tell me who he is, I will only deduct one point from your final average. If you cannot, I will deduct a letter grade.

3. Every time I see or hear your cell phone in my class I will send you an email with the question “Who is Davidson Myers?” in the subject line. If you can tell me who he is, I will only deduct one point from your final average. If you cannot, I will deduct a letter grade.

My approach to teaching is very different than the approach of those who teach in the victim producing disciplines like sociology and social work. Those professors seek a nation populated by dependent losers because they value job security more than they value you.

I, on the other hand love my God very much. And I know that he loves each and every one of you. That is why I consider it my duty to make sure you act responsibly and that you become all that you were intended to be. If you find that offensive then you are probably enrolled in the wrong class.

I look forward to our first class on Wednesday!

Sincerely,

Mike S. Adams

An Olympic question

2008-08-14T22:27:00.005-04:00

A question has been haunting me this week as I've taken note of American swimmer Michael Phelps. As you probably know, he's beating the daylights out of the competition. Phelps is so good that the completely open and unbiased Chinese press won't talk about him. Sure he's fast and everything, but here's what I want to know: Does he have to wear his freaking swim suit so low? Does it make him go faster? Is he intimidating the competition with his haunches? Is there some chafing issue he's attempting to resolve?

Michael, you're a great swimmer, but please pull up your britches. It makes me very uncomfortable. Shut up Freud!

Why I Am Not a Liberal by Dennis Prager

2008-08-12T22:53:00.003-04:00

This is one of those articles that is so good I just had to post it. Dennis Prager expresses the truth with clarity and passion. Although I don't agree with every jot and tittle stated here, I think he's on the money.

Why I Am Not a Liberal
by Dennis Prager

The following is a list of beliefs that I hold. Nearly every one of them was a liberal position until the late 1960s. Not one of them is now.

Such a list is vitally important in order to clarify exactly what positions divide left from right, blue from red, liberal from conservative.

I believe in American exceptionalism, meaning that (a) America has done more than any international organization or institution, and more than any other country, to improve this world; and (b) that American values (specifically, the unique American blending of Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian values) form the finest value system any society has ever devised and lived by.

I believe that the bigger government gets and the more powerful the state becomes, the greater the threat to individual liberty and the greater the likelihood that evil will ensue. In the 20th century, the powerful state, not religion, was the greatest purveyor of evil in the world.

I believe that the levels of taxation advocated by liberals render those taxes a veiled form of theft. "Give me more than half of your honestly earned money or you will be arrested" is legalized thievery.

I believe that government funding of those who can help themselves (e.g., the able-bodied who collect welfare) or who can be helped by non-governmental institutions (such as private charities, family, and friends) hurts them and hurts society.

I believe that the United States of America, from its inception, has been based on the Judeo-Christian value system, not secular Enlightenment values alone, and therefore the secularization of American society will lead to the collapse of America as a great country.

I believe that some murderers should be put death; that allowing all murderers to live does not elevate the value of human life, but mocks it, and that keeping all murderers alive trivializes the evil of murder.

I believe that the American military has done more to preserve and foster goodness and liberty on Earth than all the artists and professors in America put together.

I believe that lowering standards to admit minorities mocks the real achievements of members of those minorities.

I believe that when schools give teenagers condoms, it is understood by most teenagers as tacit approval of their engaging in sexual intercourse.

I believe that the assertions that manmade carbon emissions will lead to a global warming that will in turn bring on worldwide disaster are a function of hysteria, just as was the widespread liberal belief that heterosexual AIDS will ravage America.

I believe that marriage must remain what has been in every recorded civilization -- between the two sexes.

I believe that, whatever the reasons for entering Iraq, the American-led removal of Saddam Hussein from power will decrease the sum total of cruelty on Earth.

I believe that the trial lawyers associations and teachers unions, the greatest donors to the Democratic Party, have done great harm to American life -- far more than, let us say, oil companies and pharmaceutical companies, the targets of liberal opprobrium.

