Bill's Comments

No manners, no consideration

2009-11-29T19:37:00.003-05:00

I am currently in the Sky Club for Delta/Northwest, waiting to take my second leg to Ottawa, Canada. While I was sitting here, a young man started talking loudly on his cell phone to his kids. He was in the next section, but his voice carried. When I got up to get a snack, I asked him as politely as I could if he could talk a little more softly, as his voice carried all over the area. He started talking more softly but made a point of saying that an old man asked him to talk more quietly.

First of all, if he wanted to insult me, "old man" doesn't cut it. I am old enough to be considered an old man. But what takes the cake, is he came to my chair after he finished his phone call, and told me that there was plenty of room elsewhere in the club I could move to, and that he was talking to his kids.

I was simply gob-smacked by that statement, but after a moment I said that I understand talking to kids, but that he had a very interesting perspective. He thought that what he wanted to do was more important than inconveniencing me or intruding on my area. He once again said that there was plenty of room to move to. I pointed out that I was here first. He beat a retreat.

I have never run up against such self-centeredness before. I once was talking too loudly to my wife on a train in France, and upset one of the passengers. My response was to beat a retreat to the between-cars area. This guy plain got pissy over it.

My concern is not the particular instance this describes, but the implications for our society. If this guy is a typical late-20's/early-30's, then we are in deep trouble. One of the hingepins of civilization is manners and consideration. When it was simply "what I want" then the rule becomes might makes right. But this same sort of ego-centricism is so evident in our President. Look at the gifts he gives foreign leaders, and his behavior towards them. It is not about the US, but about him. He thinks no further than his speeches or a Sham-wow.

I have read about the apparent self-centeredness of the last two generations. This is the first I have directly encountered it--my own kids seem to be at least somewhat mannerly and considerate. The encounter is troubling. I would never have expected someone to defend themselves when they were being rude.

Scary.

Diversity

2009-11-06T21:00:00.002-05:00

Once upon a time, diversity had a nice, respectable meaning, that of variety of a category, e.g. a diversity of skills, a diversity of events, a diversity of cuisines. Now, the first thing that comes to mind is the politically correct idea which means different races, religions, creeds, genders, and sexual orientations. However, even within this restriction, it really means a statistically equal amounts of each category or preferably an excess of selected minority categories.

Extra encouragement, incentives, or even outright easing of standards are given to blacks, Hispanics, etc. (but not Asians), GLBT, and women (though numerically there are more women), any religion other than Christianity or Judaism. Diversity in the politically correct sense is to acknowledge a mixture of the desired categories, ignoring anything except the external markers chosen to define the categories.

From all I have read and experienced in my life, there is far more diversity between white-collar and blue-collar workers than between blacks and whites in the same socio-economic stratum. True diversity is not something the politically correct want. They want either elitists of the minorities like themselves, or far-removed members of the minority that they can patronize and pity.

Part of the strength of this country has been that we are genuinely diverse in our backgrounds, not just ethnically, racially, religiously, or sexually, but in our life experiences and abilities to cope with them. The red-necks that are so disparaged by the wannabe intellectual elites, have far more ability to cope and survive under stress than they would ever consider. Red-necks also have far more common sense, and that most wonderful of traits, the ability not to take oneself too seriously. The biggest distributors of redneck jokes are rednecks.

The wannabe intellectual elite tries to believe that everyone should be like them. They don't want true diversity. They want everyone to be college educated. Not for the value of being educated, but for the jobs it creates for them as professors and the money to be dispensed as politicians to support such excess of college attendance. It also is to provide a place of indoctrination. It is not hard to find examples of the suppression of any but the left/liberal viewpoint on college campuses. In fact, it is newsworthy when people try to oppose the indoctrination.

If the intellegensia truly wanted people to be educated, they would not have created all the worthless majors that now exist, such as Women's Studies. That degree and a buck will get a lousy cup of coffee. The intellectual content of universities has been diluted to accomodate the lower quality of entering student. There are still the top few that really can benefit from college or university training, but so many more are now being sent to college that would do far better going out and apprenticing or learning on the job. But then, they would not have been given the party line, nor would they have provided headcount for the college administration to use in their annual begging for dollars.

The faux diversity of political correctness is based on things that are countable. By counting and making the goal statistical parity at the minimum, then any time there is a statistical disparity, there is a "PROBLEM". This of course is baloney, but to the people that have had the lousy educations that are provided these days, it sounds almost right. It also avoids having to explain anything--different motivations, actual differences due to gender, differences due to centuries of cultural selection, or admitting that nature is as important as nurture.

There is another large area, which is quite dangerous in the long run to our society, that faux diversity is applied--multi-culturalism. It has been said much better before, but in a nutshell there are two forms of multi-culturalism. In the first, multi-culturalism is simply saying, "OK, I appreciate you have a different background, and I like knowing some of your customs. You can practice them as long as they don't break laws." The subtext here though is, "You are now in the US. You will learn English, you will learn how the country works, why it works, and you will obey our laws--all of them. You want to stay here, go through the process of citizenship."

