The individual mandate - FB conversation

R.W. posted this:

Obamacare simplified.

YUP...This about covers it nicely! If you agree LIKE this and SHARE this with your friends!

B.R.: Yes, you're correct, that logic is dumb.

R.W.: That is what was just declared constitutional.

B.R.: you're intentionally eschewing the importance of this system. Gum is a ridiculous thing to compare to health care.

K.B.: Reductio ad absurdum. It works with people who DIDN'T study debate in Junior High School.

Poor argument. Entertaining reading.

Me: How about this: We have a huge unsold inventory of single family homes. This clearly has a substantial potential impact on the country's well-being. Why not force renters to purchase a home or pay a penalty (um, tax)?

R.W.: Your point is a red herring Ben. It doesn't matter how important it is. The no gum tax is legal. According to 5 idiots on the the court you can be taxed on a non-action. It is only up to the whim of the majority to determine what they f...eel is important. When the right wing gets in power, they may decide that you have the right not to attend church. But if you don't participate you will be taxed. Want to buy a prius? Fine but you have to pay the NOT BUYING AMERICAN tax. Don't have solar panels? That is your right. Just pay the Raping of Mother Earth tax.

R.W.: K.B., maybe I didn't finish Junior High so I'm not as learned as you, but if you cant see the correlation, maybe its not my intelligence that should be called into question. It's not that hard. Don't purchase a commercial product from a private company and pay a tax. It doesn't matter what the product is!

B.R.: ‎90% of Americans are going to NEED a certain industry in the next 5 years, and it's not gum or single family homes or church or a prius or solar panels. My costs for those innocuously compared items don't skyrocket when the rest of America...ns decide to stay opted out. You're taking an enormously important and complex program and boiling it down to one personal value that you disagree with. Next time a Republican wins the White House and he or she starts to change things in big ways, I'm going to try and understand the whole story, not just the elements that go against my personal convictions.

K.B.: Come, come, R.W ... you didn't publish that cartoon to make a compelling legal point. You posted that cartoon because it was funny. And it is!! It made ME laugh!

And I see the correlation. Of course I do. That's why the cartoon is fu...nny. But it is Reductio ad absurdum. It is entertainment. It is not a compelling legal argument. If it were, cartoons and bumper stickers would be submitted to the Supreme Court instead of thousands and thousands of pages of briefs.

B.R.: I like your point, Kevin - liberals are equally guilty of promoting these kinds of things, maybe even more so since they're reliably funnier.

K.B.: Oh, HELL YES!! Liberals are just as guilty of it as anyone else. We LOVE to boil things down to absurdities in order to make a point. Without it, we never would have invented lapel buttons and bumper stickers.

I love a good laugh, from ...either side. Just don't take those little cartoons, bumper stickers and one-liners too seriously. The day they replace constructive argument; the day they do your talking for you, then intelligent human discourse is in big, big trouble.

Me: Liberals are only funny unintentionally.

B.R.: Rich - um. what? no.

K.B.: ‎"When you run out of intelligent argument, switch to name-calling."

R.W.: The cartoon does not address healthcare. That is irrelevant. It doesn't MATTER what the product or service is. Why is that so difficult? Sometimes things ate really very simple. Can. You be taxed for NOT conforming? The answer is yes. That means that dispite the colonialists in Boston objection to high taxes on tea, how would they have felt if England had impossed a penalty for NOT BUYING tea.

B.R.: Is that how you feel about all taxes? Are there any taxes that you feel are understandable despite the compromise they represent?

Me: Joy Behar. Sheila Jackson-Lee. Joe Biden. Al Sharpton. Need I say more?

K.B.: You lost me. These people are examples of ...?

R.W.: Of course not, that is a ridiculous statement. Activity can be taxed. But I don't believe that the government should try to control our behavior with taxes. I am not in favor of sin taxes even though I rarely have to pay them. And I certainly don't support a tax on a Non-activity. Why so quick to give up your freedom?

B.R.: Rich - no, you generally needn't say more. ;-)

B.R.: I'm quick to make a compromise in support of getting health care to millions of uninsured Americans. I'd be as pissed as you are, if it was actually gum or priuses or things Americans don't actually need.

Me: And just like a typical liberal, turns personally insulting.

Me: These people are liberals who are unintentionally funny.

Me: ‎"Need" is a nebulous concept. Who determines what you "Need?" Government?

B.R.: C'mon I was kidding...it was just too easy. There are plenty of liberals who are unintentionally funny, just like there are conservatives (see: Mitch McConnell's voice, John Boehner's name and tan, Sarah Palin's brain). But ya can't actually say that liberals aren't funny intentionally. Many of the great political humorists and satirists in American history have been liberal.

K.B.: Gentlemen, this has been endlessly entertaining, but I need to get back to work.

We're the only industrialized country that doesn't have universal health care. May I respectfully suggest we take a whack at it and see how it goes?

K.B.: If it turns into a hideously expensive debacle that causes more problems than it solves (Hello-o-o 18th Amendment!), then I will be leading the charge for its repeal. But give it a chance first.

Me: Before obamacare, 46 cents of every healthcare dollar was spent by government. As that number has increased over the past 30 years, healthcare has gotten worse. I submit that we have tried it and it has failed.

Me: ‎"Humor" is a personal taste. Like you insulting me. You thought it was funny, and I didn't. now I know you were jesting, so I retract my statement.

"Great humorists?" I don't think so. See, I don't think liberals are funny at all when they are making their humor from the liberal perspective. Mostly because their humor about conservatives rely on caricatures and straw men.

B.R.: You should read more Mark Twain.

Me: Took a look at a bunch of his quotes. Hardly liberal humor: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mark_twain.html

Me: Waiting for an answer. Who determines what you "Need?" Government?

B.R.: Keep waiting, I don't have an answer. The vast majority of present day Americans will rely on health care during their lifetime to stay healthy and alive.

