S.B.: this was too good not to share:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” ― Isaac Asimov..
A.E.: Don't you think it's kind of funny how neoconservatives dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as unpatriotic and anti-American? Intellectually, this is a fallacy. And yet "intellectualism" is employed here in precisely the same way.
S.B.: can you seriously deny that there is a strong anti-intellectual tendency in much of the rhetoric coming out of the political right? Bachman and Perry, in particular, make statements that are anti-intellectual, anti-science, all in the name of a sort of faux populism that seems to be their homage to Reagan.
I think it's a pretty lousy (and, coming from you, lazy) analogy.
B.B.: Maybe A.E. had an HPV vaccination. *ducks and runs very quickly away*
Me: can't wait for the obligatory shot at religion, fox news, and limbaugh...
S.B.: I try not to take shots at religion, Rich. I'm not religious myself, but I don't have a problem with people who are. On the other hand -- Fox and Limbaugh -- I think they're fair game in any discussion of the anti-intellectual movement....
There are plenty of thoughtful, intelligent and well studied conservatives in this country and always have been. So it's not like conservatism NEEDS to be go in that direction. But I think any honest examination of the political rhetoric of the mainstream political candidates will support the idea that there's an anti-intellectual bent to it.
H.C.: Saying FOX, Limbaugh, AND intellectual in the same sentence is just wrong...
Me: the reflexive repetition of bumper sticker slogans by the left is anti-intellectual. Does anyone really think "faux" is in any way clever?
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
Prayer with confidence
This, then, is how you should pray:
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.
Matt. 6:9-13
I noticed for the first time a forcefulness in what we are commanded to pray. We aren't instructed to beg. Hallowed, give us, forgive us, lead us not, deliver us. These are all direct statements. There is no groveling, no "please please please." There is no deference, no "if it is your will, God."
This identifies a problem with the way we sometimes view ourselves in relation to God. We don't realize who God has made us. We are sons of the living God, we have an inheritance, a destiny, a position that God has elevated us to, we are now partakers of the Kingdom.
We are not beggars. There is no command to plead with God. We come boldly before the Throne because we are entitled to be there by the blood of Christ. Our hearts are no longer wicked. We no longer have the stain of sin. We are new creations, made in the image of Christ, recipents of every promise of God.
Our prayers, when done in accordance with God's Word, are no longer namby-pamby requests, they are reaffirmations of what God has already said. They are declarations to the heavenlies of the truth, of reality, of holy principles.
This is not to say that we arrogantly strut around proclaiming our blessing, favor, or prosperity. There is a difference between agreeing with God and presumption.
Grace, often defined as the "undeserved favor of God," should be redefined as the "deserved favor of those who are co-heirs in Christ." It's time we balanced the fear of the Lord with an embrace of our sonship. We need both.
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.
Matt. 6:9-13
I noticed for the first time a forcefulness in what we are commanded to pray. We aren't instructed to beg. Hallowed, give us, forgive us, lead us not, deliver us. These are all direct statements. There is no groveling, no "please please please." There is no deference, no "if it is your will, God."
This identifies a problem with the way we sometimes view ourselves in relation to God. We don't realize who God has made us. We are sons of the living God, we have an inheritance, a destiny, a position that God has elevated us to, we are now partakers of the Kingdom.
We are not beggars. There is no command to plead with God. We come boldly before the Throne because we are entitled to be there by the blood of Christ. Our hearts are no longer wicked. We no longer have the stain of sin. We are new creations, made in the image of Christ, recipents of every promise of God.
Our prayers, when done in accordance with God's Word, are no longer namby-pamby requests, they are reaffirmations of what God has already said. They are declarations to the heavenlies of the truth, of reality, of holy principles.
This is not to say that we arrogantly strut around proclaiming our blessing, favor, or prosperity. There is a difference between agreeing with God and presumption.
Grace, often defined as the "undeserved favor of God," should be redefined as the "deserved favor of those who are co-heirs in Christ." It's time we balanced the fear of the Lord with an embrace of our sonship. We need both.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
The poor: FB conversation
R.W. posted: The TRUTH about the poor in this country.
What You Don't Know About Poverty in America. In his address to the joint session of Congress last week, President Barack Obama called for $477 billion in new federal spending, which he said would give hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged young people hope and dignity while giving their low-income parents “ladders out of poverty.”
A.F.: Having been one of the poor people this article talks about I find it very offensive and misleading. Did you read the full report that it takes it's facts from?
R.W.: The facts come from the census. I have not read the full census. It does not change the facts. What we think of ad poor does not always mean homeless and starving. At least not in this country.
A.F.: You're right, it doesn't always mean homeless and starving. But often times it means being one paycheck away from that. Just because a person has a TV does not mean they're living the high life. No where in the data does it say how much these people had paid for any of these items. Maybe their TV is 20 years old and cost $10? All I can say is it is a life I would not want to go back to and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
J.J.: How poor do we have to be before we help, professor? Somalia poor? Mexico poor? Starving baby with flies around the eyes poor? Because they have a car they are fine? Is that it? I wish you would have resisted posting this. (by the way, that heritage report also calculates that most poor people have a refrigerator for food. Those lazy bastards.)
What You Don't Know About Poverty in America. In his address to the joint session of Congress last week, President Barack Obama called for $477 billion in new federal spending, which he said would give hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged young people hope and dignity while giving their low-income parents “ladders out of poverty.”
A.F.: Having been one of the poor people this article talks about I find it very offensive and misleading. Did you read the full report that it takes it's facts from?
R.W.: The facts come from the census. I have not read the full census. It does not change the facts. What we think of ad poor does not always mean homeless and starving. At least not in this country.
A.F.: You're right, it doesn't always mean homeless and starving. But often times it means being one paycheck away from that. Just because a person has a TV does not mean they're living the high life. No where in the data does it say how much these people had paid for any of these items. Maybe their TV is 20 years old and cost $10? All I can say is it is a life I would not want to go back to and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
J.J.: How poor do we have to be before we help, professor? Somalia poor? Mexico poor? Starving baby with flies around the eyes poor? Because they have a car they are fine? Is that it? I wish you would have resisted posting this. (by the way, that heritage report also calculates that most poor people have a refrigerator for food. Those lazy bastards.)
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Editorial, my rants
I just gotta rant: Why can’t manhole covers be located where we don’t drive on them? Why are you so willing for government to dictate what is beautiful, moral, or good for you? From the color of your house to what foods you can eat, what’s so great about government running your life?
A recent Chronicle article presented a teacher who was teaching his students about the Constitution. Good. But the result was the students imposed a bunch of rules on themselves. Had the Constitution been accurately portrayed, however, the students would have imposed rules on the teacher.
Stop criticizing President Obama for non-political issues. Yes, it’s an easy trap to fall into, and I know you want him treated the way Bush is treated, but that’s no excuse. Bad behavior does not justify bad behavior.
Valley Center Road was the recipient of $4 million in stimulus funds. After two years, it’s now wider and smoother. A typical government enterprise, it has sidewalks next to farmers’ fields and no center turn lane.
My detractors often conflate Republicans with conservatives and therefore expect me to defend Republican positions. I am not Republican. I want limited government, but I am a supposedly a hypocrite for being silent on my critics’ pet issues, despite having previously stated my positions. For the record, I am not opposed to MMJ. I oppose the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind. I am against the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and America. I do not support mandatory auto insurance.
Further, I am against government involvement in marriage, no matter what genders or species are involved. I don't care who you love or your sexual predilections. I don't care how, why, or when you have sex. I don't care what orifice you deem worthy of constitutional protection. I don't care. I. Don't. Care. Go do your thing, but leave me out of it.
Did you know that TEA partiers are racist? You haven’t heard? Well they are. You want evidence? Well, um, ahhh.
Did you know the TEA partiers are stupid? They offer no solutions. And where were they when Bush was running up the debt…
Did you know that if you criticize something you favor its opposite? Criticizing Social Security means you want seniors to starve. Questioning government solutions to global warming means you want pollution and are anti-science. If you favor tax cuts, you are racist. Advocating limited government means you are against highways and fire protection. Pro-life means anti-woman. Does this anti-intellectual crap really persuade anyone any more?
Christians, stop arguing for Christian moral values if you aren't living those values. Your complaints about government welfare ring hollow if you are not helping the poor. You have a fish symbol on your car and you speed. You divorce your spouse, belittle your kids, and give a tiny tip in a restaurant. You are a hypocrite. Do something about it.
Warren Buffet famously wants his taxes raised, yet he’s delinquent on his taxes. Dude, pay up. Pay extra if you want. Don’t take your tax write-offs. Easy.
And what about ultra-rich environmentalists like Al Gore, who has a carbon footprint as large as a small city? I'll make you a deal. When y'all start actually living like you preach, I will then listen attentively as you expound on the virtues of the IRS and the EPA.
One of my Facebook friends insists that good government is about compromise. Compromise, as far as I can tell, is when Republicans agree with Democrats. And “good government” has led us to the brink of economic disaster. I think I’ve had quite enough good government.
Can we just admit that the Streamline bus experiment is a failure? And by the way, why is it that people expect to be driven around and have others pick up their tab? It’s too bad I have a word limit, because I have a lot more complaining to do. Maybe another time…
Friday, August 19, 2011
The superiority of the conservative philosophy, editorial
It's fair to say that we choose to support various political figures because of their stated positions on issues. Their positions draw our vote, our loyalty, and even perhaps our dollars.
But I wonder, have you ever been so sure about something, so convinced that you understood it, tested it, and lived it, only to discover that it was a lie? Right up to the moment of your discovery, you operated in what you thought was the truth. You believed that this was the way the world worked, but now you are shaken.
So, if you happen to think that politicians are really telling you what they believe, that government is a problem solver for society and is doing all these wonderful and noble things, what would it take to abandon such a belief? In light of our continued economic slide, with government running out of fixes to try, and after decades of politicians promising to fix problems like poverty, racism, and hunger with little or nothing to show for all those tax dollars they spent, why are you still a believer?
We need to understand that politics is not about helping people. It is not about fixing the economy or creating jobs. Feeding the hungry is not the goal. You are being deceived. Politics is about the acquisition, accumulation, retention of power. And if “doing good” happens to coincide with the real goal of getting more power, so much the better.
What is the aim of all this power? Certainly being a politician is an almost guaranteed path to millionaire status, but that is only part of it. They want to remold society according to their vision. They believe that government ought to transform how society works. They believe that they can change the world. They want to force you to change and have you pay for it too.
We might think that they are trying to do “good.” Maybe they even think they are. But the problem is, government power is not limited to doing good. If the wrong people are elected to office, there is nothing to stop them from wielding that power in their own way. We have abandoned the mechanism, constitutional limits, that would rein in that power.
My friend and I had lunch the other day, and he asked me, "Could those who hold elective office simply refuse to step down, essentially overthrowing the government?" We discussed possibilities like imposing martial law, amending the Constitution, delaying or fixing elections, and even a military coup.
I suggested that given the apathy of the American public, a stealth takeover of government could be staged relatively easily. In fact, one could justifiably assert that various moneyed interests like unions and corporations have indeed taken over government. We don’t need to speculate about shadowy secret societies exerting influence, it’s right out in the open.
As government consolidates more and more power for itself, liberty suffers. We become servants the government, not the other way around. With a lot of money at stake, with powerful interests influencing policy, and with career politicians who are willing to do whatever it takes to retain their positions, government has become unmanageable at best, and unstoppable at worst.
This is why a powerful government is the philosophical Achilles’ heel of the political Left. I would suggest that conservative philosophy is therefore superior to liberal philosophy. The conservative wants to restrain and limit government. He distrusts the power of government, even when it might be in his favor. A limited government, when corrupted, can only do limited damage. It is much easier to correct. A limited government has minimal impact on peoples' lives. A limited government cannot steer taxpayer money to special interests.
Big government will turn against you. Sooner or later it does to everyone. That’s why it should be limited.
But I wonder, have you ever been so sure about something, so convinced that you understood it, tested it, and lived it, only to discover that it was a lie? Right up to the moment of your discovery, you operated in what you thought was the truth. You believed that this was the way the world worked, but now you are shaken.
So, if you happen to think that politicians are really telling you what they believe, that government is a problem solver for society and is doing all these wonderful and noble things, what would it take to abandon such a belief? In light of our continued economic slide, with government running out of fixes to try, and after decades of politicians promising to fix problems like poverty, racism, and hunger with little or nothing to show for all those tax dollars they spent, why are you still a believer?
We need to understand that politics is not about helping people. It is not about fixing the economy or creating jobs. Feeding the hungry is not the goal. You are being deceived. Politics is about the acquisition, accumulation, retention of power. And if “doing good” happens to coincide with the real goal of getting more power, so much the better.
What is the aim of all this power? Certainly being a politician is an almost guaranteed path to millionaire status, but that is only part of it. They want to remold society according to their vision. They believe that government ought to transform how society works. They believe that they can change the world. They want to force you to change and have you pay for it too.
We might think that they are trying to do “good.” Maybe they even think they are. But the problem is, government power is not limited to doing good. If the wrong people are elected to office, there is nothing to stop them from wielding that power in their own way. We have abandoned the mechanism, constitutional limits, that would rein in that power.