Then there is the politically correct version which says, "In the name of diversity, your culture is just as valid or more so than our culture and you may practice it however you want. Don't worry about the laws and language, we will change to meet you." The first question to ask, is, "If your culture is just as valid, why did you go to the effort to come here?" Encouraging multiculturalism, where the underlying premises of the immigrant, though much different than those of US society, are taken as just as valid as ours, is a recipe for disaster. It will not just prevent the immigrant attaining the goals for which they came, it will destroy the society for the rest of us.

But it is here where we start to see the ugly truth--multiculturalism is a coverup for the wholesale buying of votes, legal and illegal. Demanding the things that keep our society stable and lawful, such as full-face identification cards, citizenship, access to services only to citizens or legal guests, requirement that English be the official language for government transactions, is being attacked at every turn. Legality no longer is meaningful to the politically correct. Today there was an article saying that denial of health care to illegal immigrants under the proposed medical care changes, will jeopardize the support of a block of Hispanic voters. Look who fights to prevent secure identification of voters--those who support all the aspects of multi-culturalism and faux diversity.

Politically correct diversity today is supposed to be tolerant and open-minded. It is not tolerant of any views save its own, and its open-mindedness is that of having holes-in-the-head, an ideological blindness that creates a total inability to see ones own survival at stake.

The worst phone call I ever received.....

2009-11-04T09:07:00.001-05:00

In Memorium

Adam Trent Keezer

March 9, 1981 to November 4, 2000

Adam was the greatest

So long...farewell...good bye

.....and my oldest son had to make the call. We are never without cell phones now.

I was just thinking....

2009-11-02T16:19:00.002-05:00

Gates of Vienna published this wonderful bit of satire by Walter E Williams.

Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell are both at the top of my list of excellent columnists. Both have had much to say on both economics (both are respected economists) and on many other topics including race relations in the US. Neither supports any form of affirmative action, nor do they accept the posturings of the various race hustlers. Both are American black men.

They have, by their own merits, become successful in their fields. It crosses my mind that because they earned their success, they have little tolerance for excuses. Like Bill Cosby, they pretty much say, stop whining, get off your butts, and do something.

.....If you want to amount to something, you don't need excuses and scapegoats.

A non-Politically Correct observation.....

2009-11-02T16:06:00.002-05:00

Pundita has excellent posts on topics that are not the topic du jour. This particular post was especially interesting.

Teasers:

So how did we get to this point, where Americans could show such poor judgment they'd proffer the name of a mass murderer as a guide for schoolchildren? And where their wishes are the only moral guide that makes sense to them?

I know this is unwelcome news for feminists. But there is much in addition to the elephant tale to suggest that unless young human males have a very strong patriarchal influence in their lives, they tend to rely on their wishes for moral guidance. This doesn't always work out well for society.

Read the entire article. It starts in one place and ends up where you would never suspect.

.....Men are necessary as authority figures.

The ELCA and homosexuality

2009-10-19T04:15:00.000-04:00

The ELCA's decision to allow rostered pastors in committed homosexual relationships has made news and also has lead to considerable discussion within the church. Despite a six-year campaign on this issue by the leadership, the final decision was made by one vote out of one thousand. Since that vote, the discussions have become very intense both within congregations and across the ELCA synods. At this point, it would appear that schism, such a occurred in the Episcopal Church is imminent.

As I see it, the problem is a conflict of congregational understanding of religious doctrine, intellectualization of scripture and reinterpretation by the clergy, and cultural politics, essentially a perfect storm, if one considers three-way conflicts such a thing. As a result, many parishoners are feeling betrayed and desirous of leaving their church, synod, or denomination.

Most members of a church take the Bible fairly literally. At the very least they consider God to be in charge of everything, and the Bible to be a true and accurate acccount of what God wishes for the world. As such, it is very clearly stated in a number of places that male homosexuality is a sin. (Within my own knowledge, the Bible is silent on female homosexuality. Also within my knowledge, nowhere is homosexuality discussed in the Gospels.) Coupled with this is a common aversion to homosexuality among heterosexuals. By every standard, the parishoners generally consider homosexuality to be a sin. Whether or not this is a desirable attitude or culturally politically correct, this is the reality.

However, parishoners also are fully aware of their own sinful nature, and unless they have true homophobia, will welcome homosexuals as members of the congregation. The problem is when homosexuals are presented as leaders. First, they are seen as perpetual sinners. Rightly or wrongly, congregations want their pastors to be moral leaders in their behavior as well as their preaching. For a known, and in this case unrepentent, sinner to be made the leader of the parish is very troubling. Second, they are seen not as "one of us" but as other. They are not to be trusted in their discussions of scripture and most especially any discussion of male-female relations because they are seen as not knowing about them or as approaching them from the outside.