B.R.: It's not temporary safety, it's permanent safety, and it's not for me, it's for my fellow Americans who want it very very badly.

R.W.: Have you seen the polls? Most people do not want it. In fact it had NEVER been above 50%

B.R.: Yup. It's a bummer but I have my theories on why it's unpopular. I agree with K.B., if five years goes by and it's a total fail and everyone hates it, i'll work to repeal it and put in a single payer system.

Me: When has a govt program ever been repealed, either due its failure, or because it achieved its objectives?

Me: The vast majority of Americans rely on all sorts of things. They also make choices and prioritize according to their preferences. On what basis does need become a priority of government? And why are people required to cede to government the decision on what they need?

The case you are making is dangerous. A government with that much power to do "good" also has enough power to do all sorts of evil. Tell me what remedy the people have to restrain a government that takes care of needs as it determines for you what you need?

Only my discernment is right - FB Conversation

C.Y., A FB friend, posted this:

Things I've Been Pondering On

I am realizing as I get older how much I have been relying on my parents as watchmen, protectors, and interceders in my life. But in order to mature in Christ I have to take up that responsibility in my life and be my own interceder and protector from the enemy who wants to steal, kill and destroy. Not saying that my parents still intercede on my behalf but I must fight for myself and not rely on someone else doing it for me. The scriptures that I have been pondering upon that speak to this point have been:

1 Cor. 13:11-12 - When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

Ephesians 6:10-17 - Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

J.T.: You go! As you wrestle against the spiritual forces of darkness and have victory in your own life, you will become a beacon in the night for others that you can teach to stand up and fight like you learned!

Me: You are experiencing one of many such moments in life I would call times of reckoning. A reckoning is an assessment of your status, from the word "reconcile," to make things agree. As you agree more and more with God, you reckon yourself to be dead in the flesh but alive in Christ. You reconcile (bring into agreement) your purposes with God's. You become more christlike.

My, my, my. How you have grown.

R.H.: James tells us to jst ask for wisdom, and HE will grant it, and that every obstacle is a great opportunity for thanksgiving, for when our faith is tested, our perseverence is increased and faith is perfected. We can't ask our parents, or friends for this wisdom, but we can certainly ask for prayer for these things, but we must also ask ourselves. :)

Me: With all due respect to R.H., the body of the believers is a fount of heavenly wisdom. Ironically, you are giving wisdom that a person's source of wisdom is Yahweh?

R.H.: I am not quite understanding your question exactly? I can read that a few ways, so if you do'nt mind clarifying..... the body is a fountain of wisdom, but lacking in wisdom too. If it were THE fountain of wisdom, then we'd have no need for asking GOD for wisdom, yes? it is good to ask our friends for wisdom, and advice, but ultimately, does not James say to ask? I am pretty sure. I shoudl have phrased it "ask only friends/believers, etc, for this wisdom, but ultimately, it DOES come from GOD, and so, still, we should ask.
It's a bit like asking John to ask that girl over there for a date, instead of asking her directly. Wouldn't you say?

Me: Your clarification is acceptable.

Me: I have found that so many Christians put themselves at the top of the "discernment pyramid" (i.e., they have to check everything told to them). Sometimes as we submit to one another, we find ourselves from time to time in the position of obedience. "Because you said so, I will do it."

C.Y.: Rich-I'm not quite sure where you are going with "Christians put themselves at the top of the 'discernment pyramid'" would you mind clarifying that for me. I feel like its good stuff but I'm not getting ;)

Me: A lot of Christians are not truly under authority, in the sense that they seem to always submit the spiritual input they receive from other Christians to their own discernment. This is not to say that we should not be discerning, but our discernment is not perfect, nor is it always the final authority.

Here's what I mean. Pick out any person you really respect, someone you know to be a mature person of faith. For me that would be someone like Rob Mazza or your dad or Duncan Hill. If one of those men told me I should go do something, I would simply go do it. I would not say, "oh, I need to pray about that."
I'm not saying that this is always the way it should work. But sometimes it is, because God has appointed people to positions of authority, people whom we should not be reluctant to obey.

You can see that if everything that is said to you is subject to your discernment, then your discernment is at the top of the pyramid, and you then are really subject to no other human authority but you.

R.H.: See, Rich, I am not that way. If any of them would tell me to do it, I would question it first. *unless it is something I have been praying about already, pondering, considering, needing a final push in that direction, etc*. Someone tells me to do something, I have to wonder why. Depend ing on the something, of course.

And yes, when it comes to our own lives, we really have to be discerning, and at the top of our own pyramid that way, because we have our families to look after. We have to wonder what the motivation is behind them. If we have asked for guidance, that is completely different than someone simply telling us what to do. AND even then, we should not take what a human says as final authority, but give it to GOD, and see what the result is. if we rely on everyone else telling us what to do, then we can end up in a big muddle, and no faith either....

Me: So you are saying that there is no one in your life that you respect enough to obey and submit to? That only you hear God clearly enough, that your discernment is superior to anyone else? Forgive me for my directness, but if I am wrong, I'd like to know what you really meant.

R.H.: no, there isn't really anyone that Iwould trust to tell me what to do, and me to do without questioning, in ordinary circumstances. I listen to my husband, and regret it every time. but, I do consider what people have to say, and go from ...there. I used to do what anyone who I respected said. but that kept me from growing also. I don't take anyone's word for biblical interpretation as fact either. I ponder it, and study it out my self, and then go from there. everyone has such varied opinions, how can one possibly know what to do if you listen to everyon'e sinput on your lives? THere are a couple of people who I do listen to , and respect, and take to heart what they have to say, but I do not give it final authority. GOD is my final authority in what I do. We can't go about , living our lives, based on what others tell us. what a muddle we'd be in.

