Marriage as Stereotype

From the Heritage Foundation last Monday:

 

This past Friday the Iowa Supreme Court rewrote the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. Justifying their rejection of the argument that "the optimal environment for children is to be raised within a marriage of both a father and a mother," Justice Mark Cady wrote: "The research ... suggests that the traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else."

 

First of all, the court is just wrong on the facts. Children whose parents marry and stay married have been found to have better health and are less likely to be depressed, are less likely to repeat a grade in school, and have fewer developmental problems than other children. If poor women who have children out of wedlock were married to the actual fathers of their children, nearly two-thirds would be lifted out of poverty immediately.

 

But let's leave the social science aside for a moment. The real story here is the court's dismissal of the traditional family as a mere stereotype which unmasks the left's true agenda here: the rejection the nuclear family as the core of civil society. Heritage's Matthew Spalding explains:

 

What is happening is no minor adjustment... It does not expand marriage; it alters its core meaning, for to redefine marriage so that it is not intrinsically related to the relationship between fathers, mothers, and children formally severs the institution from its nature and purpose. Expanding marriage supposedly to make it more inclusive, no matter what we call the new arrangement, necessarily ends marriage as we now know it by remaking the institution into something different: a mere contract between any two individuals.

 

And as the New York Times reported last week, the sanctity of contracts are under assault everywhere. Raising kids today is a challenge even for "stereotypical" mothers and fathers. As mother of three and syndicated columnist Rebecca Hagelin details in her new book, 30 Ways in 30 Days to Save Your Family, often it seems as though popular culture seems to want to turn your children against you. But Hagelin also offers a practical 30-day plan to help all busy moms and dads fight back. 30 Ways in 30 Days to Save Your Family is filled with simple steps that parents can take to help their children become healthy adjusted adults. Because it isn't just parents who are hurt by decisions like the one last week in Iowa, it is also our kids who are being bombarded by a contaminated culture. Lucky for America, Hagelin's book hits the stores today.

"What Were You Thinking?

What Causes Partisanship?

Some folks think that Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread.  Others ask, "What was the greatest thing before sliced bread?"  Whichever group you find yourself in, a new report by the Pew Research Center tells the informed observer that Barack H. Obama has the "most polarized early job approval rating of any president in the past four decades."  More than even George W. Bush, who was widely accused by Democrats of being a totally partisan president, totally divisive.

 

You can read the statistics for yourself; I must say I've often thought it interesting that when George W. Bush was in office, the Democrats were continually calling for "bipartisan" approaches to issues of national import.  Since the recent election and installation of the current occupant of the Oval Office, I've seen no such calls reported in the major media outlets.  What's up with that?

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Obama's Treasury Secretary

 Honest Mistake?

"What Were You Thinking?"

You Voted for Obama?

Our local fish-wrapper had this editorial cartoon in today's edition.  Thanks to Chuck Asay; you can find an archive of Chuck's work here.  You'll also find a link there where you can thank Chuck for his political acumen.

I think I'll go buy a car today ;-) 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Judicial Watch: Corruption at Fannie Mae

    Judicial Watch is a private government oversight organization dedicated to "Promoting Integrity, Transparency and Accountability in Government, Politics and the Law."  They do so, in the words on their masthead, "Because no one is above the law."  Anyone can sign up on their website for a weekly News Update.

    Today's update included information that should give pause to those who continue to blame the previous administration for the problems in the housing finance markets.  Here's the lead-in to the article:

    New Documents Uncovered by Judicial Watch Show Congress Ignored Corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for Years

    Barney Frank and his liberal allies in Congress have more explaining to do.

    According to new documents we uncovered this week, members of Congress for years were aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were playing fast and loose with accounting issues, risk assessment issues and executive compensation issues even while liberals in Congress (led by Frank) continued to block attempts to regulate the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs).

    We obtained these documents from the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request we submitted back on December 4, 2008. This is part of our comprehensive investigation of the government's role in the financial crisis, but our particular concern in this case was the policy of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase lending to individuals with poor credit risk, as well as correspondence and records about contacts between FHFA and Fannie and Freddie.