At the same time there is tremendous cultural pressure not just to tolerate homosexuals, which has been going on for many years, but to fully accept or even celebrate homosexuality as a perfectly normal phenomenon, witness the "Sally Has Two Mommies" type of teaching in the schools and the prominence given to homosexual celebrities. Coupled with this are the campaigns to legalize homosexual "marriage" which is a deliberate slap in the face to most religious heterosexual couples. I have written an essay on this issue discussing it in depth, but the problem is the attempt to appropriate the term marriage not the legalization of commitments between adults.

An additional cultural pressure is the slow, and sometimes not so slow, decrease in membership of mainline Protestant churches. Because all churches are a form of political institution, the leadership is constantly considering ways to maintain and advance their position and that of their church. Rather than understanding we are in a holy war of Christianity vs. secularism, they attempt to compromise--thinking that it is the issue du jour rather than the fundamental problem of absolute standards of religious morality vs. relativistic ethics of secularism. It is quite analogous to dhimmitude vis-a-vis Islam. Their parishoners understand it much better.

The problem, from a leadership point of view is that the churches that are growing, feel-good, independent Protestant and Roman Catholic, use totally different models. The first is simply totally accepting of everybody as members and gives a message that is designed to make everyone feel good about themselves--their sins are forgiven, God loves them, and life will be OK. The Roman Catholics, simply have a fully integrated life program, coupled with the encouragement to be fruitful and multiply. Whether practiced or not, birth control is forbidden by Roman Catholic doctrine, with one relatively unreliable exception. Roman Catholics are encouraged to have large families, and the church makes sure that the children are brought up in the church and kept there throughout their lives. Not by brainwashing, but by showing them how to live their doctrine in the world.

In the meantime, the ELCA is tied to the basics of Lutheran doctrine that it is both law and teaching not just teaching that is the basis of the faith. Most of them have found that to grow they have to have at least one service as a celebration, feel-good service. But what to do about the more traditional members, the ones with the money that provides most of the support of the church? This brings in the third element of the situation--scriptural reiterpretation.

For the last several years, there have been on-going "classes" in homosexuality in the scriptures at ELCA churches. There have also been discussions at synod conferences. The overall thrust was an attempt to remove the stigma of sinfullness from homosexuality. Primarily by re-interpreting the contexts of some scripture and simply saying other scripture was a cultural not holy pronouncement, the Biblical proscriptions of homosexuality were presented as other than they literally appeared to be. Apparently this was not a successful as the leadership had hoped. The vote was so close, that one is suspicious of some hidden arm-twisting at the conference, and the Lutheran magazine immediately had all sorts of op-ed pieces on how we needed to stick together. As it turns out, there are congregations already discussing the formation of an independent synod.

Like the Episcopal Church, the ELCA is intellectually and scripturally liberal and tolerant. The Missouri and Wisconsin synods are much more literal in their interpretation of scripture and flat say that homosexuality is a sin. But in this case, just as in the case of the Episcopal church, it is their undoing. The leadership, seeing themselves as part of the liberal, intellectual elite, took the typical positions of that block and the congregations did not follow. I have commented on this before, e.g., Bishop Hansen's politicking, and articles in "The Lutheran."

The responses to this have varied forms and multiple causes. The ELCA leadership tries to point out that no congregation is required to accept a homosexual pastor. This is simply words to try to make the unacceptable accepted. But to those congregations that truly believe in the literality of scripture or in a more literal sense than is being promulgated on this issue, that means nothing. They expect scriptural consistency throughout their organization. They don't want the risk of a bishop who is a homosexual, which will eventually come from this change. I would take my friend and fellow blogger Kevin Kim further. Kevin said that in the great Protestant tradition, there may be schism. I say there WILL be schism. My first thought was that the splitting parishes would join either the Missouri or Wisconsin synods. Apparently they are taking the great Protestant tradition to its fullest and creating a new synod.

There are those congregations that will live with it, though not comfortably. Some members may leave the church, but most will stay, as it will not directly effect them in their daily and weekly church lives. There are others that will think this is wonderful. My suspicion is that they have a very high percentage of professorial or politically liberal members who are more interested in the cultural component of this than the scriptural one.

From my own viewpoint, the clergy are through discussing it or dismiss possible counter arguments rather quickly. They have the decision, like it or not, and now need to implement it and bring their parishes behind it. Like good soldiers they followed orders and did their best to convince us that it was OK. I am not sure how comfortable some of them are with it. Those that aren't will be the leaders of the schismatic parishes. Those that can tolerate the discomfort will continue to toe the party line, though not enthusiastically, and those that think it is truly right, will continue to support it in various subtle approaches in sermons.