I believe that nuclear power, clean coal, and drilling in a tiny and remote frozen part of Alaska and offshore -- along with exploration of other energy alternatives such as wind and solar power -- are immediately necessary.

I believe that school vouchers are more effective than increased spending on public schools in enabling many poorer Americans to give their children better educations.

I believe that while there are racists in America, America is no longer a racist society, and that blaming disproportionate rates of black violence and out-of-wedlock births on white racism is a lie and the greatest single impediment to African-American progress.

I believe that America, which accepts and assimilates foreigners better than any other country in the world, is the least racist, least xenophobic country in the world.

I believe the leftist takeover of the liberal arts departments in nearly every American university has been an intellectual and moral calamity.

I believe that a good man and a good marriage are more important to most women's happiness and personal fulfillment than a good career.

I believe that males and females are inherently different. For example, girls naturally prefer dolls and tea sets to trucks and toy guns -- if you give a girl trucks, she is likely to give them names and take care of them, and if you give a boy trucks, he is likely to crash them into one another.

I believe that when it comes to combating the greatest evils on Earth, such as the genocide in Rwanda, the United Nations has either been useless or an obstacle.

I believe that, generally speaking, Western Europe provides social and moral models to be avoided, not emulated.

I believe that America's children were positively affected by hearing a non-denominational prayer each morning in school, and adversely affected by the removal of all prayer from school.

I believe that liberal educators' removal of school uniforms and/or dress codes has had a terrible impact on students and their education.

I believe that bilingual education does not work, that for the sake of immigrant children and for the sake of the larger society, immersion in the language of the country, meaning English in America, is mandatory.

I believe that English should be declared the national language, and that ballots should not be printed in any language other than English. If one cannot understand English, one is probably not sufficiently knowledgeable to vote intelligently in an English-speaking country.

Finally, I believe that there are millions of Americans who share most of these beliefs who still call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" and who therefore vote Democrat. They do so because they still identify liberalism with pre-1970 liberalism or because they are emotionally attached to the word "liberal."

I share that emotion. But one should vote based on values, not emotions.

The Spanish rice controversy

2008-08-12T17:46:00.004-04:00

How dare they? The Spanish Olympic basketball team had the audacity to pose for a picture while slanting their eyes. It was a nasty joke aimed at the Chinese company who sponsors the team. O the humanity ...!

This is terrible. Now Chinese people might have their feelings hurt. This could result in all sorts of self-esteem problems as they realize that their eyes are not shaped like every other race in the world. Where's the equality, the fairness, the tolerance in that?

Think what this could lead to. Hispanics may discover that their hair is black. Caucasians might discern that their skin is pale to beige. Blacks may see their Afros. Jews could learn that their noses are prominent. Indians may find that their skin is a lovely shade of light brown. Someone save us from the horror that we're not all exactly alike!

Obama Jokes

2008-08-10T18:23:00.002-04:00

Craig Ferguson: "Barack Obama was in Germany" today, and "he did this speech and 100,000 people showed up. There were so many Germans shouting and screaming that France...surrendered just in case."

Jimmy Kimmel: "They really love Barack Obama in Germany. He's like a rock star over there. Impressive until you realize that David Hasselhoff is also like a rock star over there."

David Letterman: Signs Barack Obama Is Overconfident.

Proposed bill to change Oklahoma to 'Oklabama.'

Offered Bush 20 bucks for the 'Mission Accomplished' banner.

Asked guy at Staples, 'Which chair will work best in an oval-shaped office?'

Having head measured for Mount Rushmore.

Offered McCain a job in gift shop at Obama Presidential Library.

Jay Leno: "Of course, Obama's supporters got him his usual birthday gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh."

Jay Leno: "Obama's people are trying to portray McCain as cranky, and McCain is trying to portray Obama as arrogant, you see. And when Obama was asked what he thought about being called arrogant, well, he said he was 'above having to answer that question.'"