R.H.: now, in emergency situations, great. I may well listen, if I don't have a better solution. when someone says pray, I pray. someone suggests studying something out, I will do so. but for my life choices, no, there's no one who is the final authority above me but God.....

R.H.: if we become dependent on others to make our choices for us, to fight our battles for us, then we are weak in our faith, and weak in every other area as well. we have no armour, but hid behind those who do have it. What good is that to us?

C.Y.: Rich I believe I understand. R.H. - the thing about being your own discerner is that we as humans have holes in our thought process that's why we have cults. So yes we shouldn't always rely on other people but we shouldn't always rely just on ourselves. We do need people in our lives to speak truth when we ourselves our blind to it. Its a both and.

Me: C.Y., I'd like to apologize in advance for hijacking your post.

R.H., you are changing my definitions. I never recommended that this is always what we should do, or that we should never inquire of God ourselves, or that we should always obey others, or that we should become dependent on others to make our choices for us.

But I see that you confirmed that there is no one in spiritual authority over you, including your husband. That is troubling.

R.H.: Rich, let me tell you. My husband doesn't seem to believe in God. He is not interested in religion, grew up with a christian school background, thinks he knows evreything there is to know about the bible, doesn't read it, doesn't pray, is...n't interested in bible study, n o interest in going to church.

Everytime I have listened to my husband, we have gotten lost, taken longer to get places, things don't get done, etc.

Now, if you would like to live as I live, then you can judge after the fact.

R.H.: C.Y., cults: this is exactly why I do not have an "authority" over me telling me what to do. That's why I left BI, because he was trying to tell me what to do in specific areas of my life that are not his to deal with, and it was his way or the high way, and everyone had to believe what HE had to say, regardless of whether we felt it was right or not.

A spiritual leader is not one who tells you how it is. He tells you how he is led to believe it, and it is up to you to soak it up, and search it out for yourself. I am not in a position where I am leading others except for my family. I am not a cult, and I am not ina position of power. I knwo all about cults, and know the problems of no authority int hat way. That is why there are cults, because there are people controlling the lives of others. Because people take that person to be authority.

Me: Again, I did not use words like "listen to everyone."

I also made no commentary on what your husband is like, or what kind of relationship you have with him. Nor did I make any judgments about your life or what kind of person you are.

Perhaps you might confine your remarks to the topic at hand.

Me: ‎"Control" and "authority" are not synonymous.

R.H.: rich, i merely spoke to the fact that you find it troubling that my husband is not an authority over me.

Me: Actually, once again you are changing what I said. I said I found it troubling that there is no one in spiritual authority over you, including your husband.

R.H.: You are taking out the "listen to everyone " out of context. there are others whose spirital walk I respect, and should they speak truth to me, you can bet I will take it to heart, and will likely know it is truth. good point, carly. (my pinky finger is bandaged at the moment, so not all things that should be capped may be...) i do not give anyone authority over me, because it has not ever been a good situation. I am merely speaking to the fact that there are people who will tell you, Rich, "jump" and you will obey without question, and I disagree with that. I have been taught an d trained to question motives, and to search things out. should that person be right, I will follow that direction. if I feel that person is wrong, no matter how much I respect that person, I will not go that way. Does that not make sense?

I take advice of many people. but it is not blindly accepted. THAT is my whole entire point that you seem to be missing.

R.H.: and you make sure to "include my hsuband". It is not my fault how my husband chooses to walk, but I cannot choose to follow those footsteps. I support my husband, but I hve to pray for his walk to be closer to Adonai, instead of farther away. I find it troubling that a husband must be an "authority". who is the authority over the husband?

R.H.: and this is a part of this discussion that ends here, becuase it's going to go a wrong direction, nd is of no benefit (I don't think???) to C.Y.. happy to discuss with you privately if you wish, Rich, or on my own wall. No, there is no human authority directl over my life, beyond our government, etc. NO spiritual authority, because I have not found one with whom I can entrust any portion of my life. I still feel that you are judging me because I hve no spiritual authority to whom i would completely submit to, who can tell me to do something, and I do it. I call that discern ment. I am sure I can find in many places in the bible to support my philosophy in this case. There are people in my life whose advice I will take should I ask of it, and NO one who I will blindly follow, just because they say to do something.

R.H.: I completely agree with C.Y. about being the one responsible for her life and her actions, and not calling up on others to take responsibility for her and her walk, and her faith. That is not to say that she's excluding everyone, but she's carrying her own staff, and taking her own steps, and facing her own obstacles. She may call on others when necessary, and that's very important too.

Me: Since I did not make a case for obeying without question, it appears we are in agreement.

"Authority" and "obedience" are not the same. The fact that your husband fails to be the man God has called him to be is unfortunate. Your godly ministry to your husband is explained by 1 Cor 7:14.

Raising revenue vs. cutting spending - FB conversation

R.W., a FB friend, posted this:

B.R.: Haha! That's pretty funny. If only it was that simple.

R.W.: It is.

B.R.: mmm...no. C'mon man. The rise in our national deficit is not basic math.

Me: spending - revenue = deficit. Lowered spending - revenue = lower deficit.

B.R.: Rich, and how do we raise the revenue with a party line filibuster every time our president wants to get something done?

Me: B.R., my equation was lowered spending. Raising revenue has never balanced the government's budget.

The Best Thing You Can Be is CEO - The Nation

The Nation is hawking merchandise in a fundraising effort. In its latest email to me, The Nation provides this commentary as an inducement to purchase mugs and t-shirts:




"Republicans are slashing state budgets, job growth is sluggish and students are graduating with ever increasing piles of debt. Not everyone is hurting, though. Corporate profits keep climbing and executive pay shows no signs of slowing down. With our mug featuring Calvin Trillin's poem "The Best Thing You Can Be is CEO," perk yourself up with a reminder that some folks always do well—no matter how many economies they crash. Available at Nation Mart, a large portion of the proceeds benefit The Nation."