From my viewpoint, the ELCA in this decision, created a new church doctrinally. My own parsing of the scriptures says they are pretty clear on the issue, and one cannot go through such rationalizations without changing their meaning completely. From a purely scriptural viewpoint, they were wrong. From a cultural viewpoint, this is the current big cause, so they appear to have done "the right thing." However, it has sown the seeds of a major division of the ELCA and therefore its ultimate demise. I don't think the number of members it may gain from this will come anywhere near off-setting the number that will be lost.

For myself, I don't have a problem with homosexual preachers, as long as they aren't preaching on relationships. I am not doctrinally bound, since I long ago parted with traditional Christianity and, though I am now a believer, still create my own interpretations and understanding of scripture. I go to church for much more than the scriptural lessons, and I think those of us who stay in the church after this decision are much the same way. Church to us is more than who is preaching at the moment though that is important as well.

Whether the ELCA did the right thing or not in this decision will depend on who you are. From a biblical literalist standpoint, it was wrong. From a cultural standpoint, it was wonderful. From a leadership standpoint, you got what you asked for (Subtext, you should be careful what you ask for, you might get it.). From a overall church survival--not a good thing.

An amazing transformation

2009-10-12T08:49:00.002-04:00

I was running errands this morning and listening to the radio. I know Vivaldi's "Four Seasons" fairly well, but today I heard "Summer" arranged by a harpist for the modern harp. The first two movements were OK, in some ways just so-so, but the last movement blew me away. The downward runs that the solo violin has at the beginning of the movement were so phenomenal when played on a harp. They fit what Vivaldi was trying to do far better than a violin ever could. The harp has the depth of sound to carry off the thunderstorm invocation that Vivaldi was attempting and didn't quite get with a violin. Here is the recording information:

Antonio Vivaldi: Four Seasons: Summer
Orchestra of Flanders
Rudolf Werthen, conductor
Yolanda Kondonassis, harp
Telarc #80523

Salvation...Or Have You Been Saved?

2009-10-12T07:25:00.001-04:00

When I was younger in college, one of the questions that I often heard from the campus fundamentalists was, "Have you been saved?" The only effective way to deal with it was to either ignore it or tell them you either didn't care, or were something scary like a Satanist. To them salvation was a Get-out-of-Hell-Free card that only required a particular set of beliefs-orthodoxy vs. orthopraxy. The latter ends up going with the former, but the bait was the easy way to Heaven. From where I stand, Salvation is not that simple nor is that what it really is. To deal with it requires considerable unpacking of the concept as currently promulgated.

Salvation doctrine comes from St. Paul, not the Gospels. Part of the reason it is so successful, is that it incorporates the underlying mythologies of appeasment of the Gods and magic from our distant religious past, and a borrowing of concepts from the Middle Eastern areas where Paul traveled and preached.

There are several underlying beliefs that go with this idea. First, that Jesus was literally the Son of God, that he was the result of the impregnation of Mary by God, through some supernatural means--after all He is God. Second, that Jesus was a perfect human, because of his spiritual father. Third, Jesus' crucifixion was the complete payment for our sins. Fourth, if we accept Jesus as our lord, be baptised, regret our past bad acts, and do what Jesus says, we will be guaranteed a place in Heaven, because, fifth, God is all-loving, and all forgiving. There is a sub-text, if you believe the right way.

First, let's start unpacking this with the underlying historical, religious traditions. One of the practices that Judaism had was to take a perfect goat, symbolically lay all the troubles and evil of the past year upon it and drive it out into the wilderness. This was the scapegoat,and is the source of the term and concept in our language. Second, before Abraham was stopped from slaying Isaac as the sacrifice to God, the tradition was to sacrifice a first-born son to God or the gods as an offering to have good fortune. (I take the story of Abraham and Isaac to be the mythological way of condemning the sacrifice of the first-born.) Virgin-birth has been around in religious mythology from before recorded history; it is not unique with Christianity. What is unique with Christianity is the concept of forgiveness--at least to the extent that true repentence will obtain forgiveness, no matter how wrong the sin. Paul made a brilliant synthesis of these concepts to create Salvation Doctrine. It is very effective because it is the solution to internal dissatisfaction and guilt that is part of the normal human condition.

Generally speaking, even presenting the idea of salvation requires an acceptance of both Heaven and Hell. These two concepts have been around in some form probably as long as people have had a sense of the religious. Once one has the idea that there is an afterlife, then there is the question of, where is it and what is its nature? It is not at all hard to tack onto that, the concepts of good, evil, reward, and punishment.