My friend and I had lunch the other day, and he asked me, "Could those who hold elective office simply refuse to step down, essentially overthrowing the government?" We discussed possibilities like imposing martial law, amending the Constitution, delaying or fixing elections, and even a military coup.
I suggested that given the apathy of the American public, a stealth takeover of government could be staged relatively easily. In fact, one could justifiably assert that various moneyed interests like unions and corporations have indeed taken over government. We don’t need to speculate about shadowy secret societies exerting influence, it’s right out in the open.
As government consolidates more and more power for itself, liberty suffers. We become servants the government, not the other way around. With a lot of money at stake, with powerful interests influencing policy, and with career politicians who are willing to do whatever it takes to retain their positions, government has become unmanageable at best, and unstoppable at worst.
This is why a powerful government is the philosophical Achilles’ heel of the political Left. I would suggest that conservative philosophy is therefore superior to liberal philosophy. The conservative wants to restrain and limit government. He distrusts the power of government, even when it might be in his favor. A limited government, when corrupted, can only do limited damage. It is much easier to correct. A limited government has minimal impact on peoples' lives. A limited government cannot steer taxpayer money to special interests.
Big government will turn against you. Sooner or later it does to everyone. That’s why it should be limited.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Warren Buffet - FB conversation
S.B.: gotta love Warren Buffett. "I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone - not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 - shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain," he said
Stop coddling the super-rich: Buffett' on Yahoo! News. (Reuters) - Billionaire Warren Buffett urged lawmakers to raise taxes on the country's super-rich to help cut the budget deficit, saying such a move will not hurt investments.
Me: Yeah, and Pat Buchanan said that Buffet should stop posturing about tax increases for the rich and write a check for $5 billion to the government. If he wants higher taxes, there is nothing stopping him from doing something about it.
L.E.: just tired of the brou-ha-ha...
R.B.: Buffet is a communist who has never worked a day in his life.
B.S.: Too funny, Ryan. Did you actually read the article? One of the points he makes is that people who earn their money by working shouldn't be taxed more than people like him who earn their money from having money.
B.S.: Rich - then Pat Buchanan was just reporting what Buffet had already begun - promoted the idea among his close circle of billionaire friends that they give away half their net worth.
Me: Different subject. There is a cadre of billionaires talking about giving money to charity. Buchanan is talking about Buffet wanting govt to raise taxes on the wealthy.
B.L.: I agree. The working class should pay less taxes proportionatley than the mega rich.
M.D.: The middle class is much larger and thus higher taxes on it will raise a lot more revenues. The rich use their money to create jobs
S.B.: M.D., that's actually not true. If you look at the distribution of wealth (*not incomes) in this country, something like 90% of the wealth is in the hands of fewer than 5% of the people. And increasingly, that wealth is NOT being used to create jobs -- economists note that despite good profitability and record cash reserves, companies are NOT increasing hiring, instead looking to automation and other forms of productivity increases to get the work done. When jobs ARE created, they're increasingly being created overseas, for a wide variety of reasons including the fact that is where the new markets are.
If you want to increase jobs, find a way to increase real income for the middle class. That has been flat or worse for decades, and without demand, there's no point in being a supplier.
Me: It is not the purpose of wealth to create jobs. Jobs are created when there is work to be done. There is no work for 22% of the people, thanks to Bush II and III.
By the way, all that wealth is not hidden in a mattress somewhere.
S.B.: No, much of it is being invested in emerging economies, creating jobs THERE, not here.
Me: I take it you're an advocate of protectionism and closed borders?
S.B.: Not really. Just observing that it cannot be taken for granted that wealth accumulated in the us is going to be reinvested here.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Tax code and behavioral modification - Editorial
The tax code was originally intended to fund government, but has morphed into a behavioral modification program. Taxation is routinely used to target certain activities, either to discourage an activity (tobacco taxes, for example), or to encourage it (like the home mortgage deduction). Not content with simply funding government, our legislators think they know how we ought to live, and they reward or punish us based on our conformity with their values.
One way they do this it to fund certain programs or benefits with taxes that are earmarked for that specific purpose. These include campsite fees, gas taxes, tolls, car licenses, Social Security, etc. The stated intent is to make the users of a service pay for it. But I’m sure you know that the real reason government does this is to create new revenue streams while simultaneously leaving the existing revenue structure open for continued manipulation.
This is why the city of Bozeman can keep increasing water and sewer taxes while simultaneously justifying impact fees by saying they keep service costs lower for existing property owners. This makes perfect sense if you love the power government has over the people. As a bonus you get to pretend to help them as you suck money out of their pockets. Diabolical brilliance.
I have this picture of our government officials gathering around a table in the dead of night to invent new ways of prying money out of our hands. They rub their hands together and cackle at their cleverness as they create new burdens for us. “Woohoo, I have an idea. How about if we pass a law that requires everyone to pay a tax on plastic grocery bags?” “Hahahahaha, that’s good, but what about this: Why don’t we make it illegal to smoke in places where people like to come and smoke?” Snorf, chortle, guffaw.
Each new tax, every one a “worthy” cause with compassionate intent, piles on until we taxpayers reel under the burden. Under the guise of improving our lives (at least, improving it according to their priorities), government makes it harder for people to live them. And more expensive.
But the fact is, we just cannot afford this anymore. Government has been riding the crest of prosperity funded by debt, and the carnival is ending. The false prosperity of the Bush years, buoyed by gargantuan spending programs guided by a philosophy of government economic intervention that is traceable back to the New Deal, has led to this latest financial crisis. Ironically, Bush III (Obama) has been content to make no change in the Bush II approach, deepening the financial devastation.
I was guardedly optimistic that the TEA party influence would reverse the tide. I applauded as they stood firm as one bad deal after another paraded by. However, there are just not enough of them to make an impact. And unfortunately, so many caved. All told, 59 freshmen voted for the debt bill and 28 voted against it. Only a few short months and the TEA partiers are now part of the problem.
We watched an elaborate dance with much posturing and bellowing. Boehner wobbled like a tower made of jello, and the Democrats, having no plan on the table, became the party of no. But once again, in the dead of night I’m sure, they cut a sweetheart deal that benefits only government. And yet again, we will pay. Dearly. This deal will add $12 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years. It raised the debt ceiling. There are no cuts, it only lowered rate of increase. Slightly.
Unfortunately, there are still so many of us still cling to this failed system. It’s like trying to squeeze just a little more toothpaste from the empty tube. But it’s time to face the truth. From the City of Bozeman to the feds in D.C., the clever manipulations of government have yielded no answers. We are out of money. It’s time to face reality.
One way they do this it to fund certain programs or benefits with taxes that are earmarked for that specific purpose. These include campsite fees, gas taxes, tolls, car licenses, Social Security, etc. The stated intent is to make the users of a service pay for it. But I’m sure you know that the real reason government does this is to create new revenue streams while simultaneously leaving the existing revenue structure open for continued manipulation.
This is why the city of Bozeman can keep increasing water and sewer taxes while simultaneously justifying impact fees by saying they keep service costs lower for existing property owners. This makes perfect sense if you love the power government has over the people. As a bonus you get to pretend to help them as you suck money out of their pockets. Diabolical brilliance.
I have this picture of our government officials gathering around a table in the dead of night to invent new ways of prying money out of our hands. They rub their hands together and cackle at their cleverness as they create new burdens for us. “Woohoo, I have an idea. How about if we pass a law that requires everyone to pay a tax on plastic grocery bags?” “Hahahahaha, that’s good, but what about this: Why don’t we make it illegal to smoke in places where people like to come and smoke?” Snorf, chortle, guffaw.
Each new tax, every one a “worthy” cause with compassionate intent, piles on until we taxpayers reel under the burden. Under the guise of improving our lives (at least, improving it according to their priorities), government makes it harder for people to live them. And more expensive.
But the fact is, we just cannot afford this anymore. Government has been riding the crest of prosperity funded by debt, and the carnival is ending. The false prosperity of the Bush years, buoyed by gargantuan spending programs guided by a philosophy of government economic intervention that is traceable back to the New Deal, has led to this latest financial crisis. Ironically, Bush III (Obama) has been content to make no change in the Bush II approach, deepening the financial devastation.
I was guardedly optimistic that the TEA party influence would reverse the tide. I applauded as they stood firm as one bad deal after another paraded by. However, there are just not enough of them to make an impact. And unfortunately, so many caved. All told, 59 freshmen voted for the debt bill and 28 voted against it. Only a few short months and the TEA partiers are now part of the problem.
We watched an elaborate dance with much posturing and bellowing. Boehner wobbled like a tower made of jello, and the Democrats, having no plan on the table, became the party of no. But once again, in the dead of night I’m sure, they cut a sweetheart deal that benefits only government. And yet again, we will pay. Dearly. This deal will add $12 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years. It raised the debt ceiling. There are no cuts, it only lowered rate of increase. Slightly.
Unfortunately, there are still so many of us still cling to this failed system. It’s like trying to squeeze just a little more toothpaste from the empty tube. But it’s time to face the truth. From the City of Bozeman to the feds in D.C., the clever manipulations of government have yielded no answers. We are out of money. It’s time to face reality.
Friday, August 5, 2011
A Manifesto: The Centrality of Worship
Note: My comments specifically address musical worship. That is not the only form that worship takes, but it is my particular passion. This is directed to those who want to be worshipers, in a church that wants to be a worshiping church.
1) The High Calling
As we walk through our Christian life we probably have a number of spiritual priorities. Things like love, obedience, service, giving, and holiness, among other things. All of these are noble and worthy of pursuit. I would not diminish any of them, but I believe they all descend from one single, primary thing.
Jesus tells us the greatest commandment in Matt 22:37: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” As far as I can tell, Jesus identifies only one thing the Father is looking for. Only one. In John 4:23, He tells the Samaritan woman at the well: "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks." My conclusion is that there is nothing more important to God than for us to be true worshipers.
This understanding is foundational; here is our high calling. We are created to be worshipers, first and foremost! Our calling is to possess a heart and soul and mind fully occupied with celebrating the glories of God. Psalm 71:8: “My mouth is filled with your praise, declaring your splendor all day long.” I believe that this is our duty, our privilege, our pleasure.
As I read through Scripture I take note of all the mentions of singers, dancers, worshipers, musicians. I see all the pivotal moments where worship was present and powerful. I read about how the musicians were noted specially by name in Scripture. David, Israel’s singer of songs. Jubal, the father of all who play the harp and flute. The musicians Heman, Asaph and Ethan, who were cymbal players. Zechariah, Aziel, Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Unni, Eliab, Maaseiah and Benaiah, who played lyres. Mattithiah, Eliphelehu, Mikneiah, Obed-Edom, Jeiel and Azaziah on the harps. Kenaniah the head Levite, who was in charge of the singing; that was his responsibility because he was skillful at it. The Bible takes great pains to enumerate the worshipers and musicians. Clearly God regards musical worship as important.
So, I wonder if we are underestimating or misunderstanding the role that musical worship plays in the Kingdom of God. We seem to have a way of doing things in the church that is more based on what we have always done. But shouldn’t we be doing what God wants? If we choose anything other than God’s purpose we violate Scripture, our purpose, and the heart of God. I know these are harsh words, but permit me to make my case in the following pages. Let me also say that none of these remarks are directed at any particular person or group.
2) Worship and Relationship
God is all about relationship. After all, Christ died on the cross in order to establish relationship between God and fallen man. But salvation is not the end, it is the beginning, the beginning of a lifetime of relationship with God via His Holy Spirit. And that developing relationship with God occurs in an environment of worship.
In His presence we discover His heart. We are transformed, enabled, and instructed. We draw near to the Father in the Most Holy Place. There is no way we can be in the presence of God without being changed. The world is washed from us and our weakness fades away. Our spirits become tender to receive from Him. Christ-likeness springs from relationship with Him. We learn what to do and how to live from being with Him. We become what we are called to, because we know Him and spend time with Him and listen to Him and attend to Him.
Our relationship with the Father translates into what our human relationships ought to be. So, as we become the worshipers the Father is looking for, we become the church the Father is looking for. As we nurture our relationship with God we grow together as body. The result is we begin to see the purposes of God made known in our midst. Relationship, first with God and then with each other, will manifest in a church when worship becomes important to the church.
This suggests that worship needs to rise up in importance in our lives.
1) The High Calling
As we walk through our Christian life we probably have a number of spiritual priorities. Things like love, obedience, service, giving, and holiness, among other things. All of these are noble and worthy of pursuit. I would not diminish any of them, but I believe they all descend from one single, primary thing.
Jesus tells us the greatest commandment in Matt 22:37: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” As far as I can tell, Jesus identifies only one thing the Father is looking for. Only one. In John 4:23, He tells the Samaritan woman at the well: "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks." My conclusion is that there is nothing more important to God than for us to be true worshipers.
This understanding is foundational; here is our high calling. We are created to be worshipers, first and foremost! Our calling is to possess a heart and soul and mind fully occupied with celebrating the glories of God. Psalm 71:8: “My mouth is filled with your praise, declaring your splendor all day long.” I believe that this is our duty, our privilege, our pleasure.