Jay Leno: "See Barack Obama on the news? He's becoming a workout fanatic. He's at the gym, like, twice a day, sometimes three times a day at the gym, yeah, according to his staff. Well, he has to stay in shape to do those flip-flops."

Jay Leno: "Barack Obama back from his big European tour. Did you see him in Europe? People were cheering him, holding up signs, blowing him kisses. And that was just the American media covering the story."

More wisdom from the little Albanian nun

2008-08-09T10:36:00.002-04:00

"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters"

"And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign."

Mother Theresa -- "Notable and Quotable," Wall Street Journal, 2/25/94, p. A14

The unanswerable abortion question

2008-08-09T10:09:00.003-04:00

Here's one more example illustrating how our society doesn't think through its core beliefs. You can tell that someone is feeling rather than thinking if they say, "I personally believe abortion is wrong, but women should have the right to choose." (By the way, this is Barak Obama's abortion mantra.)

If anyone ever makes that inane statement simply respond with this question: "Why do you believe abortion is wrong?"

Why would anyone think it's wrong? There's only one conclusion. Abortion is murder, taking a human life or however you want to put it. There is no other basis for the unreasonableness of the act.

Once it is admitted that abortion is the murder of a human being, a little logic can be applied. "What you're saying is that murder is wrong for you, but may be okay for someone else." The person who wants to take the moral high ground with abortion (i.e. sit on the fence) has an unreasonable position. Imagine saying that rape or physical abuse is okay in some circumstances.

This is what happens when a culture puts feelings before reason. It's the proverbial cart before the horse scenario. But it also illustrates why post-modernism is so easy to defeat. It's a belief system based on absurdity.

Islam's incompatibility with democracy

2008-08-06T14:28:00.005-04:00

The following is an interview with Hirsi Ali, author of the book Infidel. The interviewer is trying to make the point that perhaps Islam can evolve as Christianity did (Actually Christianity did not evolve, it simply returned to its roots after the Bible was pried from the fingers of the Roman Catholic Church) to become a peaceful, freedom loving religion.

I hope, I hope, I hope my friends at the Dispatch forums will read this. Your PC ideas about Islam do not reflect reality.

(To Ayaan Hirsi Ali) Is Islam the problem or is fundamentalist Islam the problem?

AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Islam, as a creed, is the problem, depending on how you define the problem and I define it as the ideas of Mohammed are incompatible with the ideas that liberal secular democracies are based on.

And I also want to emphasise that it's not Muslims as in individuals, because they're varied, they're very diverse. Some Muslims are a problem, some Muslims are not, some Muslims are apathetic, but Islam as a system of ideas is incompatible with liberal democracy as a system of ideas.

MARK COLVIN: And yet here in Australia we live next to an enormous, mainly Islamic country, which is slowly moving towards democracy which would seem to indicate that Islam itself is not necessarily a complete barrier to doing that.

AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Islam is a barrier to doing that, but your next door neighbour, which is the world's probably largest Muslim country, started out after the decolonisation process as a secular democratic country, and right now we see two trends.

We see Indonesians who are evolving in their understanding and practice of democracy, but we also see Indonesians who are affected by the Middle East, and especially by the Islamic Radical Movement and who are choosing to introduce Sharia, or parts of Sharia, into Indonesia, and I think it's that trend that Australia should not ignore. And it's that trend that Indonesia itself should not ignore.

...

MARK COLVIN: But the point I'm making, I suppose, is that there was a time when Christianity didn't allow it either. Is Islam permanently incapable of reformation or change in that way?

AYAAN HIRSI ALI: It's very important to make a distinction between Islam as a set of ideals, Christianity as a set of ideas and so on. And human beings, individuals, Muslims, are capable of change. They're capable of forming their religion, they're capable of thinking differently about different things.

Islam as creed as incapable of change in the sense that … for instance there's a read-only lock on the Koran. Anyone who proposes to change anything in the Koran is considered an apostate, and is immediately killed or threatened with death.