Almost all people have some form of conscience, and are self-aware of when they have done good or bad, to themselves or to others. Their ethical boundaries may be limited to only their immediate families or may expand wider. Most people raised in a Judeo-Christian background or culture, regardless of belief, have fairly wide ethical boundaries. Other people have more limited boundaries, e.g. the tribe, or in extreme cases just themselves. For those who have wide ethical boundaries, Salvation Doctrine offers relief from all the guilt and struggle to do right and failing. Just be sorry you failed, believe the right way, and Heaven is guaranteed. Sure you are supposed to try to not do evil again, but the rules generally are so stringent, that is all but impossible. Jesus is supposed to be the only perfect human.

It should be obvious, at this point, that I have little sympathy for the standard concept of salvation. I do however think that there is valid concept of salvation, in the sense that there is an afterlife, and that the good and the bad do get separated, at least for a while. So in the sense of getting to Heaven, there needs to be some sort of salvation. Judeo-Christian tradition generally has the more general form for this, and the example of Jesus, as a teacher, living what he preached, is the key as I see it.

There are two components that seem critical, one is our own desire to do good and the concommitant remorse when we don't, and the second is the Grace of God. Though I have not read the writings of the Jesus Seminar, I would doubt that Jesus actually said that no one gets to Heaven except through him. I could believe that his example of living is a way to Heaven. With or without a belief in God, Jesus' teachings are very good ways to live, taken with some common sense and not always exactly literally. One also has to filter out what Jesus taught from what others said he taught or meant, including the Gospel writers, and your current author. In other words, his teachings have to be taken and applied as a life-long student exercise, not as a cook book or rule book. One may look to others for different interpretations or for guidance, but ultimately the responsibility is our own. An important caveat is that good done to get to Heaven is worthless. It is good done for its own sake that counts. Spritituality is not transactional.

With respect to the Grace of God, I have long held that it is freely given, not because of belief, but because of goodness. As my Episcopal priest said when I was in high school, "There is more love in the most debauched sinner than in a cold-hearted paragon of virtue." God sees that and does act on it. The debauched sinner is goodness mis-directed, warped, and distorted. An example is that many of the alcoholics I have known were very warm, loving people that used the alcohol as an anesthetic for the pain they felt for others. I did the same, when I was in medical school. At the same time, not all people who are cold on the surface, really are. This is not ours to judge, but to be aware of the distinction.

So there is salvation, but not in the form preached in most churches. It is a matter of being a good person and doing good things for their own sake. It does not mean avoiding certain behaviors just because someone has decided they are bad. The most obvious example is alcohol. In moderation it's a pleasure, and denying any use of it, out of a mis-placed attempt at moral rectitude, may actually be sinful. Like anything else, an excess is harmful. It also is not a matter of doctrine. I have a very hard time with some very nice people, because they think anyone that does not accept Christianity and believe in the standard Salvation Doctrine is doomed to Hell. That is ultimately a very pernicious form of exclusion. "I get to Heaven, but he/she doesn't." The subtext becomes, "I am better."

So striving to be the best person we can be, and do as much good--by our own standards--in the world that we can is the way to salvation. It is actually much harder than the standard formula. We have to constantly judge ourselves and most people are theire own harshest critic, and the standard is not fixed. Generally it keeps getting tougher. But the result is a true self-satisfaction, not a self-righteous smugness.

I hope you are aware........

2009-10-01T18:12:00.002-04:00

With the appointment of so many "czars" and the expansion of regulatory agencies, the Congress and the President are rapidly building a country with no accountability by the people supposedly in charge. This works for Congress because they can create an illusion of deniability--the bad stuff comes from the Executive branch, never mind that they allowed it to happen by providing the money. It works for the President because he can look good while the minions in the Executive branch actually promulgate the rules and regulations that have the force of law without the review of Congress (who can then "help" constituents by pulling strings).

........the loss of freedom proceeds rapidly and stealthily.

Sanity

2009-09-28T09:24:00.002-04:00

One of my favorite bloggers is Dr. Sanity. "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE GOLDEN AGE OF NARCISSISM" is a particularly good example of her posts, and she also has a wonderful way with parody, especially poetic parody (As a one-time wannabe poet, I am quite envious of her ability) such as this.

Read and enjoy.

We have what we asked for.....

2009-09-25T12:30:00.002-04:00

1. The Republicans betrayed their principles.
2. The majority of the people wanted a change at any price.
3. Most people do not really care about foreign affairs either way.
4. Most people are enamoured of celebrity over substance. (See most-read articles on the Fox News website.)
5. We have allowed our education system to be dumbed down, and complain when any attempt at standards other than letting our kids slide with unearned grades is attempted.
6. We are so productive that we think whatever we wish will come true, because we have never had to really work for anything.
7. We have no sense of community or deferment of gratification.
8. We no longer think, we feel.

.....a naive, smooth-talking, Chicago politician that is selling us down the river for the gain in power of the government and therefore him and his henchmen.

There is a big difference......