As I read through Scripture I take note of all the mentions of singers, dancers, worshipers, musicians. I see all the pivotal moments where worship was present and powerful. I read about how the musicians were noted specially by name in Scripture. David, Israel’s singer of songs. Jubal, the father of all who play the harp and flute. The musicians Heman, Asaph and Ethan, who were cymbal players. Zechariah, Aziel, Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Unni, Eliab, Maaseiah and Benaiah, who played lyres. Mattithiah, Eliphelehu, Mikneiah, Obed-Edom, Jeiel and Azaziah on the harps. Kenaniah the head Levite, who was in charge of the singing; that was his responsibility because he was skillful at it. The Bible takes great pains to enumerate the worshipers and musicians. Clearly God regards musical worship as important.
So, I wonder if we are underestimating or misunderstanding the role that musical worship plays in the Kingdom of God. We seem to have a way of doing things in the church that is more based on what we have always done. But shouldn’t we be doing what God wants? If we choose anything other than God’s purpose we violate Scripture, our purpose, and the heart of God. I know these are harsh words, but permit me to make my case in the following pages. Let me also say that none of these remarks are directed at any particular person or group.
2) Worship and Relationship
God is all about relationship. After all, Christ died on the cross in order to establish relationship between God and fallen man. But salvation is not the end, it is the beginning, the beginning of a lifetime of relationship with God via His Holy Spirit. And that developing relationship with God occurs in an environment of worship.
In His presence we discover His heart. We are transformed, enabled, and instructed. We draw near to the Father in the Most Holy Place. There is no way we can be in the presence of God without being changed. The world is washed from us and our weakness fades away. Our spirits become tender to receive from Him. Christ-likeness springs from relationship with Him. We learn what to do and how to live from being with Him. We become what we are called to, because we know Him and spend time with Him and listen to Him and attend to Him.
Our relationship with the Father translates into what our human relationships ought to be. So, as we become the worshipers the Father is looking for, we become the church the Father is looking for. As we nurture our relationship with God we grow together as body. The result is we begin to see the purposes of God made known in our midst. Relationship, first with God and then with each other, will manifest in a church when worship becomes important to the church.
This suggests that worship needs to rise up in importance in our lives.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
The folly of government - editorial
History is replete with the failures of those who have attempted to use the power of government to accomplish their goals. Some of them just wanted to do good. Others considered themselves to be more enlightened. Still others were interested in domination, control, or conquest.
The failures of lesser men, when entrusted with or who accumulate power, are strikingly evident. But even principled, intelligent leaders become corrupt, wielding coercive government with devastating results. That is why the Founders wisely crafted a limited government.
But our government has become nearly unlimited. Central planners want to impose their vision of society. They love government because it’s useful to implement their progressive utopia. Humming “Give Peace a Chance” to themselves, they view government as the means to achieve a social paradise where no one suffers, no one lacks, and social justice prevails.
However, society is too complex for interventionist planners. Freedom is too deeply ingrained in the human psyche. They might try to manipulate just a few variables, but the unexpected results are manifold. Society is dynamic. It shifts around government obstacles with results that always look quite different than what the planners expected. Despite the mayhem they routinely cause, they remain blindly persuaded of their ability to steer outcomes.
Our own city commissioners were apparently looking to further their own social utopia right here. Riding high on a government-on-steroids-induced economic upturn (which of course could never, ever end), commissioners passed an ill-considered law requiring developers to build affordable housing. Armed with good intentions, they decided to force developers to serve their social vision.
In essence, they attempted to make things better for some by making it worse for others. Cleverly, no tax increase was necessary to implement this little social engineering experiment. All that was needed was a law that coerced private parties to fund and implement their feel-good policy.
Yes, they were shocked when the economy tanked. “No one foresaw the economy falling off a cliff,” Commissioner Chris Mehl said. Of course not. Their assumptions are based on Keynesian economics and static equations. But somehow it was still “…a worthwhile endeavor and not all worthwhile endeavors work out,” according to Commissioner Carson Taylor. Oh, of course. There is no failure when there are good intentions.
Taylor continued, “We want people essential to our economy — police officers, teachers and other people who work in schools, city government employees — we want them to live in the city and have a path toward homeownership because it binds them to the community and they have an affinity for it.” Let's note for the record that the people who are essential to our economy are all government employees.
But beyond that, I wonder if Taylor sees the irony that many more Bozemanites are now “bound to the community?” A lot of us own what is now “affordable” housing. The commissioners’ intent was achieved, albeit not in the way they expected. Interestingly, the federal government, responsible for this economic devastation via its meddling with the economy, foiled our local government's intervention into the economy.
Amazingly, the commissioners acknowledged their folly and repealed the law. Good for them that they recognized that things weren’t working. That is unusual in government, where programs are like vampires – impossible to kill while sucking the life out of the innocent.
But rather than realizing that government interventions cause more problems than they solve, apparently what we need is the same thing, except worse: “Bozeman needs a more flexible approach to workforce housing that’s not hamstringed (sic) by the market,” Planning Director Tim McHarg said. What? He wants an affordable housing program that functions apart from market forces? How exactly would he know that housing was in fact affordable unless he looked at the market?
One could only hope that big government types would learn to not keep trying the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. But these kinds of people do not easily give up their power or their faith in government. They need to be retired.
The failures of lesser men, when entrusted with or who accumulate power, are strikingly evident. But even principled, intelligent leaders become corrupt, wielding coercive government with devastating results. That is why the Founders wisely crafted a limited government.
But our government has become nearly unlimited. Central planners want to impose their vision of society. They love government because it’s useful to implement their progressive utopia. Humming “Give Peace a Chance” to themselves, they view government as the means to achieve a social paradise where no one suffers, no one lacks, and social justice prevails.
However, society is too complex for interventionist planners. Freedom is too deeply ingrained in the human psyche. They might try to manipulate just a few variables, but the unexpected results are manifold. Society is dynamic. It shifts around government obstacles with results that always look quite different than what the planners expected. Despite the mayhem they routinely cause, they remain blindly persuaded of their ability to steer outcomes.
Our own city commissioners were apparently looking to further their own social utopia right here. Riding high on a government-on-steroids-induced economic upturn (which of course could never, ever end), commissioners passed an ill-considered law requiring developers to build affordable housing. Armed with good intentions, they decided to force developers to serve their social vision.
In essence, they attempted to make things better for some by making it worse for others. Cleverly, no tax increase was necessary to implement this little social engineering experiment. All that was needed was a law that coerced private parties to fund and implement their feel-good policy.
Yes, they were shocked when the economy tanked. “No one foresaw the economy falling off a cliff,” Commissioner Chris Mehl said. Of course not. Their assumptions are based on Keynesian economics and static equations. But somehow it was still “…a worthwhile endeavor and not all worthwhile endeavors work out,” according to Commissioner Carson Taylor. Oh, of course. There is no failure when there are good intentions.
Taylor continued, “We want people essential to our economy — police officers, teachers and other people who work in schools, city government employees — we want them to live in the city and have a path toward homeownership because it binds them to the community and they have an affinity for it.” Let's note for the record that the people who are essential to our economy are all government employees.
But beyond that, I wonder if Taylor sees the irony that many more Bozemanites are now “bound to the community?” A lot of us own what is now “affordable” housing. The commissioners’ intent was achieved, albeit not in the way they expected. Interestingly, the federal government, responsible for this economic devastation via its meddling with the economy, foiled our local government's intervention into the economy.
Amazingly, the commissioners acknowledged their folly and repealed the law. Good for them that they recognized that things weren’t working. That is unusual in government, where programs are like vampires – impossible to kill while sucking the life out of the innocent.
But rather than realizing that government interventions cause more problems than they solve, apparently what we need is the same thing, except worse: “Bozeman needs a more flexible approach to workforce housing that’s not hamstringed (sic) by the market,” Planning Director Tim McHarg said. What? He wants an affordable housing program that functions apart from market forces? How exactly would he know that housing was in fact affordable unless he looked at the market?
One could only hope that big government types would learn to not keep trying the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. But these kinds of people do not easily give up their power or their faith in government. They need to be retired.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Atheists are smarter
Lifted wholesale from http://voxday.blogspot.com/:
The 5 or 6 point difference in IQ between believers & non-believers is touted by atheists. But most atheists are leftists, so it raises the question of whether they are open to discussing the more serious gaps in other demographic slices. Frinstance, the standard deviation lag of blacks in IQ in comparison to whites. It would be a positive if atheists who claim intellectual superiority on the basis of a few IQ points would open their minds to not only God, but also the fact of human biodiversity. Moreover, the atheists' IQ advantage is about the same as the average male IQ over that of women. From a public policy PoV, taking IQ seriously would mean a complete abolition of cultural Marxism and multi-cult in our institutions since intellectual and moral performance are closely tied to IQ score.
All this by way of saying that if atheists choose to boast of a small difference in IQ points, they would necessarily also have to accept disparities in mental performance elsewhere in society. Atheists however are not an honest lot in intellectual matters... it's important to remember that a minimal IQ advantage doesn't indicate an attendant level of higher moral development. It's much easier to persuade an intelligent person to support passively a monstrous regime since the abstractions involved appeal to the intellect rather than any basic moral sensibility. It's true that on a personal level, atheists are squeamish about actually pulling the trigger, so their level of incarceration might be average or below average. This is probably not true if the atheist is working for the state or the military, in which case, the moral is the same as state policy.
In the ballot box though, atheists are more likely to support cruel policies and candidates since the resulting evil is carried out by an abstraction (i.e., "the state") acting on behalf of another abstraction, "the common good." When the consequences of these policies are brought to the atheist, he merely shrugs and says, "we need to provide more money and resources to make the abstraction work better." High IQ fall in love with pretty ideas even if they produce a lot of ugly in the real world. This is true of both atheists and believers, but the believer is circumscribed by a moral law that transcends generations and even society itself.
The 5 or 6 point difference in IQ between believers & non-believers is touted by atheists. But most atheists are leftists, so it raises the question of whether they are open to discussing the more serious gaps in other demographic slices. Frinstance, the standard deviation lag of blacks in IQ in comparison to whites. It would be a positive if atheists who claim intellectual superiority on the basis of a few IQ points would open their minds to not only God, but also the fact of human biodiversity. Moreover, the atheists' IQ advantage is about the same as the average male IQ over that of women. From a public policy PoV, taking IQ seriously would mean a complete abolition of cultural Marxism and multi-cult in our institutions since intellectual and moral performance are closely tied to IQ score.
All this by way of saying that if atheists choose to boast of a small difference in IQ points, they would necessarily also have to accept disparities in mental performance elsewhere in society. Atheists however are not an honest lot in intellectual matters... it's important to remember that a minimal IQ advantage doesn't indicate an attendant level of higher moral development. It's much easier to persuade an intelligent person to support passively a monstrous regime since the abstractions involved appeal to the intellect rather than any basic moral sensibility. It's true that on a personal level, atheists are squeamish about actually pulling the trigger, so their level of incarceration might be average or below average. This is probably not true if the atheist is working for the state or the military, in which case, the moral is the same as state policy.
In the ballot box though, atheists are more likely to support cruel policies and candidates since the resulting evil is carried out by an abstraction (i.e., "the state") acting on behalf of another abstraction, "the common good." When the consequences of these policies are brought to the atheist, he merely shrugs and says, "we need to provide more money and resources to make the abstraction work better." High IQ fall in love with pretty ideas even if they produce a lot of ugly in the real world. This is true of both atheists and believers, but the believer is circumscribed by a moral law that transcends generations and even society itself.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Passing on the performance car legacy - budget Camaro build - bonus episode
Episode one, purchase and bodywork.
Episode two, mechanicals and interior.
Episode three, final details and the finished car.
Bonus episode, LS conversion.
Double bonus episode, converting the 4L60e tailshaft housing to a mechanical speedo drive.
Triple bonus episode, the details leading up to the purchase of this car and what it meant.
--------------------
That last project was supposed to be my 1967 Camaro coupe. It had just achieved glittering road-worthiness after a ground-up rebuild when my friend Duncan called. I could tell something was on his mind. His voice shaky, he whispered, “I want a muscle car.”
I knew what was up. Those five words told an entire story, a tale of youthful indiscretions behind the wheel of dad’s car, of gas fumes and perfume, of cruising and girls and grease. Memories of a time past, coming forth in the wake of advancing age and graying hair, the heady brew of nostalgia mixed with adrenaline.
Yes, Duncan was afflicted. His disease, long dormant, had flared up like an itched that had to be scratched. And I owned the scratch.
But now I had a predicament. I worked very hard on this car. Do I really want to sell it, this last project?
That evening I told my wife. But she already knew before I opened my mouth. 30 years of marriage leaves few secrets uncovered. And to my amazement she became an enabler. She said she knew how much I loved lying under cars busting knuckles. Why should I give up something I love?
So Duncan and I quickly reached an accord. He got the keys and I got funding for my next project.
That car turned out to be another 1967 Camaro, a convertible. My plan was to simply do some mechanical upgrades and drive it. But I underestimated the sickness, a particularly virulent strain known as “while-I’m-at-it.” I’m doing the brakes, so why not replace the bushings while-I’m-at-it? The motor is out, so I’ll paint the engine compartment while-I’m-at-it. That’s the way it works.