You should read the entire article, and also read and evaluate the original documents.  If this isn't enough evidence to convince you that voting for this current bunch was the wrong thing to do, I don't know what will.

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Veritas ... on Campus?

A lot of you will already be aware of The Veritas Forum.  If not the forum, you probably remember the founder, Kelly Monroe Kullberg, who wrote Finding God At Harvard (1996). A brief review:  "She presents the compelling testimonies of forty-two faculty members, former students, and distinguished orators at Harvard. Their candid reflections explode the myth that Christian faith cannot survive a rigourous intellectual atmosphere."  Today's To The Source column has an interview with this interesting lady, who also wrote a book titled Finding God Beyond Harvard (2006).

 

This article at To The Source begins with the destructive riots we've all seen yesterday and today in London, protests against the meeting of the G-20 powers.  Then this paragraph:

When Kelly Monroe Kullberg arrived at Harvard Divinity School in 1992, she saw that many of her fellow students felt isolated in their search for meaning and truth. She found that, despite a great hunger, the university had jettisoned such deep and essential topics. There was a yawning chasm facing the sincere seekers yearning to know more about ultimate truth and goodness. Ironically, at Harvard, whose motto is Veritas, there was a longing for truth. So Kullberg founded the Veritas Forum. The inaugural event in Cambridge drew 700 participants for a weekend of lectures and discussions about how the pursuit of knowledge in the university relates to the truth claims of Jesus Christ. The momentum has only grown since then.

 

Read the To The Source article.  Check out The Veritas Forum.  Remind yourself what Veritas means.  Then consider what "True Truth" is.  How about a couple more quotes?

    Academicians tend to reduce "knowing" to data analysis and lab results. They often feel the need to do this     because most grants require quantified results. So we see a growing surplus of information but a scarcity of wisdom.

    Harvard was founded in 1636 For Christ's Glory (In Christi Gloriam) and later Veritas (Truth) in Christ and the Church, and yet today we see a rise in depression, disease and even suicide. Ironically, the earth-shattering life and brilliant mind of Jesus Christ are rarely explored in the classrooms.

    Our presenters include Dallas Willard, William Lane Craig, John Stott, Tim Keller and many humble scholars who explore questions and connect them to the person and story of Jesus Christ. The world's story is too small to live in. We want to help one another consider the reality of a larger and more wonderful story, the Gospel, which provides an ample place to live.

 

God Bless,

Ron

Texas Forges Compromise Over Creationism

WorldNet Daily yesterday reported that public schools in Texas will no longer be able to teach only that science coursework that supports evolution, but must now also provide their students with arguments critical of the Darwinian theory.

    Public school students in Texas will be called on to "analyze, evaluate and critique" evidence that undermines Darwin's theory of evolution as well as evidence that supports the belief man and all other modern life has developed from primordial sludge, following a vote by state officials.

    "Texas has sent a clear message that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned," said John West, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, which had argued before the Texas Board of Education for students to have the right to review all of the evidence, not just what evolutionists want presented.

    The decision initially was praised by pro-evolution factions for the board's decision to remove the guidance that students should study the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific evidence. However, West told WND the replacement policy now includes requirements for students to "analyze, evaluate and critique" all such provisions in evolution, such as the concept of common ancestry and natural selection.

It seems to me that an honest and open discussion is the best way to approach any such issue, with both sides clearly presented for critical evaluation.

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

A Rookie President...

Scholar, author, economist, columnist -- all titles well-earned -- Dr. Thomas Sowell has again hit one out of the park in today's column published at Townhall.com and on the Jewish World Review.  And now, of course, here.

    Someone once said that, for every rookie you have on your starting team in the National Football League, you will lose a game. Somewhere, at some time during the season, a rookie will make a mistake that will cost you a game.

    We now have a rookie President of the United States and, in the dangerous world we live in, with terrorist nations going nuclear, just one rookie mistake can bring disaster down on this generation and generations yet to come.