Muslims hold that the Prophet Mohammed is infallible. In fact, it's a claim he did not make, but that is accorded to him. So that Muslims must in the 21st century, emulate the example of the Prophet Mohammed. And I think Islam will change, will be reformed, if a fair amount of Muslims abandon those dogmas.

MARK COLVIN: The Enlightenment, which you're here to talk about, only really came about after a very long period, a couple of 100 years, of extreme violence between Christian sects, notably the 30 years war, and the Peasant Wars, and so forth.

Is it necessary for Islam to have to go through that kind of thing, or is there a short cut?

AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Well, that depends on the people. If you have, as we have right now, people who want to practice Islam in its most pure form, and impose it on not just Muslims, but everyone else, then you're going to see a resistance both from within Islam and outside of Islam.

And that resistance, if that doesn't lead to a dialogue, a peaceful dialogue with a peaceful outcome, will lead to bloodshed. And if you look, if you listen to the rhetoric of al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, these are people who say we can't compromise unless everyone becomes a Muslim. Now, everyone is not going to become a Muslim, and so then you set the stage for violence, and that violence is then caused by the zealots, by the puritans.

If freedom of expression is limited as it is in Muslim countries, and as large numbers of minorities in Western societies are demanding, then that means the free exchange of ideas. And the stages for that diminish and people get frustrated and that could lead to violence.

MARK COLVIN: When you say, "Large numbers of people in Western societies are demanding", what are you referring to?

AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Everyone followed the cartoon crisis, or the crisis about the cartoon drawings of Mohammed in Denmark. That led to an explosion of violence because large groups of Muslims still will not accept criticism of their religion.

Over and over again, when in the name of Islam, human blood is shed, Muslims are very quiet. When drawings are made or some perceived slight or offences given by writing a book, or making a drawing, or in some way criticising the dogmas of Islam, people take to the streets. We have all these leaders of the organisation of Islam, the countries who oppressed on people, coming to demand the people apologise.

And I think it's this discrepancy that more and more people see as violence and intolerance and the lack of freedom inherent in the creed of Islam.

Let It Rise! - Part 3

2008-08-04T22:08:00.006-04:00

Here's more good news. There is a solution to our energy problem and addiction. The answer won't come from the government, but from enterprising entrepreneurs. The following article is not the most interesting that I've ever read, still it provides some insight concerning the future.

Change is on the way because someone can cash in on it.

How We Get to Gas Free Autos and A Smog Free Sky
by Doug Wilson

If there’s one priority we can all agree to in this country, it’s getting us free from the use of gasoline in our automobiles. But how do we get there? What do real experts say is going to happen?

I had the privilege of interviewing Professor Scott Samuelsen, the head of the Advanced Power and Energy Program at the University of California, Irvine. Scott is doing work with the leading car companies in the world who are developing alternatives we can use. He knows the direction these car makers are moving and the investments they are making in alternative energies. UCI is also located in Orange County, which is the hub of automobile designs for the future.

I asked Scott to keep the explanations simple and to assume I don’t know much…..so in a way, you can think of this interview as transportation fuels for dummies. I’ll start with the basics and go through the transportation transformation that is going to take place in America over the next twenty years.

The alternative technology most prevalent today is the hybrid vehicle. A good example is the Toyota Prius. It has an electric battery that supplements a normal gas fired engine. The battery is charged by the breaking of the car as well as by the engine. It is not charged by plugging the battery into anything. It is called a hybrid vehicle.

The next step in this evolution is the PHEV - the plug in hybrid electric vehicle – where batteries on board can be recharged by electricity at home or at work. Here is where electrical transmission into our home and work places becomes very important. Without adequate electricity, we will not be able to recharge the PHEV. Late at night and early in the morning, electrical grid capacity is available for recharging…to a point. Improving the electric grid over the next 20 years to both handle millions of vehicles and minimize emissions from power plants are critical to our future. Yes, many people will recharge their vehicles at night when the rates are low, but we need to anticipate growing demand and find ways to meet it. The way we can do this is through wind, solar, and nuclear power.