With parts now scattered all over my garage floor and a stack of parts catalogs with dog-eared pages, I eventually realized I was off plan. I decided that I would finish the mechanicals, give it a temporary paint job, and get it on the road. I could restore the body later, but enjoy the car now. It was summer after all, made to order for a convertible.
After a trip to a “jobs-killing” big box store and a quick spray job, the car was now resplendent in a surprisingly glossy Rust Oleum fire truck red. The rest of the car was only partially assembled with no windshield and no door handles. An empty five gallon bucket served as the seat. It was enough.
Ah, there is nothing like the maiden cruise. Duncan and his son Nate were on hand to witness the momentous event. The engine roared to life, mellifluous melodies of fossil fuel detonation dancing through my brain, outgassing through a pair of Purple Hornies, which are, well, “mufflers.”
The car sounded strong.
Nate rode with me, wide eyed, and Duncan followed behind in my previous Camaro. I smiled. Nate was infected. Indeed, he would go on to purchase a big block Nova several years later.
A quick shakedown trip around the block confirmed that this Camaro passed muster. Duncan noted that there were no unfortunate emissions of liquid or smoke, but what appeared to be a mouse nest was discharged from the folds of the convertible top.
This is the stuff of personal legends, memory-making at its finest. As a bonus, a new generation has taken up the flickering torch of American performance automobiling and thrust it forward with rekindled flame, lighting the way for a continued appreciation of a time when Detroit muscle ruled the world.
Monday, June 13, 2011
A facebook friend creates doctrinal controversy
The next 3 out of 10 indicators that you might be in an emergent church. 4.They come up with "new" extra biblical revelations and visions that are supposedly from God. 5. They avoid mentioning let alone studying end-times bible prophecy(eschatology). 6. They try to teach "biblical truths" out of movies rather than opening up the Holy Bible and preaching the Word!
Me: The emergent church is a troubling trend. Being culturally relevant has translated into compromising the truth of Scripture.
That being said, I've never been thrilled with pre-trib dispensational theology.
M.L.: in my opinion, very troubling. Rick Warren was quoted as saying that fundamental/biblical Christianity is the biggest threat to the emergent church. Other ultra emergent leaders and their followers make comments like "we should... take them(fundamental/biblical Christians) out back and shoot them". Sounds like fuel for persecution of true Christians. I am just finishing a book, which I recommend, that reinforces the bible and doesn't try to redefine it like most pop-culture literature in Christendom today. It's called "Faith Undone" by Roger Oakland.
As far as the eschatology comment that I included, I am talking about eschatology as a whole. I myself am pre-trib, but I believe that in the end it doesn't really matter. What matters is that people be truly born-again, truly saved.
R.L.: Here's the link for that forum so you can watch it for yourself. I'd suggest to go into it without your mind made up, but that's probably not going to happen. :-) http://www.facebook.com/l/d7966/www.saddlebackcivilforum.com/peaceinaglobalizedsociety/"
R.L.: The basis of their "talk" is to love your neighbor as you love yourself. It's not about a one-world government. If you keep looking for that in every preacher you don't like, or read that others don't like, you'll find that speck in their eye every single time. Who quoted Rick Warren as saying what you quoted above? I'm not about defending him, by the way, but goodness, somewhere, sometime, all this criticism has a way of boomeranging. Mario, you should go to Bible school and become a pastor so you can be criticized like the rest of us. :-) You seem to have it all figured out and know exactly what a "true Christian" looks like, when apparently no one else but those you find on the internet know what that means. I know we'll disagree. I don't want a long, long cut and paste answer, even though that's your right to do. We're still going to be at an impasse.
R.L.: "Have you heard of Matt Chandler? Pastor at The Village Church in Tx. He's one of the most straight forward preachers I've ever heard. He's not easy on the Christian or the hypocrite. I podcast his stuff."
Me: Wow, that is harsh, Robin. It is perfectly acceptable to evaluate churches and pastors based on biblical truth. Leaders must be held to account (Heb 13:17).
Mario, keep standing for the truth. You have nothing to apologize for.
R.L.: Rich, not trying to be harsh. It seems that just internet preachers seem to know what the "true church" is. I don't buy that. I think THAT is harsh, as is the way the Church is portrayed by them. I know that verse too. Everyone is held accountable and that verse has been used as an excuse for wrong behavior and treatment of pastors for way too long, hence the comment about going to Bible college. If you were a pastor, you'd know what I'm saying. It's the hardest job on the planet. Bozeman has some great churches with amazing Christians in them. No one can convince me that Bozeman is void of this "true Church." Not gonna buy that either. And no, I'm not deceived."
Me: All of your comments are about things no one in this thread has commented upon.
No one has lumped pastors into the "evil" category. No one has dishonored the leaders of any particular church. No one has suggested there is no true church in Bozeman or anywhere else. And no one has accused you of being deceived.
I don't buy the "you wouldn't know unless you are one" rhetoric. That argument then seems to extend to the "you aren't one, so you can't have an opinon about it" argument. I reject that as well. And I think I have the Spirit of God too.
Robin, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder. Apparently someone has wounded you as a result of being a pastor's wife. Just a guess, I really don't know, except by the evidence of your odd comments. However, those injuries, if they did happen, can take the form of curses, and you can make them null by prayer and deliverance.
R.L.: It stems from a previous conversation with Mario.
D.L.: As I read the full thread, I have disagree with you on a couple of things and I'll clarify one thing. First, Robin is not walking with wound from being a pastor's wife. I rarely use the term "reject" because it closes the conversation rather than keep it open for more dialogue."
D.L.: Sorry about that. I do deplore the new feature on Facbook that ends you comment when you hit return. Arg! Robin's comments stem from several previous and the current conversation so you had to have been a part of those."
M.L.: thanks for the encouragement. I don't take it personal. I believe that we are living in times where we have to be direct, clear and uncompromising with the Word of God and as watchmen 'expose the unfruitful works of darkness...' 'We wrestle not against flesh and blood' Our battle is for truth. That has always been the battle. There are many people headed toward the slaughter b/c of this ('beautiful' 'peaceful' Dan.8:24-25), emergent agenda and we were there too but God in His mercy took us out and opened our eyes.
The emergent church expects you to check your brain at the door and not question anything or if you stand on decisive truth you are intolerant,legalistic, hateful & archaic. Such is the reproach & offense of the true christian. Sounds like a cult to me.
D.L.: I did it again! (hate the return thing! The issue seems to be that the comments made are combative from the beginning, so the comments back are combative and there you have it, Christians taking shots at one another instead of focusing on the mission of Christ, that is reach the lost and making disciples. The thing about "you wouldn't know unless you were one" does have truth in it, whether you reject it or not. I don't pretend to know what a business owner goes through, or a US Senator or or a doctor the President of the United States because I've served in those roles. No one said you didn't have the Spirit of God because you're not a pastor (it seems that's what you're perhaps making an accusation of) and you can have an opinion. But I've never walked your in life shoes in what you do, you've never walked in mine as a pastor. A little bit like "you wouldn't know what a woman goes through unless you are one". Not that far, but we don't know what it's like for someone unless we walked in their shoes is what she was trying to say. That's the main point. The dishonoring happens when someone consistently makes judgements and comments about the Church (big C) and doesn't take into account they are judging the body of Christ, yes even the Bride of Christ. The "chip on the shoulder" stems more from frustrations from rarely, if ever seeing encouraging words that the Church is doing something the Bible teaches, which I think they are. So yes, in my opinion there has been dishonoring of churches and their pastors who are doing their very best to serve God as best they can. We should hold each other to account, but we must do so in the spirit of love and not condemnation. Jesus said that the world would know us but our love, not our judgement. " 34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13:34-35. I love the Church, the body of Christ. We aren't perfect, we can always improve, we strive to know God better and serve him better. However I believe with all my heart that pastors in Bozeman, the Gallatin Valley, across Montana and the United States are diligently doing the best they can, searching the Scriptures with pure hearts and teaching what they feel the Holy Spirit is leading them to teach week in and week out to win the lost and build up the body of Christ. We aren't perfect and I do believe absolutely there are those who use the Church for they own gain, who aren't preaching truth and who are false teachers. That, however is not the majority pastors and leaders I see, and meet hundreds a year from all over the world. For the most part, the vast majority are seeking God with their whole heart. The term "emergent church" is very confusing because the truth is NO ONE has the corner on the market for what it is. I just know what my calling and mission is and I do all I can to fulfill my part for the Cause of Christ because his return is imminent and coming soon, praise God! Ed Stetzer has done exhaustive research on this and he would be a good one to check out as well.
R.L.: There has been multiple dishonoring comments about pastor's from particular churches, such as Rick Warren. Yes, it has been said there is no "true church" in Bozeman. Again, from previous conversations. I didn't say you couldn't have an opinion. It's FB, you can have all the opinions you want. You don't know what it's like to be a pastor and have people slashing at pastors on a consistent basis. Please don't be offended by that - it's just a reality that's my side of the conversation. I'm just about to start my 39th year in ministry. I was born, raised and married into it. You'd better believe there are hurts in ministry! Way too many! The chip on my shoulder isn't from hurt - it's from deep frustration from the consistent bashing of preachers that are made out to sound like the anti-Christ, but aren't, calling them false prophets. This isn't about wounding. It's about continual criticism. Again, as Matthew 7 says (MSG), that kind of criticism WILL boomerang. It's a very serious thing to criticize who God considers "the Lord's anointed," whomever that might be. God selects them, we don't. What if pastors of churches get on FB and criticize particular people in their churches, BY NAME? Wouldn't we all love that? Of course not. If it's okay to bash pastors, then let's bash everyone? There's a reason Jesus didn't let the disciples behave that way. He hates that kind of behavior because it's contrary to His Spirit. Everyone is going to be judged, BY GOD. If we take it upon ourselves to do the judging, that will boomerang. As I've said in previous conversations, the Great Commission is very, very clear. It doesn't include what's happening here. You can't pick and choose who you love and how you treat them. Jesus taught the disciples how to love Pharisees and Samaritans, even Romans and Greeks!! That's a big deal for us to grasp, and even harder to play out in our lives. I don't have it all figured out yet. None of us do. Our job it to love. Love is not a watered down Gospel - it IS the Gospel!! That's why Jesus was killed - He brought a message of love and the religious crowds who loved judging their neighbor didn't want to hear His message of "love your neighbor" any longer. It's not love to call someone out, whom you don't personally know or have relationship with, on FB. It would be love to call them out in private and have that conversation without criticizing them in this type of forum. That's dishonoring, foolish and not our job. THAT is my point.
Me: [shift] [enter] allows you to make paragraphs.
Me: Well, that clarifies some things.
Dan and Robin, you both have covered a lot of ground in your posts. It's not that I don't agree with much of what you said, it's just that if there's a history with you and Mario, you can't say that it automatically falls to Mario to do what you think is the "right thing." The phone works fine on each end of the line, you know.
As far as the public calling out of doctrinal error, I don't see anywhere in Scripture where it is forbidden. Matthew 18 is not a universal catch-all passage regarding the treatment of these matters. Jesus himself was quite harsh with the pharisees, for example, calling them out publicly. Are we not also destined to judge the world? The angels? Are we not called to judge disputes between believers?
Yes, we make judgments every day. It is right and proper that we do. Like the Westbrough Baptists. Harold Camping. Scientology. I could go on. The thing that is clear is that there is a distinction between the man and the issue at hand. The man is not being judged, the issue is, and rightly so.
Me: I'm sorry that I still have to disagree with you regarding the "walk in someone's shoes issue." That line of thinking is employed every day by abortion rights advocates, for example, who claim that men cannot have an opinion about abortion because men can't get pregnant. The technique is a conversation stopper, it pre-emptively dismisses the debate.
I'm sure that being a pastor is tough. What makes you think that it is uniquely so? What makes you think that people cannot know what it's like without being one? On what basis do you make this dismissive judgment? It is one thing to assert this, it is another thing entirely to make a blanket statement about everyone who isn't a pastor. Yes, it can be true, but it isn't even close to axiomatic.
As far as Robin being wounded, I did not say she was, I wonder if this was the case. It sure sounded that way. Both you and her sound defensive about the issue of pastors being beaten up, so it is quite natural to wonder such a thing. People do not get defensive unless something needs defending as it were.
Me: Some people do slash at pastors. Most do not. Some pastors derserve it, unfortunately. Most do not. It is not appropriate to slash at pastors, but I wonder if that is the right word. Again, there is a difference between the man and the issue. If a pastor is a consistently bad preacher, for example, he should not be allowed to continue in the pulpit.
Frankly, the role of pastor is very misunderstood and rarely manifests in a biblical way. The pastor at the top of the church pyramid is a disfunctional model, so it does not surprise me that pastors feel mistreated. Ephesians 4:11 paints a very different picture of church leadership.
Well, I guess I inserted myself into an ongoing and if I may say, unholy dispute. Maybe God brought me in to break it up, Who knows?
You guys best get on with fixing the situation before God is dishonored further.
D.L.: So this is why I rarely comment on Facebook because we are so misunderstood. First and foremost, I love Mario (I love you Mario!) and I apologize if I've injured you from my comments. I love to have these conversations face to face because then we can see each others emotions and heart. The simple principle of walking in someone else's shoes simple means I won't make judgements about you and what you do without considering the fact that I don't do what you do and visa versa. Again, You CAN have and opinion and I value it. I'm only making the point that.