    Barack Obama is a rookie in a sense that few other Presidents in American history have ever been. It is not just that he has never been President before. He has never had any position of major executive responsibility in any kind of organization where he was personally responsible for the outcome.

    Other first-term Presidents have been governors, generals, cabinet members or others in positions of personal responsibility. A few have been senators, like Barack Obama, but usually for longer than Obama, and had not spent half their few years in the senate running for President.

    What is even worse than making mistakes is having sycophants telling you that you are doing fine when you are not. In addition to all the usual hangers-on and supplicants for government favors that every President has, Barack Obama has a media that will see no evil, hear no evil and certainly speak no evil.

    They will cheer him on, no matter what he does, short of first-degree murder-- and they would make excuses for that. Even former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan has gushed over President Obama and even crusty Bill O'Reilly has been impressed by Obama's demeanor.

    There is no sign that President Obama has impressed the Russians, the Iranians or the North Koreans, except by his rookie mistakes-- and that is a dangerous way to impress dangerous people.

    What did his televised overture to the Iranians accomplish, except to reassure them that he was not going to do a damn thing to stop them from getting a nuclear bomb? It is a mistake that can go ringing down the corridors of history.

    Future generations who live in the shadow of that nuclear threat may wonder what we were thinking about, putting our lives-- and theirs-- in the hands of a rookie because we liked his style and symbolism?

    In the name of "change," Barack Obama is following policies so old that this generation has never heard of them-- certainly not in most of our educational institutions, where history has been replaced by "social studies" or other politically correct courses.

    Seeking deals with our adversaries, behind the backs of our allies? France did that at Munich back in 1938. They threw Czechoslovakia to the wolves and, less than two years later, Hitler gobbled up France anyway.

    This year, President Obama's attempt to make a backdoor deal with the Russians, behind the backs of the NATO countries, was not only rejected but made public by the Russians-- a sign of contempt and a warning to our allies not to put too much trust in the United States.

    Barack Obama is following a long practice among those on the left of being hard on our allies and soft on our enemies. One of our few allies in the Middle East, the Shah of Iran, was a whipping boy for many in the American media, who vented their indignation at his regime-- which now, in retrospect, seems almost benign compared to the hate-filled fanatics and international terrorism sponsors who now rule that country.

    However much Barack Obama has proclaimed his support for Israel, his first phone call as President of the United States was to Hamas, to whom he has given hundreds of millions of dollars, which can buy a lot of rockets to fire into Israel.

    Our oldest and staunchest ally, Britain, has been downgraded by President Obama's visibly less impressive reception of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, compared to the way that previous Presidents over the past two generations have received British Prime Ministers. President Obama's sending the bust of Winston Churchill in the White House back to the British embassy at about the same time was either a rookie mistake or another snub.

    We can lose some very big games with this rookie.

 "What Were You Thinking?"

Cheap (and Expensive) Political Theater

Scholar and columnist Thomas Sowell has a column (March 24, 2009 -- alternate source) that should be required reading for those who think the previous administration is responsible for the meltdown in the housing industry and the associated difficulties in the economic sphere.  An excerpt:

    We are not yet a banana republic, though that is the direction in which some of our politicians are taking us - especially those politicians who make a lot of noise about "compassion" and "social justice."

    What makes this all the more painfully ironic is that it is precisely those members of Congress who have had the most to do with creating the risks that led to the current economic crisis who are making the most noise against others, and summoning people before their committee to be browbeaten and humiliated on nationwide television.

    No one pushed harder than Congressman Barney Frank to force banks and other financial institutions to reduce their mortgage lending standards, in order to meet government-set goals for more home ownership. Those lower mortgage lending standards are at the heart of the increased riskiness of the mortgage market and of the collapse of Wall Street securities based on those risky mortgages.

    Senator Christopher Dodd has played the same role in the Senate as Barney Frank played in the House of Representatives. Now both are summoning government employees and the officials of financial institutions before their committees to be lambasted in front of the media.

