The Overlooked, Under-Reported and Ignored Stories of 2016 - The Safety Net Keeps 38 Million People Out of Poverty

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

This is one of the stories deemed undercovered.
-------------------

The most undercovered story of this year is one that goes virtually ignored year after year: the fact that poverty would be nearly twice as high without our safety net. It was overlooked last year, and it was missed again this year too, when we learned that 38 million people escaped poverty thanks to public investments. (It is a mystery as to how this figure was calculated. The poverty rate is currently 13.5%, which means 44,550,000 are under the poverty line. The author suggests that 38 million are not in poverty because of government programs, so that means less than half of the poor are not poor now.

The poverty rate history is as follows:

Time our society look toward decency and manners - By Jay Moor

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

My recent letter on political correctness brought a reader’s huffy response. Puzzled, I did a little research on the topic, wondering why someone would react so negatively to a call for social decency. (Term-switching. "political correctness" is not the same as "social decency.")

First, I googled “politically correct, images.” That produced scores of cartoons and posters, 95 percent of which were sarcastic justifications for overt racism, bigotry and xenophobia. (I just googled the exact same thing. The letter writer is lying. I barely found any racism, bigotry, or xenophobia.)

Most say what my respondent said: Political correctness is a liberal plot to divide the country by submerging “the truth.” Only a few images defended the phrase, but those that did argued, as I did, that being politically correct is one of the main ways to reduce friction in a diverse society. In other words, it is the political expression of good manners. (Actually, it is the political enforcement of arbitrary rules regarding offenses. The offender learns he is an offender after the fact, because the "expression" is judged by the offend-ee and deemed offensive at that point. Therefore, political correctness is a control and manipulation technique which attacks unwitting offenders arbitrarily.

Laying On of Hands - by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

I have entertained many writers in this blog in my quest to find a compelling scriptural case for cessationism. In this particular example, we have a Dr. Dave Miller offering us his explanation for the cessation of the miraculous. Yet like so many cessationists, he is loathe to quote Scripture. In fact, he only manages to quote two scriptural passages. 

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

The ability to perform miracles in the first century church was granted by God in essentially two ways: baptism of the Holy Spirit and the laying on of the apostles’ hands. 

The Bible only mentions the former avenue as occurring twice (Acts 2 and Acts 10), and then only for special and limited purposes, with a third occurrence implied in connection with Paul’s unique calling (Acts 9:15; 22:21; Romans 1:5; 11:13; 1 Corinthians 15:8; Galatians 1:16; 2:7-8; et al. See Miller, 2003). (Unfortunately for the author, his very first claim is false. He makes a definitive claim ["occurring twice"], then lists several Scriptures to support his claim. But those Scriptures aren't relevant to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Prayer for the climate deniers

Oh, government, thou art great.

Thou dost preserve us from the evil ones who burn the hellfire of fossil fuels. All your judgments are just. Your mighty acts silence the mockers and the dissenters.

Yea, they deny the truth, the truth that is handed down from on high; therefore they are unrighteous and unlearned, worthy of your wrath.

They warm themselves with petroleum, they drink deeply with plastic straws, they flush the yellow water.

They are evil doers, doubters, and haters. Therefore, awesome government, shut their mouths. By thy great law, silence their heresy. Bring thy judgment against them so that they shall not utter their untruths.

Destroy their citadels of commerce. Bring to ruin their greed. take their land and their crops. Make them barren and futile in their works.

Take their unrighteous wealth from them, and give it to the righteous ones, those who love your dictates. Yea, to those whose footprint is small, whose recycle bins overflow, be kind and benevolent.

To them who shout loudly of your perfection, O be gracious to them.

And we will serve you all the days of our lives, and give generously and joyfully of the fruit of our labors, that you would continually increase and we would decrease.

Amen

"You must be born again" is not the same as "You must be baptized." - John 3:3 - 3:6

There are those who have a curious take on this passage in order to support their contention that water baptism is required to be saved. Unfortunately for them, this passage does not teach this. It's not even about baptism at all.

The Constitution of the United States has failed - by Ian Millhiser

Found here.
---------------------------

The Left actually doesn't care about the Constitution, so the author's complaints are irrelevant.

The writer is going to explain to us how evil America is, a common trope of the Left. It is mystifying how we could all be so evil, yet the Left bristles when accused of hating America.

As you read you will note that I gave up commenting on the author's facile presentation. There's only so much ignorance I can stand.)
-------------------------

What kind of nation allows the loser of a national election to become president — and then does it again 16 years later? (A nation that follows the Constitution, sir.)

What kind of nation retains an electoral process that was originally designed to inflate the influence of slaveholders? (That is, it is the opinion of the leftist being quoted in the supplied link. However, one man's opinion doesn't establish the fact of the matter.

The Electoral College isn't in any way racist simply because it resulted in the election of a president from a southern state 200 years ago. Indeed, what are we to make of California's disproportionate influence in the 2016 election, which was swayed by its large population of of non-native residents?