The average person drives less than 35 miles per day. The average all electric range for a PHEV is projected to be between 40 and 60 miles, depending on the weight of the vehicle and battery technology. This means that for many cars, they would never require gasoline. However, the car will still come with the ability to automatically convert to the gas fed engines if the driver needs extra distance.

This leads us to the next step in the process. We need a gas free alternative when the plug in electric vehicle runs out of power. What is it? Dr. Samuelsen sees the car companies moving over time to hydrogen as the best alternative to power a fuel cell under the hood. At this point, there are challenges with hydrogen, but these problems are being worked out and after all, we are looking at least 10 years into the future before the hydrogen car needs to be ready for mass distribution.

Hydrogen can be produced cheaply from a variety of sources. Orange County California will soon be producing the first hydrogen plant made from the digestive gases of a waste water treatment plant. Hydrogen can also be made from the gas that escapes from landfills. The requirements for hydrogen to power vehicles will drop significantly as the electric vehicle takes over most of the day to day requirements for daily trips. Filling stations will add hydrogen dispensing if the energy companies are confident this is going to be the future.

Some people say the pounds per square inch (psi) required for hydrogen vehicles is too dangerous. Dr. Samuelsen believes the psi will come down below 3600 in the future, which is about what a natural gas vehicle runs on today. Honda already is producing a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle that runs on 5000 psi with acceptable range.

So we have a three step process. First, the move we are making to affordable hybrid vehicles that recharge using brakes and an on-board gas engine. Second, the move to plug in hybrid electric vehicles that provide a generous all-electric range and convert to gas for longer trips. Third, the move to hydrogen fuel cell hybrid vehicles that will replace the gas powered engine with the same plug in attributes introduced by the PHEV.

Sure, this is one smart engineers opinion. He is connected and knows the facts. Will it come true? It could, if we will exercise the leadership and foresight to keep moving as a country to oil free automobiles. Customers are ready to make changes. Admittedly, there are many competing technologies today and we will evolve over time. I found it refreshing to speak with an expert who sees a way out of our mess and knows we can get the job done if we stay focused first on the end game of oil independence and then it’s by-product – a smog free sky!

(To learn more about Professor Scott Samuelsen, you can visit http://www.apep.uci.edu/samuelsen/)

A pretty dang cool poem that hung on the wall of a pretty dang cool woman

2008-08-04T11:20:00.003-04:00

I found this incredible poem at Bob Carder's website. I need to reread stuff like this every day.

ANYWAY

People are unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered.
Love them anyway.

If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish ulterior motives.
Be kind anyway.

If you are successful, you will win some false friends and true enemies.
Succeed anyway.

The good you do today will be forgotten tomorrow.
Be good anyway.

Honesty and frankness will make you vulnerable.
Be honest and frank anyway.

What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight.
Build anyway.

People need help but will attack you if you help them.
Help them anyway.

In the final analysis, it is between you and God.
It was never between you and them anyway.

~ Kent Keith, made famous by Mother Teresa*

* Kent Keith originated this poem in 1968, and Mother Teresa placed it on her children’s home in Calcutta in a slightly different version. As a result, many have attributed it to Mother Teresa.

More fun with forums

2008-08-03T22:22:00.005-04:00

In case you haven’t noticed there’s an odd little subculture out there. Cyberspace communities are situated around newspaper websites where folks can express their opinions, attempt to influence, or generally make a nuisance of themselves. They go by the name forums, and, man, have I learned a lot about human nature and myself through them.

If you are mentally stable, in control of your emotions, and want to establish cyber-community or perhaps even share your faith, forums are an excellent avenue to pursue. The latter was my purpose, but I am such a slow learner and, I think, so bizarre in my approach and writing that I largely discredited myself within a couple of weeks. I’m incredibly skilled at that. I’ve written this post in case you have a hankering for the land of forums. Keep these helpful hints in mind as you head out on your journey.