I'm actually very glad that "Republicans are slashing state budgets," if indeed this is happening. But I doubt it. I challenge the Nation to produce a list of State budgets that are lower this year than last. The amount of decrease has to be substantial (to qualify for the term "slashing"), and there must be at least two states that have done so, since "budgets" is in the plural.

I'm also glad that corporate profits are climbing, because if they're doing well, then they are hiring and making products I want to buy. But again, I question this. Not because there aren't corporations doing well, but because of the generic use of the term "corporation." It suggests a behemoth organization running roughshod over innocents in the pursuit of profit, which certainly qualifies as a stereotype. 


I own a corporation, and it consists of me and my partner. The Obama economy has cost me a great deal over the last 3 years, and I am just now getting back to where I was before the Democrats took over Congress. Oh, and this statistic: 23% of business owners have gone a year without paying themselves. Obviously, "corporations" is an overly broad characterization of a far more diverse situation.

This never-ending fascination with CEO pay amazes me, as if the amount a CEO is paid has anything at all to do with my life circumstances. But I will grant the point about the burden of CEO pay on the corporation, if the Left provides a similar concession about the burden of Big Government on the economy.

Last point. The best thing I can be is not a CEO. If their measure of "best" is a humongous paycheck, then there is something seriously wrong with their thinking. There is so much satisfaction and beauty out there. So many ways to make a living. Family, friends. How crude to reduce the best things in life to what a CEO earns. Truly sad.

Jesus and government - FB conversation

FB friend B.C. posted this: So this explains why our nation is so messed up in so many ways, all of us have something to change.




S.C.: Oh that Jesus he just has to ruin everything!! Feed the hungry,care for the sick and poor. That aint gonna fly!! 

B.C.: The sad truth is this, government continues to expand thereby reducing the effectiveness of the church, yes the church and most Christians feed the hungry, care for the sick, visit those in prison etc., the difference is the church requires accountability and government not so much.

S.C.: Why should anything the government does or does not do have any affect on churches?? Religion is not government. I have read the Ryan budget(God help me it was sooo hard to get through) gonna be alot more people seeking help!

Me: Government cannot be compassionate. It is not a person with feelings. Government inserts itself into our compassion opportunities, taking our resources in the form of taxes. It prevents us from being compassionate.

S.C.: I am not prevented from being compassionate by anyone or anything. I choose to help others and to fight for what I believe in. I stand up and use the brain and heart that I have to try and make this a better world. I choose to be compassionate I do not seek permission.

B.C.: Rich I agree with you, the difference is that most liberals don't understand how much more and better this world would be with less government.

Me: Missing the point. If part of compassion means giving of one's personal wealth, government has a prior claim on your wealth to spend as it sees fit. You don't get to choose your recipient. Used to be, choice was a good thing amongst the left...

Cell phones and driving

This flyer was sent to me by one of the insurance carries I represent. So even insurance companies are perpetuating the fiction that cell phones are a major cause of accidents.  

"Distracted driving" is not synonymous with "cell phone usage while driving." Accidents attributable to cell phone usage while driving is a subset of distracted driving. 

I did an editorial on this subject here.

The right to abortion - a Letters to the editor dialogue - Susan Guinn

I rarely comment on letters to the editor unless I have instigated the dialogue or am mentioned. I am making an exception here. The newest letters, along with my analysis, are last.
--------------------

First letter:

Women are fighters. We began the fight for the right to vote in 1848 at Seneca Falls at the first women’s rights convention.

We won in 1920 with a federal law giving women the right to vote. We began a fight for equal rights in 1923, trying to pass the Equal Rights Amendment giving women the equality they deserve. And we are still fighting for that today. It is outrageous that women still do not make an equal paycheck for equal work. And now we are revisiting the entire Roe v. Wade debate, even though it was decided almost 40 years ago that women deserve the right to privacy and to make that very private decision without the interference from the government.

Frankly, I can’t believe we are still fighting the battles that our mothers and their mothers fought more than 40 years ago. I am outraged that we are facing this struggle in the 21st century. Have we not learned from anything from our tumultuous history? Our nation has dominated, oppressed, subjugated, and overpowered all those that were not in the majority; in other words, everyone who wasn’t white and male. I cannot sit by while the pattern appears to be repeating. We fought this before, and we’ll do it again.

Bridgette Case Guild
-------------
First reply:

This is in reply to Bridgette Case Guild’s letter in the Chronicle some time ago.

She is complaining that Roe v. Wade is still being challenged after some 40 years. Whereas the women’s right to vote was settled in 1920 and is not being challenged anymore.

I will try to explain the difference to you. The fact that women were not allowed to vote before the 1920s did not result in people’s lives being lost. You also state the fact of equal pay for women. I have no problem with either of these. I agree with you. But Roe v. Wade is completely different. Here we are talking about human life being destroyed. In fact, a million a year in the U.S.

It seems that you Pro Choice people only talk about the mothers’ rights. Do you not realize that there is another human life involved? You people never seem to realize this.

This is the reason that Roe v. Wade is constantly being challenged, and it should be until it is overturned. It’s one of the greatest curses of our country.

Bernard Cole
------------
Second reply:

In response to Mr. Cole’s letter on June 4, why is it that men think they have the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body? And don’t forget that it takes the pregnant woman to give that fetus life, if she so chooses to do. We as women don’t go around telling men that they need to go have a vasectomy because you make ugly children or any such thing. Women have all theses rights except the right to do with our body as we please. And keep your religious views and morals to yourself. It’s my uterus and my life! Stay out of it!

Susan Guinn
----------

My analysis:

Ms. Guinn's letter captured my attention for its total absence of logical thought. Her letter is a play-by-play textbook example of stringing a few bumper sticker slogans together. She makes absolutely no attempt to engage the issues or make a refutation of a single point raised by Mr. Cole, instead choosing to spout rhetoric.