He then recycles the incorrect argument that the 3/5 compromise is a racist provision. However, the clause was inserted to diminish the power of the slave states. Slaves couldn't vote, yet the South wanted them counted for the purposes of representation. Had this occurred, the South would have disproportionate representation in the House of Representatives, and thus more power to fight against freeing the slaves. 

Thus, the Founders cleverly resisted the spread of slavery by limiting the power of the southern states.)

This is how republics fall - By Paul Krugman

Found here. My comments in bold.
---------------------------

There are so many problems with this it's hard to know where to begin. I'll give it my best shot.
-----------------------

The sickness of U.S. politics didn’t begin with Donald Trump, any more than the sickness of the Roman Republic began with Caesar. The erosion of democratic foundations has been under way for decades. (Problems start with the teaser line. We don't have "democratic foundations" in America, since we are not a democracy. Our foundations are predicated on rights that descend from God, politic power arises from the people, limited government restrained by the Constitution, and private property, all in the context of liberty.

Regarding democracy, the founders abhorred it. John Adams, for example, wrote: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.” James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10 that democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” 

We therefore have no democratic foundations.)

On victory lap, few signs Trump focusing on unified nation - By JONATHAN LEMIRE, Associated Press

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump on Saturday wrapped up his postelection victory tour, showing few signs of turning the page from his blustery campaign to focus on uniting a divided nation a month before his inauguration. (Waaait. Upon what basis should Trump focus on this? Did Trump make unity his central campaign theme? 

And why, may we ask, is the nation so divided after Obama and his promise to unite us?)

At each stop, the Republican has gloatingly (This is a news report, not an opinion piece.)

recapped his election night triumph, reignited some old political feuds while starting some new ones, and done little to quiet the hate-filled chants of "Lock her up!" (Again, this is a news report, not an opinion piece. How could the author know the chanters we hate-filled?)

A nativity scene without Jews, Arabs, Africans or refugees.

Found here, and posted on FB by Scott:

A conversation ensued:

Julie: Explain. I guess I am on holiday overload. Dismantling a sacred Nativity scene that is in Millions of homes every Christmas to make a point. Unreal.

Me: Julie, Joseph and Mary weren't refugees, they lived in Nazareth and were obligated to travel to Bethlehem for the census. Luke 2:4.

Dare for Democracy: Three Essential Steps - BY FRANCES MOORE LAPPÉ AND ADAM EICHEN

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

This is a long article filled with leftist tropes and unsupported assertions.

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

Many Americans remain in shock and outrage, unable to grasp how a man who told bald-faced lies, who ridiculed and defamed others, and who boasted of sexual assault could yet ascend to the presidency of the United States. (Oh. I thought they were talking about Hillary.)

Despair isn’t an option; it’s our greatest enemy. (Yes, of course. This hysterical emoting is quite unseemly and frankly, unexplainable. It's an election, and they lost., nothing more, nothing less. But I suppose when your hope is founded upon government, its every ebb and flow is cause for alarm. But for the rest of us in the real world, we live our lives with little regard for the religion of government, except for when it forcibly intrudes into our day to day.)

The Equal Protection Argument Against “Winner Take All” in the Electoral College - BY LAWRENCE LESSIG

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------------

This is a long and frequently pedantic article. We will try to wade through the author's verbally incontinent presentation.

*Update* Dr. Walter E. Williams objects to the idea that the electoral college is anti-democratic, since nearly all the features of the federal government violate democracy. He explains the situation well: 

51 senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The president can veto the wishes of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto. To change the Constitution requires not a majority but a two-thirds vote of both houses, and if an amendment is approved, it requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. Finally, the Electoral College is yet another measure that thwarts majority rule. It makes sure that the highly populated states -- today, mainly 12 on the East and West coasts, cannot run roughshod over the rest of the nation. That forces a presidential candidate to take into consideration the wishes of the other 38 states.

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

The Constitution doesn't require the Electoral College to count votes the way it traditionally has.

This post was originally published on Medium by the group Equal Citizens.

In 2000, Republican lawyers, desperately seeking a way to stop the recount in Florida, (That is, they wanted to put an end to the endless recounts and innovative ways to count ballots so as to respect the vote of the people of Florida. Left unsaid by the author is the fact the every subsequent recount done by the media yielded the same result: Bush won. 

It is ironic how the Left loves democracy and shames those who suggest that there was fraud or manipulation in the vote, but are quick to abandon democracy when it doesn't go their way.)

crafted a brilliant equal protection argument against the method by which the Florida courts were recounting votes. Before that election, no sane student of the Constitution would have thought that there was such a claim. When the claim was actually made, every sane lawyer (on Gore’s side at least) thought it was a sure loser. But by a vote of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court recognized the claim, and held that the Equal Protection Clause regulated how Florida could recount its votes. That conclusion led five justices to conclude the recount couldn’t continue. George Bush became president.

I’ve been struck in this election cycle by just how timid Democrats have been about thinking in the same way. I’m not (yet) saying they necessarily should. But it is striking to see how committed they are to allowing this train wreck to occur. And more surprisingly, how little careful attention has been given (at the top at least) to just how vulnerable — given Bush v. Gore — the current (system for counting votes in the) Electoral College is. (It wasn't vulnerable for 200 years. It worked perfectly, without contest, until the Left started their caterwauling.)