Don’t go there if you have OCD and/or are a people pleaser. If you are obsessive, you will be consumed by the forums. There’s a genuine rush that occurs when you post and defend your ideas in a public format. But beware because the adrenaline can hook you. I found myself off task at work and lying awake at night thinking about how to overcome poster’s logical fallacies and irritating habits. My obsession would inevitably lead to a post. The post would inevitably be too harsh. I would inevitably apologize and then the process would repeat itself. If you are as mentally and emotionally unstable as me, stay away!

Be on your best behavior for at least a month. If you really want to establish yourself, don’t mouth off or try to intellectually blow someone out of the water or criticize for several weeks. Forum folks are a sort of dysfunctional family who have a quasi-love for one another. It is community. If you go after a family member you will be taken out.

I made the mistake of criticizing a much beloved citizen of this cyber-community for his unfair treatment of posters with whom he disagreed. I felt that he was bullying, so I sent a humorous poke in his direction. It was as if I’d said the “N” word at an NAACP meeting (Which I would never do in any circumstance, by the way). Suddenly, I was whipping boy, target numero uno, Benedict Arnold, George Wallace, and Pee Wee Herman all rolled into one. Posters appeared on the spot to cleanse the cyber-earth of my pollution. I never recovered. Watch your Ps and Qs.

Give up as little information as possible. If you have a blog or website, don’t reveal it. If you have a degree or area of specialty, keep it to yourself. Remember, whatever information you give up will be used against you. I foolishly put the address to this blog on my profile. I though it might be fun if forum folks visited and we continued our interaction. It didn’t quite work out that way.

One poster apparently visited this blog and formed the opinion that I was an intolerant Neanderthal. (On subsequent review of some of my articles I could see why.) The sensitive, lady poster apparently simmered on my supposed bigotry and used an article I’d written to skewer me when I issued an intolerant sounding post. From there on out she slammed me at any opportunity, but for the most part was coldly silent. I’m sure she’s a nice person with good motives, but she no like Enik (my screen name) anymore.

Satire is not welcome. If you truly want to be reviled, use cynicism and sarcasm. Though it may work on Saturday Night Live and Monty Python, satire does not translate to forums. Posters over 55 won’t get it, even if they like you. Liberals seem to be satire-deaf too, unless you’re criticizing the president, of course. For the most part people will just think you’re an immature, pain in the butt if you use it.

Always remember that those who oppose your point of view don’t care about the facts. For me this was THE most frustrating thing about forums. People don’t care about content anymore. It’s all opinion and feeling. Cuteness and cleverness win the day, not sound reasoning.

What I’m about to say is not true of all forum folks, but it is of many. Posting for some is a form of intellectual auto-erotica. There’s no real thought of influencing or being influenced, just showing off. If you’re into that sort of thing go for it. You won’t go blind, but it is rather empty.

Posting is a lot like road rage. Road rage occurs because people are alone in their vehicle with no accountability for their actions. They don’t see other drivers as human beings, but as objects like BMWs, Jeeps, and Gremlins. As a result, they feel justified in violently striking out. Posting is similar because you’re alone at a computer and looking at avatars with funny names. You’ll be tempted to verbally go postal. Keep in mind that Rag Top Dave is a person, created in the image of God, just like you. (I never had any quarrels with Rag Top Dave. I’m just using his name as an example.)

It’s not blood sport (but it sure feels like it). A poster named Zardoz made the point that the forums are not a competition where the winner is the last post standing. He’s right, but it sure feels like a fight. There’s something stimulating about beating the brains out of an adversary. It’s probably just the intolerant Neanderthal in me, but I quite enjoyed reducing foes to silence. Keep in mind that it’s not about winning, except when it is.