    Dodd and Frank know that the best defense is a good offense. Both know how hard it would be to defend their own roles in the housing debacle, so they go on the offensive against others who are in no position to reply in kind, given the vindictive powers of Congress.

It boggles my mind that people would rather ignore the truth and believe proven liars such as Frank and Dodd than do the simple research that puts the lie to their offensive rant.  Now they've elected a president and congress that are running this country directly to socialism.  Themselves willfully ignorant, they trust in big government rather than themselves.

"What Were You Thinking?"

The Religious Beliefs of Liberals and Conservatives

The Barna Group today released a new report on the relationships between peoples political views and their Christian profession of faith.  Read the entire article here at Barna's web site; here's a tease for you:

    People's interest in - and reactions to - the social and political actions being made by President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress have heightened awareness of the different perspectives held by liberals and conservatives. A new study conducted by The Barna Group indicates that those differences are related to substantially different spiritual beliefs, behaviors and alignments.
    Overall, the research shows that nearly one-third of all adults (32%) consider themselves to be "mostly conservative" on social and political matters, and about half as many (17%) claimed to be "mostly liberal" on such matters. The other half of the adult population generally takes a position somewhere in between those opposing viewpoints.
    Based upon an evaluation of more than a dozen religious beliefs of liberals and conservatives, consistent and significant differences are evident. Liberals are less than half as likely as conservatives to firmly believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches (27% versus 63%, respectively); to strongly believe that Satan is real (17% versus 36%); and to firmly contend that they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs with others (23% versus 48%).

While these paragraphs lead from the political to the religious beliefs of the respondants, later in the article the report starts with the respondant's religious belief and goes on to draw some conclusions about their political leanings.

What Do You Worry About?

    Have you ever heard the "talking heads" on the news use that question whenever they interview some political personage?  Have you ever heard friends talk about what's worrying them?  In early March Gallup, conducted a poll on eight so-called "green" issues. Here's the way they posed the question:

"I'm going to read you a list of environmental problems.  As I read each one, please tell me if you personally worry about this problem a great deal, a fair amound, only a little, or not at all.  First of all, how much do you personally worry about ... ?"

    Last Wednesday they published their assessment of the responses.

The Bible tells us not to worry. Jesus Himself gave the following instructions to His disciples:

²⁵"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? ²⁶Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? ²⁷Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

 ²⁸"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. ²⁹Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. ³⁰If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? ³¹So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' ³²For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. ³³But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. ³⁴Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. [NIV]

    So maybe we shouldn't worry so much about these little things, like whether the planet is about to come apart -- after all, "... your heavenly Father knows that you need [these things]."  Seems to me that when we worry, we're displaying a lack of trust in our heavenly Father.

    God Bless us, every one.  And help us not to worry about such petty, temporal matters, but rather seek the kingdom of God.  After all, eternal life is forever.  Amen?

Barney "Porker" Frank

    Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass) has been named Porker of the Month for March by Citizens Against Government Waste.  Newsmax reports the following:

Chairman Frank has never been shy about rewarding failure in the past and he generally favors using taxpayer dollars to do it.  He was front and center in support of enactment of TARP, which noticeably had no enforceable strings attached related to executive compensation.  Indeed, he helped promote perks for bank executives.  According to a January 24, 2009 Boston Herald editorial, Chairman Frank made sure "one of the recipients of a $12 million infusion of federal cash was the troubled OneUnited Bank in Boston - a bank that had already been accused of 'unsafe and unsound banking practices.'  Its CEO, Kevin Cohee had also been criticized by regulators for 'excessive' pay that included a Porsche."  Chairman Frank included specific provisions in TARP aimed at bailing out OneUnited and spoke directly to Treasury officials about it.

    This shouldn't be a big surprise to thinking folks who follow the news.  Unless they only follow the mainstream media, that is.  Two-faced Barney is notable only for the extreme partisanship he exhibits in his public dealings.  It's a sad day for Massachusetts when they can't find a better person for the job.

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Deism vs. Creationism vs ..BioLogos?