D.L.: So this is why I rarely comment on Facebook because we are so misunderstood. First and foremost, I love Mario (I love you Mario!) and I apologize if I've injured you from my comments. I love to have these conversations face to face because then we can see each others emotions and heart. The simple principle of walking in someone else's shoes simple means I won't make judgements about you and what you do without considering the fact that I don't do what you do and visa versa. That's all, just the old saying "Don't judeg a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes", regardless of the occupation. Again, You CAN have and opinion and I value it. We all have things to learn from each other and should be open to conversations with each other to make each other better. The issue, not the man should be judged is good! We must, like the Bereans take things to Scripture. No argument there. I do agree that our models of church are imperfect, and believe I continue to hear many ideas of the models are. Church should be done as a team rather than focused only on one leader. Yet, there is the role of a leader and how that all shakes out, we get to work out together. That's my goal, anyway. How you view is how you view it, and that's okay, too. I don't believe any one person has had a sudden revelation of what that role is. If they did, a hundred more would come out with an hundred more revelations. We do the best we can as we work it out together, keeping Jesus the focus and loving each other the basis for our interaction. I love doctrinal discussion, bur rarely on Facebook because so many times are words are misunderstood. I have no quarrel with Mario, period. If we can't have disagreements and continue to be friends, what do we have? I still love he and Julie regardless of how we view doctrinal issues. Fact is, I do believe it is an "in house debate" and should be in house. The problem is, once in on Facebook, it's out there for the world to see and in fact Facebook invites public comment. I don't want it to judgemental, and in the end some times we have to agree to disagree. That doesn't change my love for them! Finally, I don't believe God is dishonored by these conversations but he is dishonored when we take pot shots at each other with a heart of bitterness and intention to hurt. I don't think that was the intention of Mario or Robin. Can we say things better? Sure! Can we learn from these things? I hope so. Be blessed, my friends and I hope we can continue friendships through conversations (even lively ones!), prayer for each other and love for God.
D.L.: I deleted the comments I made because I didn't want thing to go any further on Facebook. I did direct message Mario. I'm not in a dispute with anyone. That's why I rarely and now never make public comments on Facebook regarding things like this. It's almost always misunderstood and people start to get the wrong idea. I'm sorry thing looked that way. I can strongly disagree with Mario doctrinally, but that doesn't mean I don't love him or have a personal dispute with him. What I believe dishonors God is when we take disagreements and air them for the whole world to see. I'm not going there and neither is Robin anymore. Be blessed my friend and keep sharing Jesus in the Gallatin Valley. I miss that place!!!
Me: The emergent church is a troubling trend. Being culturally relevant has translated into compromising the truth of Scripture.
That being said, I've never been thrilled with pre-trib dispensational theology.
M.L.: in my opinion, very troubling. Rick Warren was quoted as saying that fundamental/biblical Christianity is the biggest threat to the emergent church. Other ultra emergent leaders and their followers make comments like "we should... take them(fundamental/biblical Christians) out back and shoot them". Sounds like fuel for persecution of true Christians. I am just finishing a book, which I recommend, that reinforces the bible and doesn't try to redefine it like most pop-culture literature in Christendom today. It's called "Faith Undone" by Roger Oakland.
As far as the eschatology comment that I included, I am talking about eschatology as a whole. I myself am pre-trib, but I believe that in the end it doesn't really matter. What matters is that people be truly born-again, truly saved.
R.L.: Here's the link for that forum so you can watch it for yourself. I'd suggest to go into it without your mind made up, but that's probably not going to happen. :-) http://www.facebook.com/l/d7966/www.saddlebackcivilforum.com/peaceinaglobalizedsociety/"
R.L.: The basis of their "talk" is to love your neighbor as you love yourself. It's not about a one-world government. If you keep looking for that in every preacher you don't like, or read that others don't like, you'll find that speck in their eye every single time. Who quoted Rick Warren as saying what you quoted above? I'm not about defending him, by the way, but goodness, somewhere, sometime, all this criticism has a way of boomeranging. Mario, you should go to Bible school and become a pastor so you can be criticized like the rest of us. :-) You seem to have it all figured out and know exactly what a "true Christian" looks like, when apparently no one else but those you find on the internet know what that means. I know we'll disagree. I don't want a long, long cut and paste answer, even though that's your right to do. We're still going to be at an impasse.
R.L.: "Have you heard of Matt Chandler? Pastor at The Village Church in Tx. He's one of the most straight forward preachers I've ever heard. He's not easy on the Christian or the hypocrite. I podcast his stuff."
Me: Wow, that is harsh, Robin. It is perfectly acceptable to evaluate churches and pastors based on biblical truth. Leaders must be held to account (Heb 13:17).
Mario, keep standing for the truth. You have nothing to apologize for.
R.L.: Rich, not trying to be harsh. It seems that just internet preachers seem to know what the "true church" is. I don't buy that. I think THAT is harsh, as is the way the Church is portrayed by them. I know that verse too. Everyone is held accountable and that verse has been used as an excuse for wrong behavior and treatment of pastors for way too long, hence the comment about going to Bible college. If you were a pastor, you'd know what I'm saying. It's the hardest job on the planet. Bozeman has some great churches with amazing Christians in them. No one can convince me that Bozeman is void of this "true Church." Not gonna buy that either. And no, I'm not deceived."
Me: All of your comments are about things no one in this thread has commented upon.
No one has lumped pastors into the "evil" category. No one has dishonored the leaders of any particular church. No one has suggested there is no true church in Bozeman or anywhere else. And no one has accused you of being deceived.
I don't buy the "you wouldn't know unless you are one" rhetoric. That argument then seems to extend to the "you aren't one, so you can't have an opinon about it" argument. I reject that as well. And I think I have the Spirit of God too.
Robin, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder. Apparently someone has wounded you as a result of being a pastor's wife. Just a guess, I really don't know, except by the evidence of your odd comments. However, those injuries, if they did happen, can take the form of curses, and you can make them null by prayer and deliverance.
R.L.: It stems from a previous conversation with Mario.
D.L.: As I read the full thread, I have disagree with you on a couple of things and I'll clarify one thing. First, Robin is not walking with wound from being a pastor's wife. I rarely use the term "reject" because it closes the conversation rather than keep it open for more dialogue."
D.L.: Sorry about that. I do deplore the new feature on Facbook that ends you comment when you hit return. Arg! Robin's comments stem from several previous and the current conversation so you had to have been a part of those."
M.L.: thanks for the encouragement. I don't take it personal. I believe that we are living in times where we have to be direct, clear and uncompromising with the Word of God and as watchmen 'expose the unfruitful works of darkness...' 'We wrestle not against flesh and blood' Our battle is for truth. That has always been the battle. There are many people headed toward the slaughter b/c of this ('beautiful' 'peaceful' Dan.8:24-25), emergent agenda and we were there too but God in His mercy took us out and opened our eyes.
The emergent church expects you to check your brain at the door and not question anything or if you stand on decisive truth you are intolerant,legalistic, hateful & archaic. Such is the reproach & offense of the true christian. Sounds like a cult to me.
D.L.: I did it again! (hate the return thing! The issue seems to be that the comments made are combative from the beginning, so the comments back are combative and there you have it, Christians taking shots at one another instead of focusing on the mission of Christ, that is reach the lost and making disciples. The thing about "you wouldn't know unless you were one" does have truth in it, whether you reject it or not. I don't pretend to know what a business owner goes through, or a US Senator or or a doctor the President of the United States because I've served in those roles. No one said you didn't have the Spirit of God because you're not a pastor (it seems that's what you're perhaps making an accusation of) and you can have an opinion. But I've never walked your in life shoes in what you do, you've never walked in mine as a pastor. A little bit like "you wouldn't know what a woman goes through unless you are one". Not that far, but we don't know what it's like for someone unless we walked in their shoes is what she was trying to say. That's the main point. The dishonoring happens when someone consistently makes judgements and comments about the Church (big C) and doesn't take into account they are judging the body of Christ, yes even the Bride of Christ. The "chip on the shoulder" stems more from frustrations from rarely, if ever seeing encouraging words that the Church is doing something the Bible teaches, which I think they are. So yes, in my opinion there has been dishonoring of churches and their pastors who are doing their very best to serve God as best they can. We should hold each other to account, but we must do so in the spirit of love and not condemnation. Jesus said that the world would know us but our love, not our judgement. " 34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13:34-35. I love the Church, the body of Christ. We aren't perfect, we can always improve, we strive to know God better and serve him better. However I believe with all my heart that pastors in Bozeman, the Gallatin Valley, across Montana and the United States are diligently doing the best they can, searching the Scriptures with pure hearts and teaching what they feel the Holy Spirit is leading them to teach week in and week out to win the lost and build up the body of Christ. We aren't perfect and I do believe absolutely there are those who use the Church for they own gain, who aren't preaching truth and who are false teachers. That, however is not the majority pastors and leaders I see, and meet hundreds a year from all over the world. For the most part, the vast majority are seeking God with their whole heart. The term "emergent church" is very confusing because the truth is NO ONE has the corner on the market for what it is. I just know what my calling and mission is and I do all I can to fulfill my part for the Cause of Christ because his return is imminent and coming soon, praise God! Ed Stetzer has done exhaustive research on this and he would be a good one to check out as well.
R.L.: There has been multiple dishonoring comments about pastor's from particular churches, such as Rick Warren. Yes, it has been said there is no "true church" in Bozeman. Again, from previous conversations. I didn't say you couldn't have an opinion. It's FB, you can have all the opinions you want. You don't know what it's like to be a pastor and have people slashing at pastors on a consistent basis. Please don't be offended by that - it's just a reality that's my side of the conversation. I'm just about to start my 39th year in ministry. I was born, raised and married into it. You'd better believe there are hurts in ministry! Way too many! The chip on my shoulder isn't from hurt - it's from deep frustration from the consistent bashing of preachers that are made out to sound like the anti-Christ, but aren't, calling them false prophets. This isn't about wounding. It's about continual criticism. Again, as Matthew 7 says (MSG), that kind of criticism WILL boomerang. It's a very serious thing to criticize who God considers "the Lord's anointed," whomever that might be. God selects them, we don't. What if pastors of churches get on FB and criticize particular people in their churches, BY NAME? Wouldn't we all love that? Of course not. If it's okay to bash pastors, then let's bash everyone? There's a reason Jesus didn't let the disciples behave that way. He hates that kind of behavior because it's contrary to His Spirit. Everyone is going to be judged, BY GOD. If we take it upon ourselves to do the judging, that will boomerang. As I've said in previous conversations, the Great Commission is very, very clear. It doesn't include what's happening here. You can't pick and choose who you love and how you treat them. Jesus taught the disciples how to love Pharisees and Samaritans, even Romans and Greeks!! That's a big deal for us to grasp, and even harder to play out in our lives. I don't have it all figured out yet. None of us do. Our job it to love. Love is not a watered down Gospel - it IS the Gospel!! That's why Jesus was killed - He brought a message of love and the religious crowds who loved judging their neighbor didn't want to hear His message of "love your neighbor" any longer. It's not love to call someone out, whom you don't personally know or have relationship with, on FB. It would be love to call them out in private and have that conversation without criticizing them in this type of forum. That's dishonoring, foolish and not our job. THAT is my point.
Me: [shift] [enter] allows you to make paragraphs.
Me: Well, that clarifies some things.
Dan and Robin, you both have covered a lot of ground in your posts. It's not that I don't agree with much of what you said, it's just that if there's a history with you and Mario, you can't say that it automatically falls to Mario to do what you think is the "right thing." The phone works fine on each end of the line, you know.
As far as the public calling out of doctrinal error, I don't see anywhere in Scripture where it is forbidden. Matthew 18 is not a universal catch-all passage regarding the treatment of these matters. Jesus himself was quite harsh with the pharisees, for example, calling them out publicly. Are we not also destined to judge the world? The angels? Are we not called to judge disputes between believers?
Yes, we make judgments every day. It is right and proper that we do. Like the Westbrough Baptists. Harold Camping. Scientology. I could go on. The thing that is clear is that there is a distinction between the man and the issue at hand. The man is not being judged, the issue is, and rightly so.
Me: I'm sorry that I still have to disagree with you regarding the "walk in someone's shoes issue." That line of thinking is employed every day by abortion rights advocates, for example, who claim that men cannot have an opinion about abortion because men can't get pregnant. The technique is a conversation stopper, it pre-emptively dismisses the debate.
I'm sure that being a pastor is tough. What makes you think that it is uniquely so? What makes you think that people cannot know what it's like without being one? On what basis do you make this dismissive judgment? It is one thing to assert this, it is another thing entirely to make a blanket statement about everyone who isn't a pastor. Yes, it can be true, but it isn't even close to axiomatic.
As far as Robin being wounded, I did not say she was, I wonder if this was the case. It sure sounded that way. Both you and her sound defensive about the issue of pastors being beaten up, so it is quite natural to wonder such a thing. People do not get defensive unless something needs defending as it were.
Me: Some people do slash at pastors. Most do not. Some pastors derserve it, unfortunately. Most do not. It is not appropriate to slash at pastors, but I wonder if that is the right word. Again, there is a difference between the man and the issue. If a pastor is a consistently bad preacher, for example, he should not be allowed to continue in the pulpit.