2009-09-23T13:02:00.002-04:00

between a cynical, political operator trading on people's gullibility, and a naive, idealist. The former will recognize reality and adjust accordingly for the long term and the latter will simply pretend all is as he/she wants it to be. The former is far less dangerous than the latter. A cynical operator will see danger coming and deal with it, if for no other reason than self-preservation. The idealist never sees it coming and then wonders how it all happened. In today's world, the idealist will get more than him/herself killed.

Which one do you think we have for a President?

......and it makes a difference.

It's about him......

2009-09-23T10:21:00.004-04:00

John Cox published an excellent drawing and quote that he has kindly allowed me to post.

We are seeing a rapid erosion of the support for the programs that President Obama has put forth. At the same time we see a constant stream of news articles castigating his opponents as if it were he and not the policies that are being attacked. The most outrageous of these was from the man who nevers knows when to shut up, Jimmy Carter, to the effect that opposition to President Obama is racist.

From the very first, it has always been about the man and not his policies. Chris Matthew's "Tingle up my leg", the Greek amphitheater in Denver, multiple Time covers, and the constant wall-to-wall television appearances and coverage of the President are more than ample proof that it is about him and not his programs. Because they are his programs, we should accept them. If we dislike his programs, we are directly attacking him.

Go back and read the picture.

.....and always has been, not his policies.

The ominous parallels......

2009-09-23T09:52:00.002-04:00

I received the following email from my sister. I have seen the same information from a totally different and reliable source over a month ago.

While I realize that some of you were/are supporters of the liberal party’s candidate for president, nevertheless, I believe we need to stand up and be counted on this one, no matter which political persuasion we are.This is so unbelievable and incredibly scary.

America wanted change! Boy is it coming!
A Democrat has now introduced legislation that would repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution – the prohibition against any President serving more than two terms in office.
Just like the Nazis, the Communists, and the Fascists, Obama and the Democratic Party are moving to posture the U.S. Presidency for succession by one President. That’s how Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini became “Leaders for Life”. Once the 22nd Amendment is repealed, the next step is to pass an Amendment to the (already emasculated) Constitution which permits a majority in the House of Representatives to designate a President as “President for Life”.
Wake up America! Contact your congressional representative and make it VERY clear that you oppose this proposed legislation.

H. J. Res. 5 - Repealing 22nd Amendment bill was referred to the House Committee on Judiciary on 1/6/09 and then referred to the Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties on 2/9/09. (Check it out on the government websites listed below.)

Earlier this year, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y. introduced H. J. Res. 5, a bill that would repeal the Constitution’s 22nd Amendment which prohibits a president from being elected to more than two terms in office, thus potentially paving the way to make Barack Obama president for life. Not surprisingly, the corporate media currently caught up in Obama-mania has not covered this story.

“Will George W. Bush end up being the last true U.S. President?” asked Sher Zieve, writing for the Canadian Free Press on January 14. “ As I warned you on multiple times prior to the 2008 General Election, ‘Once Obama is elected, we won’t be able to get rid of him.’ Tragically, this warning is now being realized. Not only has Obama established his election-fraud organization ACORN nationwide, his adherents have now begun the process to repeal the U.S. Constitution’s 22nd Amendment.”

See the proof on any of these websites.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj111-5
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-hj5/show
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_H J _5..html
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.j.res.00005:

Or go to Google and do your own search by typing in H. J. Res. 5

.........they don't teach the '30's any more, and few people are alive to remember them.

Big Brother isn't just watching

2009-09-21T11:32:00.001-04:00

The nanny state triumphs again. But remember, it isn't really about doing good, it's about being in control.

Thanks to Fox News for the article.

Here is an American Company with Principles

2009-09-18T11:34:00.003-04:00

Please read this article . The Helmsley Hotel refused to let Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attend its hotel and cancelled the dinner he was to speak at as soon as they learned of his planned attendance.

Political Correctness as a gag in the House

2009-09-16T06:43:00.002-04:00

Rep. Joe Wilson's now famous "You lie," to President Obama during his speech has generated a flurry of decorum pronouncements. This article extracts the essence of this document, which is an interpretation of the House Rules of Decorum.

Despite the apology of Rep Wilson directly to President Obama [But I wonder why apologize for the truth? bk], the house Democrats decided to formally rebuke Rep Wilson. This of course is great political theater, allowing the Dems to show support of the President in an non-substantive way, and actually strengthening Rep Wilson back home.

I figure the move will backfire, since people are already up in arms over the various attempts to control the country. It will provide the Republicans great campaign fodder--The President did not tell the truth and the Democrats tried to stiffle the one man with the courage to call him on it. We'll see. Republicans usually are gutless wonders when campaigning.

Alert!

2009-09-12T18:27:00.003-04:00

Not only did she complete the tri in less time than she expected......

SHE WON FIRST PLACE IN HER AGE GROUP!!!!!

My wife ROCKS!!

To run a tri

2009-09-12T13:55:00.002-04:00

See the previous post.