1) "...men think they have the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body..." Unfortunately for Ms. Guinn, it is government that tells all of us what we can do with our own bodies. From motorcycle helmets, to soft drink sizes, or nudity, government regularly exercises power over your body.

It isn't MEN who want to control you, Ms. Guinn, it is government. I wonder,are you consistent in your objections to these other controls on your body?

2) "... it takes the pregnant woman to give that fetus life, if she so chooses to do." I am so happy that Ms. Guinn reveals this little-known fact to us. Who knew that pregnant women give birth to living creatures?

One little teeny correction, however. Once a woman is pregnant, the fetus already has life. Oh, and it takes more than a woman to produce a fetus. You know... a man.

3) "...We as women don’t go around telling men that they need to go have a vasectomy..." Aside from the fact the women DO tell men to go get a vasectomy, it isn't the same thing. A fetus represents the product of conception, not the process. A proper use of this vasectomy comparison would be to a woman's fallopian tubes, not her unborn baby.

Further, no one is telling Ms. Guinn to prevent her pregnancy (in the same manner, a vasectomy prevents a man from being fertile). Just the opposite. Pro-lifers aren't interested in keeping her from being fertile, they are wanting her to continue the process already begun and deliver the life already growing in her.

Perhaps in the horrific pro-life world where mothers would not be allowed to kill their children in utero, a pregnant woman is indeed being forced to do something. Why is this uniquely offensive to abortion advocates? Parents are forced to feed and care for their 2 year old toddler. I am required to feed and care for my dog. A doctor is forced to treat an ill patient. We are all forced to care for the poor via the tax code. A lot of us are being force to do a lot of things for others every day.

And, all of us are required to not injure other parties. A good portion of the law enjoins us from acting in ways that cause damage to others. I suspect Ms. Guinn would generally agree that there should be laws that protect people. I would suggest to Ms. Guinn that where those people happen to be located is not relevant.

4) "Women have all theses rights except the right to do with our body as we please." Um, Ms. Guinn. Abortion is LEGAL. Or are there some other rights involving your body you think you deserve but don't presently possess?

In addition, this statement is false. Neither men nor women can do with their bodies as they please. They cannot ingest illegal drugs, sell themselves for prostitution, or sell their organs. I'm sure Ms. Guinn can think of other examples.

5) "...keep your religious views and morals to yourself." Advice that she apparently is not required to heed herself. After all, she just wrote a letter to the editor expressing her moral outrage that someone would suggest that abortion is wrong.

6) "It’s my uterus and my life!" This narcissistic view is emblematic with what wrong with contemporary society. However, it's her life only to the extent that it doesn't impede or damage other lives. And that is the crux of the matter. There is no question that a pregnant woman's womb contains a life, and there is no dispute that it is genetically human.
---------------

Ms. Guinn is in essence making a property rights argument. We certainly can agree that the fundamental property rights issue is who owns our bodies. In a free society, government has no say in what we legally do with our own property as a matter of unalienable rights. However, these rights are not absolute.

Let's analyze the issue by way of analogy. Suppose you own a property, perhaps a home. As a matter of right, your possession of this property entitles you to make decisions about it unimpeded by government. But the right is not absolute. Your property rights can be and are diminished, often as a matter of law.

For example, when you rent out your property, the rights of those who occupy the property supersede some of your rights. The tenant has property rights, even though it is your property. The tenant has a right to occupy and possess the property. The tenant has an expectation of privacy, of the enjoyment of the property for his legal purposes. He also enjoys the right to be free from arbitrary eviction. All these rights are established by law.

Indeed, in many cities, you cannot refuse to rent to tenants for a variety of reasons, which means that your tenant has a legal right to rent from you even though you might not be a willing participant.

This means you cannot act upon your property rights if the action violates the rights of your tenant. Certainly, you cannot kill your tenant, no matter how unpleasant he may be or how much his presence inconveniences you.

So the key question is, does a fetus possess rights, including property rights? The courts have ruled that the fetus does not have rights, but that does not settle the matter. In the past the courts have ruled that owning slaves is constitutional. The courts do err. I think they have erred in negating the property rights of the unborn child by simply deeming the child "not alive."

This is a legal status, of course. Medically speaking, the fetus is quite alive, and clearly human. True, its does not have the ability to survive outside the womb, but neither does a baby, if left to its own devices. And yes, a fetus is and will be inconvenient. But again, so is a child. And maybe the fetus causes emotional distress. So do children. The only difference between a fetus and a baby that is born is its location.

The fetus' location in the womb means it is owed a duty by its mother to exercise due care to protect the fetus' pre-eminent property rights. A woman, by becoming pregnant, has ceded certain aspects of her own property rights because of the rights of the occupant of her womb. The presence of the fetus diminishes the rights of the woman, and rightly so.

A friend's conversation with an irrational person

Here is the dialogue. My friend sent this to me with a request for me to comment. My comments are below.
---------------

My friend: Would it be possible for you to remove the two photos of the wine bottles you put on our Facebook page? Makes it look like we are all about booze. I would prefer that we not give the world that impression. Thanks for your help.

R.H.: why? that is part of the ceremony, is the wine???

No.... I will not remove them. They are not photos of anyone drinking from them, one is clearly marked juice, and wine is VERY symbolic in the passover seder. Why be ashamed of having wine at a meal? I see no reason for such, and I have labeled the photos, well, commented on them, to avoid any "confusion" or assumptions.

My friend: Well I am sorry and disappointed to hear that. I would like you to please reconsider. Thanks.

R.H.: I would like to understand why you think it would be offensive to leave it on. I am sorry you see it as something to be ashamed of. Part of the seder is about the wine. The pictures are labeled, there's even juice bottles in the picture, so I am sorry, there's nothing offensive in those photos, so no, I will not reconsider. if you ask me to take those off, then we may as well take all passover photos off, as they ALL contain wine in them. I think this is a bit much.