Frankly, the role of pastor is very misunderstood and rarely manifests in a biblical way. The pastor at the top of the church pyramid is a disfunctional model, so it does not surprise me that pastors feel mistreated. Ephesians 4:11 paints a very different picture of church leadership.
Well, I guess I inserted myself into an ongoing and if I may say, unholy dispute. Maybe God brought me in to break it up, Who knows?
You guys best get on with fixing the situation before God is dishonored further.
D.L.: So this is why I rarely comment on Facebook because we are so misunderstood. First and foremost, I love Mario (I love you Mario!) and I apologize if I've injured you from my comments. I love to have these conversations face to face because then we can see each others emotions and heart. The simple principle of walking in someone else's shoes simple means I won't make judgements about you and what you do without considering the fact that I don't do what you do and visa versa. Again, You CAN have and opinion and I value it. I'm only making the point that.
D.L.: So this is why I rarely comment on Facebook because we are so misunderstood. First and foremost, I love Mario (I love you Mario!) and I apologize if I've injured you from my comments. I love to have these conversations face to face because then we can see each others emotions and heart. The simple principle of walking in someone else's shoes simple means I won't make judgements about you and what you do without considering the fact that I don't do what you do and visa versa. That's all, just the old saying "Don't judeg a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes", regardless of the occupation. Again, You CAN have and opinion and I value it. We all have things to learn from each other and should be open to conversations with each other to make each other better. The issue, not the man should be judged is good! We must, like the Bereans take things to Scripture. No argument there. I do agree that our models of church are imperfect, and believe I continue to hear many ideas of the models are. Church should be done as a team rather than focused only on one leader. Yet, there is the role of a leader and how that all shakes out, we get to work out together. That's my goal, anyway. How you view is how you view it, and that's okay, too. I don't believe any one person has had a sudden revelation of what that role is. If they did, a hundred more would come out with an hundred more revelations. We do the best we can as we work it out together, keeping Jesus the focus and loving each other the basis for our interaction. I love doctrinal discussion, bur rarely on Facebook because so many times are words are misunderstood. I have no quarrel with Mario, period. If we can't have disagreements and continue to be friends, what do we have? I still love he and Julie regardless of how we view doctrinal issues. Fact is, I do believe it is an "in house debate" and should be in house. The problem is, once in on Facebook, it's out there for the world to see and in fact Facebook invites public comment. I don't want it to judgemental, and in the end some times we have to agree to disagree. That doesn't change my love for them! Finally, I don't believe God is dishonored by these conversations but he is dishonored when we take pot shots at each other with a heart of bitterness and intention to hurt. I don't think that was the intention of Mario or Robin. Can we say things better? Sure! Can we learn from these things? I hope so. Be blessed, my friends and I hope we can continue friendships through conversations (even lively ones!), prayer for each other and love for God.
D.L.: I deleted the comments I made because I didn't want thing to go any further on Facebook. I did direct message Mario. I'm not in a dispute with anyone. That's why I rarely and now never make public comments on Facebook regarding things like this. It's almost always misunderstood and people start to get the wrong idea. I'm sorry thing looked that way. I can strongly disagree with Mario doctrinally, but that doesn't mean I don't love him or have a personal dispute with him. What I believe dishonors God is when we take disagreements and air them for the whole world to see. I'm not going there and neither is Robin anymore. Be blessed my friend and keep sharing Jesus in the Gallatin Valley. I miss that place!!!
Friday, May 27, 2011
Global warming - facebook conversation
I posted this link: Polar Ice Rapture Misses Its Deadline
blogs.forbes.com
Global warming alarmists have more explaining to do.
Harold Camping isn't the only alarmist making false predictions...
S.B.: so, Rich -- do you deny that the earth's climate is warming? or that mankind bears a significant share of the responsibility? Just curious what your point is here...
Me: My point is that false predictions aren't confined to religous kooks.
S.B.: No, neither is sensationalistic reporting of fringe people and issues. I know very few Christians who took the whole Harold Camping thing serious in the least -- I think it got coverage primarily because it became such a big internet meme, and hence a part of popular culture that far outstripped its actual importance.
The same happens from time to time in science. There's no doubt about that -- having worked in science for 27 years, attended literally hundreds of scientific conferences and listened to and read thousands of scientific papers, I can tell you that most scientists don't know how to get media attention, and most don't really crave it. That makes it easy for those who DO, to get attention that exceeds the import of what they have to say.
Though, make no mistake -- while the extreme predictions are just that -- extreme predictions -- the facts are that polar ice, particularly in the arctic, IS melting, WILL have serious consequences, and will cost us dearly. The extreme weather events of the past few weeks are a good example -- while they cannot be tied directly to global warming, they are consistent with what happens even under relatively mild warming that is occurring. What this means is that we can expect, with statistical certainty, that they will occur MORE often, and with more severity, as the earth continues to warm.
Some talk about the cost of dealing with global warming, but they generally fail to acknowledge that there is a huge cost, too, of inaction.
Me: Perhaps you didn't read the article. Alarmists have predicted specifically and directly that the polar ice cap would totally melt, not that it will someday, or that it is in the process.
My remarks are confined to that and that alone.
S.B.: no, I read the article. But the author does what many climate change skeptics do (and I suppose, religious skeptics do, as well -- I don't know because I don't pay much attention to them -- I am a non-believer myself but have no desire to dissuade others of their Faith) which is to attempt to taint the legitimate science with the hyperbole of the extremists.
When the author says "The list of failed predictions regarding global warming raptures is no less extensive than the list of failed predictions regarding Christian church raptures. There is one important difference, however. The Harold Campings of the world reside outside the Christian mainstream. Among global warming alarmists, the serially wrong rapturists define the mainstream." he is clearly using the fringes of science to do this. By reposting the blog, you are essentially doing the same.
I'm simply pointing out that you can ignore the science all you wish, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter that global warming IS occurring, it IS having severe, real-time, current day impacts on people, economies, ecosystems, and will continue to do so, at an accelerating pace, so long as we chose to ignore it.
Me: you just admitted that the story took on a life of its own. Why do you think that was? Clearly it was to brand all Christians as kooks and extremists.
I guess the issue is, whose ox is being gored.
S.B.: I don't think I agree with your characterization, Rich. I had plenty of Christian friends who were ridiculing the predictions while simultaneously disavowing themselves and their Faith from Camping. I don't know if you've noticed, but people are also making fun of the Incan predictions for the end of the world in 2012 -- part of a world-wide conspiracy to brand all indigenous peoples as kooks and extremists?
Or simply some gallows humor for dark times?
Me: But the rapture is a mainstream belief of a large portion of Christianity. And the polar ice caps melting is a widely held tenet of global warming.
That places them on the same footing, and ridicule of each is fair game.
S.B.: Rich, if you REALLY think that religious/spiritual predictions and scientific ones ought to be held to the same degree of scrutiny, or even discussed as remotely similar -- I think we understand both world views quite differently from one another.
The similarity between the two is quite superficial, and I think you're smart enough to know that. But if you want to claim an equivlance here, then I'll cede the point, because I can't argue with a red herring argument.
Me: You consistently want to take this to a higher level of analysis that is not warranted by the context. The sole basis of your objection seems to be that science is somehow sacrosanct, while religion doesn't rise to the level of intelligent thought.
I don't accept the premise that global warming alarmists can't be mocked because it is science.
S.B.: If you read my earlier post, I said that I have no argument that some extreme predictions are not worth mocking. But the author goes beyond that and in the quoted section suggests that the extremists ARE the mainstream
And that is bullshit, and deserves to be countered.
R.W.: I want to jump in but am enjoying the discussion too much to ruin it.
B.R.: Ditto.
Me: I guess the profanity seals the argument.
S.B.: no, just expresses my frustration at the effort to equate science and religion too closely, Rich. They are entirely different ways of dealing with the world, and attempts to treat them too much alike does neither of them any favors.
Science's JOB is to make predictions about the world -- and it does it very well. We can make accurate predictions about the position of a sattellite, even accounting for relativistic effects, and that allows us to use that sattellite as a channel for communications -- if the predictions made by science (and it's cousin, technology) weren't right nearly all of the time, then we wouldn't be having this discussion right now because we'd have no way to reliably exchange information.
Religion doesn't have such a track record. Perhaps one day we'll find that the predictions it DOES make, turn out to be true -- but it exists largely in a sphere outside/beyond proof.
So while science is not sacrosanct, and certainly scientists do make errors in both fact and judgment -- it has proved remarkably effective at making predictions about the world that are both verifiable, and incredibly precise.
I think if anything, one of the things that brought Camping so much attention and ridicule is his effort to predict, with scientific precision, that which most Christians will tell you the Scriptures say cannot be predicted: the time at which the end arrives.
Me: I have resisted your efforts to "...equate science and religion too closely..." I have made no assertions regarding the issues of veracity. I have made no claim about religion.
It is you who wants to conflate the two on the simple basis that someone is mocking your sacred cow.
Scott, there is no part of science that should not be mocked. Certainly no part of religion has escaped mocking.
I really don't care how good science is at predicting things. It is irrelevant to the conversation. I really don't care if religion hasn't demonstrated scientific rigor. None of it matters.
Science has assumed this mantle of unquestionable veracity and gravitas that is worthy of parody. Indeed, this untouchable status is ultimately bad for science as dissenters are beat down and silenced.
blogs.forbes.com
Global warming alarmists have more explaining to do.
Harold Camping isn't the only alarmist making false predictions...
S.B.: so, Rich -- do you deny that the earth's climate is warming? or that mankind bears a significant share of the responsibility? Just curious what your point is here...
Me: My point is that false predictions aren't confined to religous kooks.
S.B.: No, neither is sensationalistic reporting of fringe people and issues. I know very few Christians who took the whole Harold Camping thing serious in the least -- I think it got coverage primarily because it became such a big internet meme, and hence a part of popular culture that far outstripped its actual importance.
The same happens from time to time in science. There's no doubt about that -- having worked in science for 27 years, attended literally hundreds of scientific conferences and listened to and read thousands of scientific papers, I can tell you that most scientists don't know how to get media attention, and most don't really crave it. That makes it easy for those who DO, to get attention that exceeds the import of what they have to say.
Though, make no mistake -- while the extreme predictions are just that -- extreme predictions -- the facts are that polar ice, particularly in the arctic, IS melting, WILL have serious consequences, and will cost us dearly. The extreme weather events of the past few weeks are a good example -- while they cannot be tied directly to global warming, they are consistent with what happens even under relatively mild warming that is occurring. What this means is that we can expect, with statistical certainty, that they will occur MORE often, and with more severity, as the earth continues to warm.
Some talk about the cost of dealing with global warming, but they generally fail to acknowledge that there is a huge cost, too, of inaction.
Me: Perhaps you didn't read the article. Alarmists have predicted specifically and directly that the polar ice cap would totally melt, not that it will someday, or that it is in the process.
My remarks are confined to that and that alone.
S.B.: no, I read the article. But the author does what many climate change skeptics do (and I suppose, religious skeptics do, as well -- I don't know because I don't pay much attention to them -- I am a non-believer myself but have no desire to dissuade others of their Faith) which is to attempt to taint the legitimate science with the hyperbole of the extremists.
When the author says "The list of failed predictions regarding global warming raptures is no less extensive than the list of failed predictions regarding Christian church raptures. There is one important difference, however. The Harold Campings of the world reside outside the Christian mainstream. Among global warming alarmists, the serially wrong rapturists define the mainstream." he is clearly using the fringes of science to do this. By reposting the blog, you are essentially doing the same.
I'm simply pointing out that you can ignore the science all you wish, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter that global warming IS occurring, it IS having severe, real-time, current day impacts on people, economies, ecosystems, and will continue to do so, at an accelerating pace, so long as we chose to ignore it.
Me: you just admitted that the story took on a life of its own. Why do you think that was? Clearly it was to brand all Christians as kooks and extremists.
I guess the issue is, whose ox is being gored.
S.B.: I don't think I agree with your characterization, Rich. I had plenty of Christian friends who were ridiculing the predictions while simultaneously disavowing themselves and their Faith from Camping. I don't know if you've noticed, but people are also making fun of the Incan predictions for the end of the world in 2012 -- part of a world-wide conspiracy to brand all indigenous peoples as kooks and extremists?
Or simply some gallows humor for dark times?
Me: But the rapture is a mainstream belief of a large portion of Christianity. And the polar ice caps melting is a widely held tenet of global warming.
That places them on the same footing, and ridicule of each is fair game.
S.B.: Rich, if you REALLY think that religious/spiritual predictions and scientific ones ought to be held to the same degree of scrutiny, or even discussed as remotely similar -- I think we understand both world views quite differently from one another.
The similarity between the two is quite superficial, and I think you're smart enough to know that. But if you want to claim an equivlance here, then I'll cede the point, because I can't argue with a red herring argument.
Me: You consistently want to take this to a higher level of analysis that is not warranted by the context. The sole basis of your objection seems to be that science is somehow sacrosanct, while religion doesn't rise to the level of intelligent thought.
I don't accept the premise that global warming alarmists can't be mocked because it is science.