OK, to do what my wife just did requires---
1. A custom-fitted bike. Seriously, if you want to do this, you can do it with a Schwinn, but it won't be easy or fun (It still won't be easy, but it won't be torture, and it will be fun.).
2. A wet suit--if the water is cold, it is essential. Hypothermia is no fun and dangerous.
3. Really good shoes--Your standard Nikes won't do it. You have to go to a real running store and be custom-fitted.
4. Months of training--She started training in May for a September Tri.
5. Perserverence--try falling off your bike seven times, getting back up, and still going on.
6. Training seven days a week--period--two for each kind of racing and once a week to put it all together
7. Fundraising--this is optional, unless you join Team in Training as she did.--She worked many weekends, pouring beer, serving pop, anything where she could raise money for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.
8. A phenomenal dedication to all of the above and the willingness to conquer any obstacle.
9. The desire to make real difference--saving lives, one mile at a time.

Once again.....

2009-09-12T13:54:00.000-04:00

At 12:10 PM, EDT, my wife Jennifer completed her first triathlon. She swam 1500 meters in 50 min, 6 sec, biked 40 km in about 1:15, and ran 10 km in 1:16, for an overall time including transitions of 3:46:57, less than four hours. She also raised $2900 for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society by doing this. I am extremely proud of her.

.......she is a hero!

Balance of Power

2009-09-11T10:13:00.002-04:00

I have finished reading an excellent book, the first in a series by James W. Huston, Balance of Power. The plot could be considered a version of the Somali Pirate incident writ large, but (and this is the eerie thing about it) it was written 12 years ago. The protagonists are a pacifist President with no military service, a Congress still in touch with the people, the bad guys, and an American task force in the Pacific.

The author does an excellent job with the political issues and especially some very interesting Constitutional questions, which would not arise in today's environment, because Congress and the President are in each other's laps. The author is an ex-Navy fighter pilot and intelligence officer. He only provides enough of the military details to make the story intelligible and flow well--no dazzling us with his intimate knowledge.

I have four extended quotes from the book to share. Each makes it own point, though the last two are closely related.

The first quote is about something we often forget:

…When the United States was founded, it wasn’t because we had great men who were going to tell us what to do; it was because those men recognized principles that were binding on us all. We’re not bound to men, we’re bound to ideas. Ideas like equality, freedom of expression, freedom of religion….The thing that protects us from losing those freedoms isn’t a person, it’s a document….Without it, we’re just another country arguing about who wins, which is decided by who is in power. Is it up to the President to say what we are to do? Is he the Commander in Chief? Sure he’s the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. But can he do whatever he wants with us?...He is limited by the Constitution like everyone else.” --- Balance of Power, James W. Huston, pp. 285-6

The second quote from the briefing session before the military action, makes it clear in no uncertain terms what it really means to be a citizen of the United States and also of its military. That it is our obligation to protect and defend all citizens of the US--regardless:

“This is the brief for Event One. The event in which we are going to go and beat the s[***] out of a bunch of people who shot Americans in the head and sank their ship, and killed a frogman from this battle group. As you know, we are now considered a renegade battle group. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I kind of like the way that sounds. In fact, in case you haven’t noticed, the battle group has been flying the new group flag.” He removed a large piece of white butcher paper from the board next to the chart and exposed a hand-drawn red and white “Don’t Tread on Me” flag. “Thanks to IS1 Alverez for her rendition of this old Navy Battle Flag used in the Revolutionary War. For those of you who graduated from high school in the last ten years and therefore by definition don’t know s[***], the Revolutionary War was when we fought England for our Independence and kicked their a[***]s. This flag said how we felt then, and I think”—he posted it behind him—“it still does. --- Balance of Power, James W. Huston, pp. 443

The third quote is a questioning of the man who created the possible authority to conduct the military operation by the Admiral of the task force. It has to do with the correct mind-set to use military force. It is rather more nuanced than General Patton:

“Well, Mr. Dillon, do you think we did the right thing?” Billings asked.

Dillon finally sat up. “That’s really not for me to say.”

Billings lookd directly at Dillon. “I think it is for you to say, Mr. Dillon. If you can’t form an opinion now, you never will.” He pressed him. “Are you doing the p;olitical thing of waiting to see all the implications before you decide whether it’s ‘right’ or ‘wrong’? We don’t have that luxury here. We have to act.” He waited for a response from Dillon. “Your’re not under my command. Let’s hear what you have to say.”

Dillon rubbed his eyes. “I don’t know, Admiral. I thought from the beginning that the right thing to do was to go hammer these guys. Now we’ve hammered them. I guess the part of it that surprises me is that I always thought it would feel good once you did it, but it doesn’t…” His voice trailed off. “You just wonder if it was all worth it.”