Evangelicals, your attacks on ‘the media’ are getting dangerous - By Sarah Pulliam Bailey

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

The author uses the term "dangerous," as if she is soberly warning evangelicals about some sort of ominous peril they should take note of. They are attacking, apparently, and those attacks are rife with menace.

We will discover that the author never gets around to explaining why evangelicals' perfectly justified and easy-to-document distrust of the mainstream media (MSM) has nay danger for anyone.
---------------------

Dear evangelicals,

You tease about the mainstream media being “Satan’s newspaper.” (Apparently the author did not read the link. The writer there expressed some thoughtful commentary about the problems of being a Christian in a debased culture. He engaged in satiric hyperbole when he wrote about "satan's newspaper," which means that he wasn't actually calling the media "satan's newspaper. 

However, Ms. Bailey seems to think the writer was expressing a common way of characterizing the MSM. Ironically, Ms. Bailey is faking news-ing in her own article. If she can't get this right, we can rightly question everything else she says.)  

What Democrats Need: Something Old and Something New - BY SEAN POSEY

Found here. My comments in bold.
--------------------------

Here's a leftist who pretty much gets it. I wonder how long he'll keep his writing job.
---------------------------

To rebuild its winning coalition, a Rust Belt writer argues, the opposition party has to advance younger leaders and go back to its working-class roots.

Just a few weeks ago, the Republican Party was bracing for the end of what most observers considered a disastrous election season: Unlikely nominee Donald Trump, a Philistine of the highest order in the eyes of even many conservatives, appeared to be gleefully guiding the GOP to a third straight presidential defeat, combined with the distinct possibility of an ensuing internecine war.

Instead, it’s the Democrats who now face a reckoning. Hillary Clinton, one of last well-known names in the party, is exiting stage (center)-left. Defeat in the presidential race is compounded by the Democrats’ minority status in Congress, a body they dominated for much of the last century. And it gets worse. Democrats’ historic reversals in Congress have been accompanied by a breakdown at the state level.

Clinton’s loss exposed what two terms of President Barack Obama partially obscured: the party’s irrelevance across wide swaths of the country. Republicans control 67 out of 98 partisan state legislative chambers and hold 33 governor’s offices. By contrast Democrats have a “political trifecta” in only six states, all on the coasts. (Indeed, it goes far beyond Trump. Voters have rejected the democratic agenda en masse. Unfortunately for the author, tweaking the agenda to appeal to younger voters and going back to the Left's divisive tactics will do nothing. It's their agenda the voters rejected, not the way its presented.)

What is God? - John C,. Wright

Found here. An intellectual tour de force.
------------------

To answer the question is simple for anyone familiar with pagan writings: The God is not a god.

I am someone who has read myths and believes of ancient or primitive peoples all my life, so to me, even back when I was an atheist, the answer is quite painfully obvious.

The God, the one God of monotheism, claims to be the eternal, all knowing, benevolent and all powerful sovereign creator of the universe as well as being the source legislating and the legitimate authority enforcing the universal moral law. He is, in short, the Supreme Being.

A being is called Supreme when there is none equal to him in age, power, wisdom, benevolence nor authority, and none above him.

Zeus, Odin, Osiris, Vishnu and any other pagan god one might name from the ancient world, the Far East, or the American Indians, make no claim to be the Supreme Being.

We can no longer afford to ignore overpopulation - letter by Robert Lashaway

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

The author doesn't seem to be aware that the birth rate of the developed world is less than replacement level. The population boom is occurring in third world countries, where they don't give a rip about the environment or population.

It also appears that the author doesn't understand what "increasing exponentially" means. I suppose he means the world population is exploding, but "exponentially" actually means that the rate of change requires the use of components, which would be represented in a graph as a curve upward rather than a straight line.

This is the world's actual rate of population change:

I Will Not Shut Up. America Is Still Worth Fighting For - by HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

In typical leftist form the professor dodges the issues and misrepresents the situation.

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

So, yes, I have the dubious honor of being on the “Professor Watchlist”** — a list published recently by a young alt-right provocateur who knew that such a list would get media traction because of Sen. McCarthy’s attacks on academics during the Red Scare. (Whaa? This fellow "knew" he would get traction because of McCarthy? If this is what the professor thinks, she belongs on the watchlist.)

I made the list not because of complaints about my teaching, but because of my public writing about politics. (Again the professor presumes to know what the "provocateur" is thinking.)

It is ironic that this list would label me “leftist.” (From our reading of her, it is clear she is most definitely is a leftist.)

In fact, in my public life, I do not identify with a political party, (Misdirection. "Leftist" is not a political party.)

and I work with politicians on both sides of the aisle. (Misdirection #2. Her work across the isle is irrelevant to being a leftist.)

I also teach the history of American conservative beliefs, as well as those of liberalism. (Misdirection #3. No one has claimed that she does not teach these things.)

I believe that the nation needs both the Democratic and the Republican parties to be strong and healthy. (Misdirection #4. Her described belief in the necessity of both parties does not address the issue of her leftism.)