I could understand if someone was drinking directly from the bottle. But since wine is representational in the seder, AND, in shabbat dinners in general, AND the fact it is normal to have wine at many meals around the world, I see no reason to take it off.

My friend: I don't understand why you responded the way you did. I thought I asked you nicely and I thought my appeal was also done in a kind way. Would you mind praying about this situation, please?

R.H.: I will respond tomorrow. By phone. All my comments are in pleasant conversation tone. Just because you ask nicely, which I knew, or assumed, does not mean you can dictate my response. I believe you wanting me to remove these photos is wrong, amd petty. There is no call for such issue, as there should be no issue with the photos. And, I believe you need to pray about your heart intent, and consider the pics and their comments, and the fact that your wife chose the bottles for wine, juice and water should say somethung also. There is nothing to hide, there is no sin. I will not discuss this here further. I will call you tomorrow. Thank you

My friend: I am not sure why you need to call me.

R.H.: Do you have a reason for not wishing to speak to me, or can hyou consider this issue dropped?

My friend: I consider this issue dropped with you. I sure didn't mean to get you upset.

R.H.: I did not get upset. I was completely calm, I was rather incredulous. I did not appreciate you trying to guilt trip me into changing my mind for something as petty as the photos, which are not inappropriate, and because of your comment, I even made sure to comment on my photos to avoid any confusion. However, what I did not appreciate even more was the fact that aside from the attempt at guilt tripping, when I made clear my intent, and reasons that fully support, you still insisted on using any means possible, "I hope you will pray about this and find that you are wrong", as how that comes across. Now, with that last response that you sent yesterday, then I was a little perturbed. I do hope you can understand my reasoning, and why I will not concede in this matter.

R.H.: I do hope you have a pleasant day, as it is a pleasant day outside. this is the last day of school for us, having a picnic with myd aughter at school, then going to the rodeo, to see if we can catch the Pena kiddo in action again. May the Lord bless you.

-------------------------------

Wow, this woman really goes for the jugular for very inconsequential reasons.

why? that is part of the ceremony, is the wine??? No.... I will not remove them. They are not photos of anyone drinking from them, one is clearly marked juice, and wine is VERY symbolic in the passover seder. Why be ashamed of having wine at a meal? I see no reason for such, and I have labeled the photos, well, commented on them, to avoid any "confusion" or assumptions.

She was hostile from the beginning. Her initial reply contains a flat decline. She uses multiple question marks, which conveys emphasized incredulous astonishment. A presumed value judgment ("Why be ashamed...") that is not contained in your comments. Putting the word "confusion" in quotes, when you didn't use the word.

I will respond tomorrow. By phone. All my comments are in pleasant co.versation tone. Just because you ask nicely, which I knew, or assumed, does not mean you can dictate my response. I believe you wanting me to remove these photos is wrong, amd petty. There is no call for such issue, as there should be no issue with the photos. And, I believe you need to pray about your heart intent, and consider the pics and their comments, and the fact that Jane chose the bottles for wine, juice and water should say somethung also. There is nothing to hide, there is no sin. I will not discuss this here further. I will call you tomorrow.thank you

She escalates the hostility. The use of the word "petty," a charge she repeats later. Where, exactly, did you attempt to dictate her response? She then impugns your motives (heart intent). She wants you to pray about the issue, but she was previously offended by you asking her to pray. (?)

I did not get upset. I was completely calm, I was rather incredulous. I did not appreciate you trying to guilt trip me into changing my mind for something as petty as the photos, which are not inappropriate, and because of your comment, I even made sure to comment on my photos to avoid any confusion. However, what I did not appreciate even more was the fact that aside from the attempt at guilt tripping, when I made clear my intent, and reasons that fully support, you still insisted on using any means possible, "I hope you will pray about this and find that you are wrong", as how that comes across. Now, with that last response that you sent yesterday, then I was a little perturbed. I do hope you can understand my reasoning, and why I will not concede in this matter.

She was incredulous, which means she considers your request to be outlandish and unreasonable. Followed by an unfounded accusation made twice("guilt trip"), which is not justified by anything you said, and a diminution of you ("petty"). Then she misrepresents what you said ("Would you mind praying about this situation, please" is morphed into "I hope you will pray about this and find that you are wrong").

I would give this woman a wide berth. She is not rational, and seems to feel free to impute to people the most insidious of ulterior motives, especially when someone disagrees with her, even over minor issues.

Obama didn't create the debt: FB conversation

S.B. posted this: Wait. you mean Obama DIDN'T create all the debt single handedly? Who knew?




US Economic Information
Illustrations of US economic information

Me: Most informed people do know. That is, the House has the specified authority in the Constitution to appropriate money. It is also worth noting that Obama as Senator voted for every one of the stimulus bills.

By the way, I note that Obama is trumpeting his "achievement" of saving the country via stimulus spending. So is the debt inflicted good or bad? I guess it's just abouit which narrative is being pressed, eh?

R.Y.: A good lesson in the dangers of compound interest on debt, too.

R.R.: Finally something he can blame on his predecessors! ;-)

C.K.: ‎@ Rich, do you really think the stimulus bills are the primary source of spending increases under Reagan, Bush 1 and W?

Me: C.K., I made no such assertion.

C.K.: Then why would it matter how Obama voted on the stimulus packages? I think he is on record in believing that in times of economic crisis, stimulus can be effective. Funny the Republicans used to believe that also.

R.Y.: In fact, I believe we had a Republican president the last time Obama was able to vote on a stimulus package.

Me: Because Obama as Senator voted for the spending that added to the national debt.The graph shifts spending to Bush II's last budget year as if Obama had no part to play in its creation. The original premise: you mean Obama DIDN'T create all the debt single handedly?

I don't have any interest in what Republicans believe, since I am not one. Their stupidity and profligate spending does not justify the actions of democrats.