S.B.: If you read my earlier post, I said that I have no argument that some extreme predictions are not worth mocking. But the author goes beyond that and in the quoted section suggests that the extremists ARE the mainstream
And that is bullshit, and deserves to be countered.
R.W.: I want to jump in but am enjoying the discussion too much to ruin it.
B.R.: Ditto.
Me: I guess the profanity seals the argument.
S.B.: no, just expresses my frustration at the effort to equate science and religion too closely, Rich. They are entirely different ways of dealing with the world, and attempts to treat them too much alike does neither of them any favors.
Science's JOB is to make predictions about the world -- and it does it very well. We can make accurate predictions about the position of a sattellite, even accounting for relativistic effects, and that allows us to use that sattellite as a channel for communications -- if the predictions made by science (and it's cousin, technology) weren't right nearly all of the time, then we wouldn't be having this discussion right now because we'd have no way to reliably exchange information.
Religion doesn't have such a track record. Perhaps one day we'll find that the predictions it DOES make, turn out to be true -- but it exists largely in a sphere outside/beyond proof.
So while science is not sacrosanct, and certainly scientists do make errors in both fact and judgment -- it has proved remarkably effective at making predictions about the world that are both verifiable, and incredibly precise.
I think if anything, one of the things that brought Camping so much attention and ridicule is his effort to predict, with scientific precision, that which most Christians will tell you the Scriptures say cannot be predicted: the time at which the end arrives.
Me: I have resisted your efforts to "...equate science and religion too closely..." I have made no assertions regarding the issues of veracity. I have made no claim about religion.
It is you who wants to conflate the two on the simple basis that someone is mocking your sacred cow.
Scott, there is no part of science that should not be mocked. Certainly no part of religion has escaped mocking.
I really don't care how good science is at predicting things. It is irrelevant to the conversation. I really don't care if religion hasn't demonstrated scientific rigor. None of it matters.
Science has assumed this mantle of unquestionable veracity and gravitas that is worthy of parody. Indeed, this untouchable status is ultimately bad for science as dissenters are beat down and silenced.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Walter E. Williams - My Hero explaining wealth creation
Understanding the liberal vision
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 18, 2011
By Walter Williams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The liberal vision of government is easily understood and makes perfect sense if one acknowledges their misunderstanding and implied assumptions about the sources of income. Their vision helps explain the language they use and policies they support, such as income redistribution and calls for the rich to give something back.
Suppose the true source of income was a gigantic pile of money meant to be shared equally amongst Americans. The reason some people have more money than others is because they got to the pile first and greedily took an unfair share. That being the case, justice requires that the rich give something back, and if they won't do so voluntarily, Congress should confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners.
A competing liberal implied assumption about the sources of income is that income is distributed, as in distribution of income. There might be a dealer of dollars. The reason why some people have more dollars than others is because the dollar dealer is a racist, a sexist, a multinationalist or a conservative. The only right thing to do, for those to whom the dollar dealer unfairly dealt too many dollars, is to give back their ill-gotten gains. If they refuse to do so, then it's the job of Congress to use their agents at the IRS to confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners. In a word, there must be a re-dealing of the dollars, or what some people call income redistribution.
The sane among us recognize that in a free society, income is neither taken nor distributed; for the most part, it is earned. Income is earned by pleasing one's fellow man. The greater one's ability to please his fellow man, the greater is his claim on what his fellow man produces. Those claims are represented by the number of dollars received from his fellow man.
Say I mow your lawn. For doing so, you pay me $20. I go to my grocer and demand, "Give me two pounds of steak and a six-pack of beer that my fellow man produced." In effect, the grocer asks, "Williams, you're asking your fellow man to serve you. Did you serve him?" I reply, "Yes." The grocer says, "Prove it."
That's when I pull out the $20 I earned from serving my fellow man. We can think of that $20 as "certificates of performance." They stand as proof that I served my fellow man. It would be no different if I were an orthopedic doctor, with a large clientele, earning $500,000 per year by serving my fellow man. By the way, having mowed my fellow man's lawn or set his fractured fibula, what else do I owe him or anyone else? What's the case for being forced to give anything back? If one wishes to be charitable, that's an entirely different matter.
Contrast the morality of having to serve one's fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces with congressional handouts. In effect, Congress says, "You don't have to serve your fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces. We'll take what he produces and give it to you. Just vote for me."
Who should give back? Sam Walton founded Wal-Mart; Bill Gates founded Microsoft; Steve Jobs founded Apple Computer. Which one of these billionaires acquired their wealth by coercing us to purchase their product? Which has taken the property of anyone?
Each of these examples, and thousands more, is a person who served his fellow men by producing products and services that made life easier. What else do they owe? They've already given.
If anyone is obliged to give something back, they are the thieves and recipients of legalized theft, namely people who've used Congress, including America's corporate welfare queens, to live at the expense of others. When a nation vilifies the productive and makes mascots of the unproductive, it doesn't bode well for its future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 18, 2011
By Walter Williams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The liberal vision of government is easily understood and makes perfect sense if one acknowledges their misunderstanding and implied assumptions about the sources of income. Their vision helps explain the language they use and policies they support, such as income redistribution and calls for the rich to give something back.
Suppose the true source of income was a gigantic pile of money meant to be shared equally amongst Americans. The reason some people have more money than others is because they got to the pile first and greedily took an unfair share. That being the case, justice requires that the rich give something back, and if they won't do so voluntarily, Congress should confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners.
A competing liberal implied assumption about the sources of income is that income is distributed, as in distribution of income. There might be a dealer of dollars. The reason why some people have more dollars than others is because the dollar dealer is a racist, a sexist, a multinationalist or a conservative. The only right thing to do, for those to whom the dollar dealer unfairly dealt too many dollars, is to give back their ill-gotten gains. If they refuse to do so, then it's the job of Congress to use their agents at the IRS to confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners. In a word, there must be a re-dealing of the dollars, or what some people call income redistribution.
The sane among us recognize that in a free society, income is neither taken nor distributed; for the most part, it is earned. Income is earned by pleasing one's fellow man. The greater one's ability to please his fellow man, the greater is his claim on what his fellow man produces. Those claims are represented by the number of dollars received from his fellow man.
Say I mow your lawn. For doing so, you pay me $20. I go to my grocer and demand, "Give me two pounds of steak and a six-pack of beer that my fellow man produced." In effect, the grocer asks, "Williams, you're asking your fellow man to serve you. Did you serve him?" I reply, "Yes." The grocer says, "Prove it."
That's when I pull out the $20 I earned from serving my fellow man. We can think of that $20 as "certificates of performance." They stand as proof that I served my fellow man. It would be no different if I were an orthopedic doctor, with a large clientele, earning $500,000 per year by serving my fellow man. By the way, having mowed my fellow man's lawn or set his fractured fibula, what else do I owe him or anyone else? What's the case for being forced to give anything back? If one wishes to be charitable, that's an entirely different matter.
Contrast the morality of having to serve one's fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces with congressional handouts. In effect, Congress says, "You don't have to serve your fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces. We'll take what he produces and give it to you. Just vote for me."
Who should give back? Sam Walton founded Wal-Mart; Bill Gates founded Microsoft; Steve Jobs founded Apple Computer. Which one of these billionaires acquired their wealth by coercing us to purchase their product? Which has taken the property of anyone?
Each of these examples, and thousands more, is a person who served his fellow men by producing products and services that made life easier. What else do they owe? They've already given.
If anyone is obliged to give something back, they are the thieves and recipients of legalized theft, namely people who've used Congress, including America's corporate welfare queens, to live at the expense of others. When a nation vilifies the productive and makes mascots of the unproductive, it doesn't bode well for its future.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Editorial, extreme evironmentalism
The Bozeman City Council recently passed a green initiative, and that got me thinking. No reasonable person is in favor of pollution. Everyone wants a clean environment. So why is there acrimony over this issue? I conclude that it is really about a clash of world views.
Let’s start with the conservative/libertarian worldview. It is based on property rights, the foundational concept of our society. The 5th Amendment makes specific mention of our right to the lawful possession and enjoyment of our property, unencumbered by undue governmental interference.
But unfortunately, some people pollute. Or rather, everyone pollutes, but some exceed an “acceptable” level of pollution. Polluting violates property rights by diminishing and devaluing property. And property is not just our stuff, it is also our bodies, and by extension, our health. Essentially, the polluter is a thief, stealing the use of other peoples’ property.
We have recourse for property rights violations. Prosecuting criminals is one of the proper functions of government. But alas, The City Council’s green initiatives exceed this simple duty, yielding unfortunate side effects. These initiatives will negatively impact commerce and individual liberty, while simultaneously imposing an indirect tax, the cost of which is ultimately borne by the end consumer.
They have aligned themselves with extreme environmentalists. and it is that worldview we need to worry about. Extreme environmentalists do not seem to be particularly concerned with government intrusion or property rights. In fact, they welcome the coercive power of government to further their objectives, and can’t imagine solutions that don’t demand a government program.
This means the average citizen, pursing his private, legal interests, takes a back seat to someone else’s priorities. Property rights are actually an obstacle: “Imagine no possessions; I wonder if you can…” Government takes precedence in it its holy, enlightened goal of preserving the environment - - well, the environment in its present form.
Ah, yes. This is key. The species and ecosystems we have now are regarded as optimum. Human-caused change is arbitrarily deemed unacceptable. Thus, any change in the environmental status quo is prima facie evidence of environmental destruction.
The extreme environmentalist therefore charges humankind with the moral responsibility to save the planet as it is now. Certainly, the moral values of the extreme environmentalist are happily imposed on others.
This moralism is almost religious in nature. According to this religion, humans are regarded as pollutants, a hostile life form, something that impedes the natural order of things. More specifically, it is western society, namely America., which is the real problem.
These moral obligations are quite arduous in their specificity. Conformity to environmental dogma is demanded. Yet the goals themselves seem nebulous and vague, if stated at all. For example, what is the optimum global average temperature? How much do we need to shrink our carbon footprint? What level of carbon emissions is acceptable? Has the City Council even asked such questions?
I suspect that there are no benchmarks to determine success because success is not the goal. The goals are to obtain an artificial naturalness, to remake society, and especially, to minimize humanity. This hostility to humanity is hinted at every time an environmentalist talks about population control, using euphemisms like “family planning,” “carbon footprint,” and “sustainable living.” One might justifiably wonder if they think the ideal number of humans is zero.
The extreme environmentalist even wants to go so far as to give the planet itself rights. Bolivia is considering legislation, called the Law of Mother Earth, which would grant preeminent rights to the planet. Earth is an entity with feelings, emotions, and now, rights.
These are extreme views. Contrasted with the more balanced, thoughtful, conservative viewpoint, the environmentalist recognizes no limit in what is allowable for the sake of the planet. Using the excuse of a worthy cause, he embraces totalitarian means to achieve his end.
Sensible people naturally reject such extremism. Good for them.
Let’s start with the conservative/libertarian worldview. It is based on property rights, the foundational concept of our society. The 5th Amendment makes specific mention of our right to the lawful possession and enjoyment of our property, unencumbered by undue governmental interference.
But unfortunately, some people pollute. Or rather, everyone pollutes, but some exceed an “acceptable” level of pollution. Polluting violates property rights by diminishing and devaluing property. And property is not just our stuff, it is also our bodies, and by extension, our health. Essentially, the polluter is a thief, stealing the use of other peoples’ property.
We have recourse for property rights violations. Prosecuting criminals is one of the proper functions of government. But alas, The City Council’s green initiatives exceed this simple duty, yielding unfortunate side effects. These initiatives will negatively impact commerce and individual liberty, while simultaneously imposing an indirect tax, the cost of which is ultimately borne by the end consumer.
They have aligned themselves with extreme environmentalists. and it is that worldview we need to worry about. Extreme environmentalists do not seem to be particularly concerned with government intrusion or property rights. In fact, they welcome the coercive power of government to further their objectives, and can’t imagine solutions that don’t demand a government program.
This means the average citizen, pursing his private, legal interests, takes a back seat to someone else’s priorities. Property rights are actually an obstacle: “Imagine no possessions; I wonder if you can…” Government takes precedence in it its holy, enlightened goal of preserving the environment - - well, the environment in its present form.
Ah, yes. This is key. The species and ecosystems we have now are regarded as optimum. Human-caused change is arbitrarily deemed unacceptable. Thus, any change in the environmental status quo is prima facie evidence of environmental destruction.
The extreme environmentalist therefore charges humankind with the moral responsibility to save the planet as it is now. Certainly, the moral values of the extreme environmentalist are happily imposed on others.
This moralism is almost religious in nature. According to this religion, humans are regarded as pollutants, a hostile life form, something that impedes the natural order of things. More specifically, it is western society, namely America., which is the real problem.
These moral obligations are quite arduous in their specificity. Conformity to environmental dogma is demanded. Yet the goals themselves seem nebulous and vague, if stated at all. For example, what is the optimum global average temperature? How much do we need to shrink our carbon footprint? What level of carbon emissions is acceptable? Has the City Council even asked such questions?