    To The Source, an Internet resource dedicated to Challenging Hardcore Secularism with Principled Pluralism, has conducted an interesting interview with Dr. Francis Collins, the physicist who was a driving force behind the Human Genome Project.  Dr. Collins, born to nominal Christian parents, became an atheist in school but during his work with dying patients found himself turning toward Evangelical Christianity.  He has written a book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (read a book review at Evidence for God) and developed his belief system in the BioLogos project.

    This interview runs the gamut from Miracles to Moral Law and compares the Atheist view with a Christian Worldview.  The article also prompts an investigation and attempt to understand this "BioLogos" that Dr. Collins presents in his book, definitely a hard sell for this young-earth creationist.  YMMV.

Slouching toward Mediocrity

Thomas Sowell, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute, points out the rabble-rousing Mob Mentality involved in the conduct of those most invoolved in creating the current economic situation in today's article at Townhall.com titled "Cheap Political Theater."

 

A couple of excerpts from this illuminating article:

    Death threats to executives at AIG, because of the bonuses they received, are one more sign of the utter degeneration of politics in our time.

    Congressman Barney Frank has threatened to summon these executives before his committee and force them to reveal their home addresses-- which would of course put their wives and children at the mercy of whatever kooks might want to literally take a shot at them.
    Whatever the political or economic issues involved, this is not the way such issues should be resolved in America. We are not yet a banana republic, though that is the direction in which some of our politicians are taking us-- especially those politicians who make a lot of noise about "compassion" and "social justice."

    What makes this all the more painfully ironic is that it is precisely those members of Congress who have had the most to do with creating the risks that led to the current economic crisis who are making the most noise against others, and summoning people before their committee to be browbeaten and humiliated on nationwide television.

Read the entire article and then ask yourself, "Is this the kind of America I want my children and grandchildren to inherit?"

"What Were You Thinking?"

'Man-Caused Disasters' New Term for Terrorism

Newsmax editor Ronald Kessler calls Obama's administration on the carpet today.  read the first few paragraphs from his interesting article below, then click the link to read the entire thing.  Then ask yourself, how does using more touchy-feely language change the essence of the threat?

    The new term for terrorism being used by President Obama's secretary of Homeland Security would be comical if it were not so scary.

    Instead of referring to threats from terrorists, Janet Napolitano is referring in her speeches to 'man-caused disasters.' In an interview, a reporter for Germany's Spiegel Online asked Napolitano whether her avoidance of the term terrorism means that "Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose[es] a threat to your country?"

    "Of course it does," Napolitano replied. "I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word 'terrorism,' I referred to 'man-caused' disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur."

    By this logic, the FBI should refer to serial killers and serial rapists as 'man-caused afflictions.' After all, we do not want to create fear about serial killers.

    Any parent knows that the way to protect children is to teach them about the dangers they face. But in Obama Land, calling a threat by its real name is politically incorrect. Thus, in a press briefing, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that Obama is using "different words and phrases [than war on terrorism] in order to denote a reaching out to many moderate parts of the world that we believe can be important in a battle against extremists."

    By confusing terrorists with moderates, the White House is adding to prejudice toward Muslims in general. More importantly, the effort to avoid calling terrorists what they are signals a return to the risk-averse, complacent atmosphere that led to the 9/11 attacks.

The current administration, reflecting a denial of reality that brought them to the White House, continues to seek ways to appease our enemies.  Neville Chamberlaine found out, to the dismay of the entire world, that such methods never work.

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Dick Armey: Rush is Right

"Rush is Right!  Now let's move on."  Thus says former Texas congressman Dick Armey in a recent article at Townhall.com.

 

    "Much has been made of conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh's statements concerning President Obama and his desire to 'see him fail.' I was asked to comment on this during a recent interview. My short answer: Rush is right.