Posting too much makes you a know-it-all or a loser with too much time on his hands. Be cool. Chill out on the posting for a day or two. If you dominate the threads, even genial participants will start calling you pompous. Lay off and let others have the last word every once in a while. Similarly, if you’re there all the time, every day, people begin to suspect that you have no life or friends and really need to crawl out of your cave and into the sunlight. It may be true, but you certainly don’t want to let on that you’re a genuine loser.

Beware the secret police. Unbelievably, the forum at which I participated has an unseen hit squad waiting to pounce if they think you’re a spammer or if they just don’t like you. I made the mistake of allowing Drake to sign up for the forums. I thought it would be great fun for him to test out his beliefs in the market place of ideas. I told him not to let on that he was related to me because he might come under fire just as I had. Loyal son that he is, Drake defended me in some of his posts. In the cyber-shadows, a silent gargoyle named BossHawk2008 waited and watched. He didn’t like the content of my posts and concluded (as a convenient excuse) that Drake and I were up to something nefarious (that means wicked if you’re a liberal or attended a public school). BossHawg2008 sent me a pleasant little email calling Drake and me idiots and promising that both my blog and the forum were “dead.” I didn’t really know what that meant. When I checked my blog that same night, however, I couldn’t get Internet Explorer to open it. I figured BossHawg2008 would find a way to get us bumped from the forums as well. (This is another good reason not to give out any personal information.)

Keep in mind that I’m a techno-idiot. I don’t really know if BossHawg2008 or one of his associates has the power to mess with my blog. The timing was freaky, though. Later he sent me an email telling me that he didn’t tamper with my blog and, wouldn’t you know it, I could pull it up again. Whatever happened, my point is this: What business is it of his what I post? This ain’t Hazzard County.

Never impugn poster’s motives or make assumptions. Always attribute good motives to everyone. Most people do have good intentions, but may suffer from bad ideas. Stick to the issues and don’t go personal if at all possible. Also, fully read what others post. Try to understand their meaning rather than jump to conclusions.

I made faulty assumptions about some of the posters and totally blew any remaining credibility. Most of my arguments occurred with folks I’d term the tolerance crowd. When the secret police came after me, I figured BossHawg2008 was a member of the tolerance crowd posse. I posted several times decrying the terrible injustice perpetrated against me at the hands of the tolerance crowd only to find out that BossHawg2008 is a loose canon acting alone, not as a part of the PC elite (in fact they made fun of the poor guy). Don’t make assumptions except for assuming the best about people.

I’m taking a long break from forum writing. Strangely, I already miss the frustrating interaction. After just a couple of weeks those folks do begin to feel like family. Nugene, you’re one more laid back fellow and a credit to left-leaning folks. Zardoz, keep ‘em straight with that intellect, but play fair. Owl Lady and Scoutson, maybe one day we’ll be friends. Shrinking Violet, don’t let the bitterness eat you up inside. Sky Soldier, Gipper, and H.E. Pennypacker, I’ve enjoyed the trip with you brothers. Thanks for the encouragement. Matt the Critic, keep up the sardonic one-liners. You’re a talented young man and I’m praying for you. Heck, BossHawg2008, I’m even going to miss you. Drop me a (friendly) note sometime.

Adultery 101

2008-08-03T22:18:00.002-04:00

It’s only in our oh-so-sophisticated, shame-free, sin-denying, self-serving, neo-platonic, overly-hyphenated culture that the following question could arise: Should it be considered adultery if a man dates other women while separated, but not yet divorced, from his wife who had an extramarital affair and vice versa? We personally know Christians who are practicing this very thing. Are they sinning or not?

I say it’s adultery. God expects us to honor our covenants, contracts, and commitments. As His image bearers we should exude faithfulness because He is faithful. God always does what He says He’s going to do.

In addition to this, the agreements that we make on earth we are obligated to fulfill. We live in a moral universe where nothing is spiritually neutral. The marriage contract is legally and morally binding upon both parties. The method of legitimizing marriage matters to God because He authorized the authority structure that we live under (see Romans13:1ff). If the state still recognizes a legitimate marriage as binding, so does God.

That’s my opinion. What do you say?