“You should always wonder that, Mr. Dillon. We look at everything we do in that same light. Everything. But now that you have, what’s your conclusion?” He studied Dillon’s face and saw the clash of emotions.

“Even knowing what I know now, it was the right thing. I’d do it again.” --- Balance of Power, James W. Huston, pp. 508-9

And finally, at the end of a discussion of our central character with his very liberal girl friend that he would like to become his girl-friend, we have this quote. It puts shame to most of us on the sidelines, regardless of whether we are for or against a certain military action:

“You were there on the carrier,” she said, noticing his involuntary wince. “We may disagree on whether it was right or not, whether it was legal, but did it feel good? Are you glad?”

Dillon closed his eyes momentarily to slow the watering from the cold. “It’s funny, Admiral Billings asked me the same thing. Sort of. That’s what surprised me. This wasn’t really much of a war, and it got to me. I saw it personally, Molly. I went ashore with the Marines. I saw people get killed. I saw the head terrorist and he shot me twice.” He could see the surprise on her face. “Hit my helmet and flak jacket. I only got bruises and a small cut,” he said touching a half-inch scab by his ear. “And after I got back to the carrier, I thought it would be like winning a football game, where everyone comes to their feet and cheers and claps. It’s not like that at all. It’s not a sport. So, no, I guess I’m not glad. It doesn’t make me happy. It’s made me, I don’t know, different. I think I’d take it more seriously now than I ever would have before.”… “But it was still the right thing to do.” --- Balance of Power, James W. Huston, pp. 540-1

Unfortunately, in today's US, doing the right thing seems to be almost an impossibility for our government.

To be remembered...a true story

2009-09-05T21:58:00.014-04:00

The prize doesn't always go to the most deserving.

Irena Sendler

There recently was a death of a 98 year-old lady named Irena. During WWII, Irena, got permission to work in the Warsaw Ghetto, as a Plumbing/Sewer specialist. She had an 'ulterior motive' ... She KNEW what the Nazi's plans were for the Jews, (being German.) Irena smuggled infants out in the bottom of the tool box she carried and she carried in the back of her truck a burlap sack, (for larger kids..) She also had a dog in the back that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto. The soldiers of course wanted nothing to do with the dog and the barking covered the kids/infants noises.. During her time of doing this, she managed to smuggle out and save 2500 kids/infants. She was caught, and the Nazi's broke both her legs, arms and beat her severely. Irena kept a record of the names of all the kids she smuggled out and kept them in a glass jar, buried under a tree in her back yard. After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have survived it and reunited the family. Most had been gassed. Those kids she helped got placed into foster family homes or adopted.

Last year Irena was up for the Nobel Peace Prize ... She was not selected.
Al Gore won, for a slide show on Global Warming.

For more details see these You Tube videos, (1), (2) .

63 years later

In MEMORIAM - 63 YEARS LATER

Please read the little cartoon carefully, it's powerful. Then read the comments at the end.

It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended This post is in memory of the six million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated with the German and Russian Peoples looking the other way!

Now, more than ever, with Iraq , Iran , and others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it's imperative to make sure the world never forgets, because there are others who would like to do it again.

As we turn out backs on our friends.......

2009-09-04T14:38:00.004-04:00

From The China Daily:

The national flag of the People's Republic of China (PRC) will be hoisted at the South Lawn of the White House in Washington on September 20, media reported Sunday.

Update: The flag will be flown on the Elipse across the street, not the White House South Lawn. Thanks to Kevin for the correction.

.....we legitimize totalitarian states.

Here is another version of Cloward-Piven

2009-09-02T10:54:00.001-04:00

ACORN's voter rights tactics follow the Cloward-Piven Strategy:

1. Register as many Democrat voters as possible, legal or otherwise and help them vote, multiple times if possible.
2. Overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations using multiple entries of the same name, names of deceased, random names from the phone book, even contrived names.
3. Make the system difficult to police by lobbying for minimal identification standards.

In this effort, ACORN sets up registration sites all over the country and has been frequently cited for turning in fraudulent registrations, as well as destroying republican applications. In the 2004-2006 election cycles alone, ACORN was accused of widespread voter fraud in 12 states. It may have swung the election for one state governor.

Thanks to American Thinker for the quote.

This sounds very familiar

2009-09-02T10:46:00.002-04:00

A pair of radical Columbia University professors by the name of Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven wrote an article in the radical magazine known as The Nation. The article was published on May 2, 1966 and laid out what is now known as the “Cloward-Piven Strategy”.

The plan calls for the destruction of capitalism in America by swelling the welfare rolls to the point of collapsing our economy and then implementing socialism by nationalizing many private institutions.

Thanks to Infidel Bloggers Alliance for the quote.

The most extensive writeup on this is and essay by Jim Simpson in American Thinker

You can google Cloward-Piven Strategy Google will provide several suggestions) to see what is happening.