    Armey's Axiom: There's no right way to do the wrong thing. Since he took office, President Obama, prodded by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, has been doing one wrong thing after another in his clumsy attempts to 'stimulate' the economy. The result: only government has been stimulated, and at the expense of entrepreneurs, our individual liberties, and economic recovery. Regardless of our hopes for the President, higher spending and punitive taxes will fail the American people.
    Rush, like so many limited government conservatives, doesn't want to see Obama's socialist vision for this country come to fruition at the expense of freedom and individual liberty. We, unlike our counterparts on the Left, see these principles as central to our philosophy of governance. Indeed, we believe they are necessary to live free, happy and productive lives, so why wouldn't we want to see an obvious affront to them like President Obama's borrow-tax-spend-and-inflate agenda fail?
    Of course many in the media, and thanks in no small part to the White House political shop under the leadership of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, have twisted a simple statement intended to differentiate political philosophies into an attack on America. Further, the high profile nature of Rush's comments has given rise to a debate concerning who is leading the conservative movement. Is it Rush? Is it newly installed GOP Chairman Michael Steele? House Republican Leader John Boehner? What about the rising stars in the states, such as South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford? The obvious answer is that there is not one leader for conservatives, the limited government movement, or the Republican Party.
    Small government conservatives should be cheering the fact that so many bold leaders are emerging to offer up good ideas and lead our movement back from the brink. After all, at our core we are a 'big tent' movement with economic and social conservatives working towards a common goal: freedom. Engrained in our philosophy is the spirit of entrepreneurship that recognizes and rewards good ideas and good work no matter where they come from. The last thing we should be doing is bickering about who is in charge, as the Democrats and their friends in the media hope we will.
    A better question, I think, is why the Obama White House chose to diminish the office by directly debating a popular talk show host? Don't the President and his team have better things to do? Is it right to turn the Presidency - a sacred American institution - into a den for political hacks? Ronald Reagan knew that there was a time for politics and a time to govern. President Obama, despite his promises, appears to want to run a permanent campaign for President to maintain his political power despite the state of the economy and the effectiveness of his policies. Armey's Axiom: When it's about power, you lose.

    When we come together, our movement can achieve great things. This was the case in the nineties, which saw limited government conservatives with a host of different issue priorities work in concert to get behind the Contract with America and usher in the Republican Revolution in Congress. It took entrepreneurial leaders both inside the halls of Congress and outside, in grassroots America, to change the status quo.
    In 2006 and 2008 we saw the conservative base wander from its fundamental limited government philosophy, pulled apart by a wide range of issues. A shared commitment to liberty was lost and conservatives wound up paying a heavy political price as liberals first took control of Congress, and then strengthened their grip, ultimately taking the White House in November. MoveOn.org was at the center of the Left's efforts and brought together its disparate factions. From the anti-war wing to income redistributors to radical environmentalists, all were corralled in their own big tent committed to big government.
    MoveOn and the other cogs that make up the Left's massive political machine continue to work much more harmoniously than those on the Right. Today, they share a database of tens of millions of liberal supporters who, through the successful leveraging of new online social mobilization technologies, can be engaged on a wide range of issues or in critical elections at a moments notice.

    Rush and every freedom-loving American is right to want Obama's efforts to erode the basic freedoms we hold so dear to fall flat. Now we need to work together, focusing on the core principles of limited government we all share. This is what the Left learned from us after watching the Republican Revolution. Lately we've strayed from this winning model, but we need to get back to it.

    In short, we need to move on."

from "Rush is Right...Now Let's Move On," by Dick Armey, March 21, 2009, http://Townhall.com

 

"The difference between prejudice and conviction is that you can explain a conviction without getting angry."

"What Were You Thinking?"

Words Mean Things

    Here's one for the "No Shortage of Idiots" department.  If you look at the Steven Pearlstein article previously mentioned, you'll see a link to a video showing a protester carrying a sign that says, "WORKERS' VOICE TO STOP CEO EXPLOITS." 

    The first definition of 'exploit' in my Webster's New World Dictionary says, "an act remarkable for brilliance or daring; bold deed."