R.E.: But what about a Democratic Congress and Senate. With a Dem President at the helm.

R.Y.: Frankly I believe that any time you get single-party control of both the legislative and executive branches you'll end up with runaway spending.

C.K.: ‎"Because Obama as Senator voted for the spending that added to the national debt" But you just admitted that it was not a significant driver of the debt. It may have actually paid for itself. Meanwhile the tax cut that Bush put into place was actually greater than the deficit in 2007.

C.K.: No tax cut and 2007 ends in a surplus.

Me: I did not admit that. The stimuli were unmitigated disasters.

If the stimuli paid for themselves, then why did the national debt go from $9.2 trillion in '08 to $15.2 trillion in'12?

C.K.: How much were those stimulus packages again? How much was spending and how much was tax-cuts?

C.K.: ‎@ Rich, do you really think the stimulus bills are the primary source of spending increases under Reagan, Bush 1 and W? You seemed to say no.

M.D.: I don't think you understand what we are up against. Its not a republican or a democrat issue.Its the puppet masters above them tied to the British empire that are padding there greedy little pockets.This government is completely defacto.The structure of government that we have is called an Oligarchy where a select few of the wealthiest control us.This country was formed as a republic which is limited gov under the checks and balances of the constitution and we the people are there employers not the other way around.Democracy is where 51% of the people decide whats best for every one and that doesn't work because the rich own the air ways and the news papers and can spread propaganda witch sways the votes there way with lies and trickery.That is why we excepted a central bank,read the book monster from jackal island.If you want to learn more go to www.republicfortheunitedstates.org

The year 1776 marked America’s victory in the war for independence. The lawful... right to re-inhabit is inherent in The Declaration of Independence circa 1776. The Declaration, one of our founding documents, declares our right to change, alter or abolish any system of government that we believe is ...See More

Me: Of course I said no. The first stimulus was signed into law on February 13, 2008. Reagan died in 2004 and Bush I has been out of office for nearly 20 years.

The national debt increased as follows:

2008: $9.210, 24.2% increase over prior year
09: 10.628, 13.3%
10: 12.290, 13.5%
11: 13.998, 12.2%
12: 15.226, 8%

C.K.: Okay then was it a significant driver of the increase in spending under Bush 2, which was part of the question.

Me: If I may correct you, it was a significant driver of spending under a democratic congress.

C.K.: W only had a Democratic congress in 2007 and 2008.

C.K.: He also has the power to veto.

Me: Again, I have no intention of defending big spending republicans. Bush II was wrong to support the stimuli. But again, all appropriations arise in the House. The fact that Bush II agreed is not relevant.

Me: ‎2008 and 2009 spending was controlled by a democratic house, and Obama voted in favor in the senate. Yes, bush had a democratic congress in 2007 and 2008, which is when the crisis happened and spending spree intensified.

Me: Yes, bush had a democratic congress in 2007 and 2008, which is when the crisis happened and spending spree intensified.

Me: Back to the original premise...

No not so much. Remember spending in 2007 was approved before the Dems took office. 2008 was the bail-out that could have been avoided if Bush was not so dogmatic.

C.K.: Still waiting for you to tell me what percentage of that increased spending was the result of stimulus.

Me: The fiscal policy of the last 30 years culminated in the financial crisis. It could not have been avoided; indeed, they are doubling down on the policies that caused the problem.

C.K.: I think it could have been avoided if steps were taken to prevent the foreclosure crisis from occurring in the first place. They saw that one coming as early as 2006 and did nothing, because the benevolent free hand of the market and all that malarkey. The policies that caused the problem are the very prescription that the Republicans are suggesting to fix the crisis.

Me: Unfortunately, the nature of your question is based on a flawed premise, i.e., that the economy is a closed system where a change in one area does not affect other areas. The stimuli are not isolated events. The implementation of them affected the money supply, the lending practices of banks, the holders of debt of Chevrolet and Chrysler, the confidence of consumers, the hiring activities of employers, the amount of tax revenue coming to the treasury because of unemployment, the amount of S.S. disability claims as people looked for ways to find income, the value of homes and retirement accounts. There is a wide and varied fallout from the decisions government has made.

C.K.: Now you are talking in circles and cannot back up your claims with facts. In other words you do not know the answer.

Me: The original premise of the post. He is not only a part of the problem, but complicit in the mess.

Me: It seems rather plain to me. Government intervention creates a ripple effect throughout the economy. This is basic economics. A trillion spent in various stimuli has a 10 fold ripple effect through the economy.

Me: As long as we agree theat Obama inherited the mess and is not to blame for the subsequent 3 1/2 years.

C.K.: Yes it does create a ripple effect. Much of it positive.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/17/end_this_depression_now_paul_krugman



Public spending is under assault from the United States to Europe in the name of... fighting deficits. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman argues in his new book, "End This Depression Now!", that the hysteria over the deficit will constrain an economic recovery in a time of high unemployment and...

Me: Are you perhaps going to answer any of my questions?

Me: Krugman? OMG. try again.

C.K.: You have not made a single non-declarative statement

C.K.: How many nobel prizes do you have in economics?

Me: Zero, and no peace prizes either. Of course, I don't brag about killing Osama either.

C.K.: Because you didn't.

Me: Zing.

Me: Looking around for the positive ripple effect. Still looking.

Me:  ‎"If the stimuli paid for themselves, then why did the national debt go from $9.2 trillion in '08 to $15.2 trillion in'12?"

C.K.:  You know what? This sarcasm is not going to make this conversation productive. The CBO stated that the stimulus saved or produced 3 million jobs. Before the stimulus we were losing 100's of thousands of jobs per month. We have had successive quarters of GDP growth and American corporations recorded record profits. You cannot see what you refuse to see.

C.K.: "If the stimuli paid for themselves, then why did the national debt go from $9.2 trillion in '08 to $15.2 trillion in'12?" Was the stimulus $3 trillion? Could it be a war that was unpaid for, a tax cut that was unpaid for. How can you begin to prove that the stimulus was a negative factor and caused this deficit? You need to prove cause and effect. 

C.K.: Now I am out and you can have the last word.

legislating global warming - FB Conversation

S.B. posted this: FrickIng amazing.



North Carolina tries to outlaw sea level rise grist.org
North Carolina is no stranger to the “if you dislike it then you should have made a law against it” model of legislation, but this is extreme: The state General Assembly’s Replace...

T.R.:  ONLY in a RED STATE...

R.E.: If you read the text of the of the Bill I can understand where they are going with this.

S.B.: Where is that, R.E.? A complete disregard for science?

R.E.: What it is saying is who will Government listen to make determination as to changes in use of coastal lands such as permits and regulations requirements. They are not disregarding science at all but which sciencist do you listen to and which Model do we use. That is what they are saying. How do we make the Determination as a state to cause more uniform regulation of the use of coastal lands.

S.B.: Nonsense. They are saying "DESPITE significant scientific consensus on the range of ocean level predictions, we choose to prescribe ones that nobody actually believes and which have absolutely no methodological basis on which to rest -- because those are the ones that serve our political purposes."

S.B.: Responsible planning would take into account the range of scientific opinion on this -- in which case their prediction would be FAR on the low-end of any credible prediction -- and require developers to plan accordingly. Which is precisely what Disney did, for example, in planning a $5B seaside resort in China recently -- they brought in climate scientists to help them understand what the likely (not "hoped for") scenarios would be, and planned their resort on the basis of the best science available at the time. This action by the NC legislature is an insult to the scientific process and a mockery of the planning process.

S.B.: I can't spare the time to try to explain all of climate science to you. Go educate yourself before trying to get into this debate -- and you'll realize there's very little to debate. This is not about "getting any scientist to say anything" -- the models on which more realistic sea level rises are predicted are far from arbitrary, and represent a broad consensus of the scientific community. Linear extrapolation of recent historical data IS a completely arbitrary approach -- there's no scientific basis for using that approach, and few in the scientific community feel that it would have any relevance to making science-based predictions of sea level increase. Linear extrapolation. Many, many phenomena in the environment are non-linear, and sea level rise appears to be one of them.

On what scientific basis do you argue that the linear method makes any sense? Where's a citation to research that suggests it has any relevance?

S.B.: like i said -- the disdain for science in this country -- particularly among the right, but really it's more universal than that, is extremely disheartening to anyone who cares about science.

R.E.: or it deciding that a county cant decide to use coastal lands just to develop lands just for additional tax revenue. Which has happened in the past. By the state deciding the criteria you use coastal land it doesn't allow for the County government to make that determination. As someone who lived in North Carolina I know how the counties will suddenly decide to develop an area of wet land regardless of the damage it will do to nature. They want to have proven models and not just someone with a PHD behind thier name to say what they think about some unproven therory. They are trying to give a baseline for the Scienctist and evidence to how the coastal lands are to be used. And there is no place in the Bill that says they are going hold back the sea rising?

S.B.: Don't quit your day job 

R.E.: As far as Climate Change, There a basically three thereories out there 1. It is a natural occurence and is uneffected by man. 2. It is caused by man thru green house gasses. 3 It is a Natural occurrence that is effected by man thru green house gasses. There is compelling evidence on all three thereories. One has to decide which one you want to believe in. Trust me Scott I've done my reading on this subject.

S.B.: Rod if you think those theories are on equal scientific footing there's nothing I can say that will change your mind on the matter. Other than keep reading.
Me: It ain't a disdain for sceince. That is trotted out whenever someone disagrees with leftist prescriptions. 

S.B.: Ok. Maybe "disdain" is too strong a word. "ignorance" might be better - as in the act of deliberately ignoring it 

R.Y.: It is, however, a flat out denial of observed trends to increase short-term private profits. In the long term the costs of such denial will then be passed on to the taxpayers. 

L.F.: What I find disturbing is the "Science is a conspiracy AGAINST progress!!!" mentality. Yes... Right... The brave few who go in to science anymore surely do it to get rich by cheating the common man out of his rightful wealth. 

Me: The problem is the left constantly moralizing about it. Science has nothing to do with this. It is the insistence on big government solutions when it is clear that government solutions are anything but.

It is one thing to discern a situation/problem. It is quite another to insist on the process of remedy and degrade one's political opponents if they dare open their mouths.

And no, it isn't about money, it's about power. 

R.E.: To tell me to keep reading On which scienctific model do you think I should be subscribing to because if you notice as far as the science I didn't really take a side, you just read more into it than I was saying. I was taking the side on th...e control of the use of coastal land being at the state level rather than local Government because of making it more uniform. As far as Climate change you do realize that the science community doesn't all agree on which model they subscribe to and there is good arguements on all three possible causes, I know which one I do subscribe to. Scott since you have been calling me an idiot on this posting why don't you tell me which one I subscribe to.

B.R.: I propose another theory to the climate debate: physics. We generally agree on how physics works, and the distinct lack of a left or right spin on anything seems trustworthy. 

R.E.: How do you propose to use physics to forecast future tidal action and weather patterns? Un like the West Coast and especially Washington State, We don't have violent weather than can hit North Carolina.

Atheist Sam Harris' book, "Free Will"

Atheist Sam Harris, from his latest book Free Will: "Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others." And, ""Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them."

So, the beliefs that he finds dangerous are those that inspire people to commit violence against others. He apparently believes that it is ethical to kill people for beliefs that inspire them to commit violence against others.

Yet he holds the belief that committing violence against others is ethical, based on what they believe

To paraphrase: It is ethical to kill people whose beliefs make them want to kill people. My belief is that it is ethical to kill people.