    The signmaker appears to be a product of the modern government school system  ;-)

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Good Gifts vs Unuseable Gifts

     When I lived in Florida, a lot of friends knew that I enjoyed trains. One good friend, when his wife was cleaning out their home, even found a set of old VHS videotapes that he'd gotten as a premium for contributing to Public TV, and gave them to me. It was a very kind thing to do and I was able to get a good bit of enjoyment from them.
     Today we find out that those videos that the POTUS (not to be confused with TOTUS, the Teleprompter Of The United States) gave to the Prime Minister of England cannot be played in Europe. One would think that if Obama was cleaning out his house to find a gift for Brown, he would at least have given him something he could usable.

"What Were You Thinking?"

Does Anger Help?

    Even pundits in the liberal press are beginning to see the problems in the hysteria being kicked up by our president and congress.  Steven Pearlstein, business columnist for the Washington Post, says, "Let's Put Down The Pitchforks."  He writes:

"At the end of the day, the thing to get outraged about is not the $440 million in bonuses at AIG or the $10 million that Citigroup is spending to redesign its shrunken executive suite. These may seem like princely sums, but they are almost insignificant compared with the real outrage: the hundreds of billion dollars of taxpayer funds that have been put at risk to keep AIG and Citi from failing and taking the whole financial system down with them. Let's keep our attention on the elephant rather than the pimples on its behind."

    Exactly.

"What Were You Thinking?"

Monster Response to a Pygmy Problem

    In typical fashion, our elected representatives in Washington are doing all they can to distract attention from their own Profligate, Porcine spending by expressing outrage at a tiny percentage of waste occuring in the boardrooms of private business.  Charles Krauthammer has an article today at Townhall.com describing the hypocrisy:

"A $14 trillion economy hangs by a thread composed of (a) a comically cynical, pitchfork-wielding Congress, (b) a hopelessly understaffed, stumbling Obama administration, and (c) $165 million.  That's $165 million in bonus money handed out to AIG debt manipulators who may be the only ones who know how to defuse the bomb they themselves built. Now, in the scheme of things, $165 million is a rounding error. It amounts to less than 1/18,500 of the $3.1 trillion federal budget. It's less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the bailout money given to AIG alone."

    So where does the blame belong for this particular waste?  Is it with the people who received these bonuses?  They had contracts with their employers before the bailout.  Congress, the Administration, and the Treasury Department had to know (or should have known) about it.  What are we paying these bureaucrats for, if not that?  No, they had to pass the Stimulus bill without time even to read, let alone evaluate, the thing.  So now Congress is pushing through a bill to extract the money legally paid to these people.  First Congress will abrogate legal contracts, what's next?  What other parts of the Constitution will be rendered 'null and void' just because a populist president and a myopic congress, aided and abetted by a puckish press, are able to rile up the citizenry to a fever pitch on such a triviality? 

    Mona Charen has also written an article in which she compares the actions of those in private business, now being bailed out, with those of the politicians that some say pushed the private businesses to take the actions they did.  Her article concludes:

    "... the most sinister move came from Frank. He demanded that Liddy reveal the names of the 73 executives who had received retention bonuses. Liddy said he would do so if he could receive a promise of confidentiality. Frank refused and threatened to subpoena the names. Liddy said if subpoenaed he would obey the law, but he then read to the committee some of the death threats his company had been getting over the past few days. Some threats spoke of hanging the executives with piano wire, others of finding where their kids went to school.

    That is the sort of ugliness and criminality that Frank is willing tacitly to encourage by demanding the names. And for what? The bonuses amounted to just one tenth of 1 percent of the AIG bailout (to say nothing of the stimulus bill and the gargantuan budget bill Congress and the president are hanging around our necks). If politicians want to metaphorically flay away at evil businessmen, well, that's regrettable. But when they cross the line into encouraging the targeting of actual individuals, they are no longer 'honorable gentlemen,' but leaders of a mob."

    Read these articles, then consider the duplicity of these corrupt and contentious idiots we've elected.  And consider the fallen nature of mankind that leads to the mob mentality being appealed to by those we've put in positions of power.  One Tenth of One Percent!  What have we become?

"What Were You Thinking?"