I suspect that there are no benchmarks to determine success because success is not the goal. The goals are to obtain an artificial naturalness, to remake society, and especially, to minimize humanity. This hostility to humanity is hinted at every time an environmentalist talks about population control, using euphemisms like “family planning,” “carbon footprint,” and “sustainable living.” One might justifiably wonder if they think the ideal number of humans is zero.
The extreme environmentalist even wants to go so far as to give the planet itself rights. Bolivia is considering legislation, called the Law of Mother Earth, which would grant preeminent rights to the planet. Earth is an entity with feelings, emotions, and now, rights.
These are extreme views. Contrasted with the more balanced, thoughtful, conservative viewpoint, the environmentalist recognizes no limit in what is allowable for the sake of the planet. Using the excuse of a worthy cause, he embraces totalitarian means to achieve his end.
Sensible people naturally reject such extremism. Good for them.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Things not to do for retirement saving - MSN Money
It's so rare that I find something of value on my MSN home page, but here is some good stuff:
Many of us should be ramping up our efforts to save for retirement. But not all methods of saving money are worth the cost. Here are five retirement saving strategies that could actually leave you worse off in retirement.
Neglecting your health. Never neglect your health in exchange for saving more money. If you aren't healthy, there's really no point in having a bunch of money. When you feel dizzy and tired all the time, watching a bank balance with a bunch of digits is not going to help at all. A big part of a comfortable retirement involves having a healthy body. So consider what you are really sacrificing when you skip preventive care or eat unhealthy food to save a few dollars now.
Saving instead of paying off credit card debt. Whether you should save for retirement or pay off debt is an age-old question. But high-interest credit card debt should always be eliminated first. It doesn't make sense to try earning a modest return while paying 20 percent a year or more for interest.
Saving in ways you can't openly talk about. If you can't comfortably talk about how you are saving money for your retirement, then it might not be worth the cost. It would be difficult to live a comfortable retirement knowing you had to cheat others to obtain it. If you have to steal or scam your way into your millions, you will eventually regret it. You will enjoy your retirement more knowing that you obtained it through honest and legitimate hard work.
Making today miserable. Saving for tomorrow involves accepting the idea of delayed gratification. But while the future is important, you need to have some fun today, too. Don't forget about retirement, but also remember that you have to live a little. Money isn't for hoarding.
Never giving. Practically everyone in our society can afford to give. If money is tight, we can probably afford to donate our time through volunteer work. We are truly lucky to have a hot meal on our table every day and have many luxuries in our lives that we often take for granted. Giving will bring you a lifetime of incredible memories, which is much more meaningful than a few numbers in a bank statement. Retirement planning is an important aspect of our lives. But contributing to a 401k account should never be your No. 1 priority, unless you want to miss out on a lot in life.
http://money.msn.com/retirement-plan/5-worst-ways-to-save-for-retirement-usnews.aspx
Many of us should be ramping up our efforts to save for retirement. But not all methods of saving money are worth the cost. Here are five retirement saving strategies that could actually leave you worse off in retirement.
Neglecting your health. Never neglect your health in exchange for saving more money. If you aren't healthy, there's really no point in having a bunch of money. When you feel dizzy and tired all the time, watching a bank balance with a bunch of digits is not going to help at all. A big part of a comfortable retirement involves having a healthy body. So consider what you are really sacrificing when you skip preventive care or eat unhealthy food to save a few dollars now.
Saving instead of paying off credit card debt. Whether you should save for retirement or pay off debt is an age-old question. But high-interest credit card debt should always be eliminated first. It doesn't make sense to try earning a modest return while paying 20 percent a year or more for interest.
Saving in ways you can't openly talk about. If you can't comfortably talk about how you are saving money for your retirement, then it might not be worth the cost. It would be difficult to live a comfortable retirement knowing you had to cheat others to obtain it. If you have to steal or scam your way into your millions, you will eventually regret it. You will enjoy your retirement more knowing that you obtained it through honest and legitimate hard work.
Making today miserable. Saving for tomorrow involves accepting the idea of delayed gratification. But while the future is important, you need to have some fun today, too. Don't forget about retirement, but also remember that you have to live a little. Money isn't for hoarding.
Never giving. Practically everyone in our society can afford to give. If money is tight, we can probably afford to donate our time through volunteer work. We are truly lucky to have a hot meal on our table every day and have many luxuries in our lives that we often take for granted. Giving will bring you a lifetime of incredible memories, which is much more meaningful than a few numbers in a bank statement. Retirement planning is an important aspect of our lives. But contributing to a 401k account should never be your No. 1 priority, unless you want to miss out on a lot in life.
http://money.msn.com/retirement-plan/5-worst-ways-to-save-for-retirement-usnews.aspx
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Chronicle editorial, My liberal public school education
It was the mid-seventies, a time when the tried-and-true traditional approaches to education, society, and morals were being revised (some might say dismantled) by the political left. I attended a “progressive” high school. No tests or grades, only a “go/no go” rating. I graduated 4th out of 325 having never taken a course in American history, literature, civics, or foreign language. You could say I experienced educational malpractice.
Imagine my shock when I arrived at college. So I played catch-up, hit the books, and eventually majored in music. Musicians seem to be predominately liberal, so it shouldn’t be surprising that the music department was a bastion of liberal philosophy. Being nominally liberal myself, I fit right in with the required intellectual conformity.
I graduated with a teaching certificate and taught K-12 band and choir for five years. And voilà, there was liberal conformity in the teachers lounge as well. We all agreed about politics, lack of funding, too large class sizes, and nosey parents who actually wanted to know what their children were being taught.
Fast forward to today. Things haven’t changed much. Same complaints, same structures, same philosophies. What has changed is that I saw the light and became a conservative. Now, we conservatives value education, we are simply skeptical of government experts, bureaucrats isolated in their cubicles thousands of miles away, deciding the fate of our children. That is not unreasonable skepticism.
There are some who assert that parents ought to bow out and let these experts handle things. Nope, not when we are the ones writing the check. Schools are funded by our tax dollars, so we have all the justification we need to get involved. This is not anti-education, it is prudence. Government serves the people, not the other way around.
Most would agree that public schools have a growing image problem, sometimes deserved, sometimes not. But there are times when they shoot themselves in the foot. The big news always is when poor schools fail spectacularly, but rather than taking steps to fix the problem, schools too often circle the wagons.
I do hear good things Bozeman schools, but some of what I read makes me wonder. For example, a student was recently featured on the Chronicle’s front page, not for his accomplishments, but because of who he sleeps with. And one of the elementary schools is regularly featured engaging in their latest multicultural love-fest. Hawk Tawk, the school newspaper, contains a lot of rote regurgitation of political talking points, both left and right.
Actually, I have no real problem with any of this if that’s what the parents want from their schools. However, I have personally experienced what happens when schools lose sight of their primary function, and as a result I’m sensitive to the follies of public school education.
Given that Bozeman schools are reporting their perennial budget shortfall (which actually means funding was increased, but the budget was increased more) one might think that certain priorities would begin to take precedence. But a lot of stuff that schools do is because of entrenched attitudes, imposed requirements, and systemic inefficiencies. That is hard to change.
Getting the feds out would certainly help. The feds bring nothing good, unless you like cash with strings attached, like No Child Left Behind. Couple those mandates with court decisions and progressive activists foisting their novel educational theories upon our little citizens of the world and it’s a wonder any educating gets done at all.
But mostly, the system needs to change. Perhaps ironically, it is public education that is probably doing the best job with taxpayer money, while most other government programs are failing before our eyes. It is probably because the schools are the closest thing to us, where we as citizens have the most influence. That localism is a strength that needs to be enhanced.
A change in the status quo could benefit everyone. That makes me a supporter of education, but a critic of the system.
Imagine my shock when I arrived at college. So I played catch-up, hit the books, and eventually majored in music. Musicians seem to be predominately liberal, so it shouldn’t be surprising that the music department was a bastion of liberal philosophy. Being nominally liberal myself, I fit right in with the required intellectual conformity.
I graduated with a teaching certificate and taught K-12 band and choir for five years. And voilà, there was liberal conformity in the teachers lounge as well. We all agreed about politics, lack of funding, too large class sizes, and nosey parents who actually wanted to know what their children were being taught.
Fast forward to today. Things haven’t changed much. Same complaints, same structures, same philosophies. What has changed is that I saw the light and became a conservative. Now, we conservatives value education, we are simply skeptical of government experts, bureaucrats isolated in their cubicles thousands of miles away, deciding the fate of our children. That is not unreasonable skepticism.
There are some who assert that parents ought to bow out and let these experts handle things. Nope, not when we are the ones writing the check. Schools are funded by our tax dollars, so we have all the justification we need to get involved. This is not anti-education, it is prudence. Government serves the people, not the other way around.
Most would agree that public schools have a growing image problem, sometimes deserved, sometimes not. But there are times when they shoot themselves in the foot. The big news always is when poor schools fail spectacularly, but rather than taking steps to fix the problem, schools too often circle the wagons.
I do hear good things Bozeman schools, but some of what I read makes me wonder. For example, a student was recently featured on the Chronicle’s front page, not for his accomplishments, but because of who he sleeps with. And one of the elementary schools is regularly featured engaging in their latest multicultural love-fest. Hawk Tawk, the school newspaper, contains a lot of rote regurgitation of political talking points, both left and right.
Actually, I have no real problem with any of this if that’s what the parents want from their schools. However, I have personally experienced what happens when schools lose sight of their primary function, and as a result I’m sensitive to the follies of public school education.
Given that Bozeman schools are reporting their perennial budget shortfall (which actually means funding was increased, but the budget was increased more) one might think that certain priorities would begin to take precedence. But a lot of stuff that schools do is because of entrenched attitudes, imposed requirements, and systemic inefficiencies. That is hard to change.
Getting the feds out would certainly help. The feds bring nothing good, unless you like cash with strings attached, like No Child Left Behind. Couple those mandates with court decisions and progressive activists foisting their novel educational theories upon our little citizens of the world and it’s a wonder any educating gets done at all.
But mostly, the system needs to change. Perhaps ironically, it is public education that is probably doing the best job with taxpayer money, while most other government programs are failing before our eyes. It is probably because the schools are the closest thing to us, where we as citizens have the most influence. That localism is a strength that needs to be enhanced.
A change in the status quo could benefit everyone. That makes me a supporter of education, but a critic of the system.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Juvenile name calling - FB conversation
Please note that the person being responded to has deleted all of her posts.
I posted this: "Our enemies are not big spending Democrats, they're big spending Republicans."
J.W.: How about big spending politicians in general? Republicans and Democrats just differ (somewhat) on what they want to spend everyone else's money on.
R.K.: That's why WE are free! Freedom is not Free.
Me: Exactly, J.W. Too many have bought into the repub vs. demo debate. They all spend our money without restraint or common sense.
Me: Kelly, defense is a constitutionally mandated duty of government. Of course, spreading democracy and nation building are not. We need to get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and now, Libya.
However, military spending is a red herring. What is bankrupting us is Medicare, Medicade, and Social security. Those programs, plus the cost of interest on the debt, account for nearly all of the 2 trillion the govt receives in revenue. All the rest is borrowed.
And now S & P downgraded our bond rating. Slide continues...
R.K.: I don't Glenn Beck, Sara Palin or Banners. (country music occasionally, I prefer Rock & Roll or Classical) So what are all of these free countries that don't have military budgets?
Me: Kelly, feel free to ignore my comment and restate your position as often as you like.
Me: Kelly, I don't know you at all, you must be a friend of a friend. However, in the circles I travel in people converse and debate by stating a position and pointing out specifically where they disagree with each other.
Nor do they engage in juvenile name-calling.
My post from 17 hours ago contains several factual statements. If you think they're wrong, cite your sources. Simply repeating your unsupported assertion is insufficient. If you want to engage in a civil conversation, you will have to do better.
Me: Kelly writes, then deletes: "If anyone is really curious enough they could simply google your "facts" to verify if they're true. I've done so, have not found anything to substantiate anything you say, so have opted to delete my posts. I don't really want to argue with you. Would appreciate it if you would bow out as well."
Me: This is my thread, why should I bow out?
Expenditures, 2010: $3.456 trillion
Social Security is 20.6% of that
Medicare, 13.2%
Medicaid, 7.2%
Welfare, 9%
Interest on debt, 6.5%
Total: 56.5% = $1.953 trillion
Revenues, 2010: $2.163 trillion
I quote myself: "Those programs, plus the cost of interest on the debt, account for nearly all of the 2 trillion the govt receives in revenue. All the rest is borrowed." Therefore, a true statement.
I posted this: "Our enemies are not big spending Democrats, they're big spending Republicans."
J.W.: How about big spending politicians in general? Republicans and Democrats just differ (somewhat) on what they want to spend everyone else's money on.
R.K.: That's why WE are free! Freedom is not Free.
Me: Exactly, J.W. Too many have bought into the repub vs. demo debate. They all spend our money without restraint or common sense.
Me: Kelly, defense is a constitutionally mandated duty of government. Of course, spreading democracy and nation building are not. We need to get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and now, Libya.
However, military spending is a red herring. What is bankrupting us is Medicare, Medicade, and Social security. Those programs, plus the cost of interest on the debt, account for nearly all of the 2 trillion the govt receives in revenue. All the rest is borrowed.
And now S & P downgraded our bond rating. Slide continues...
R.K.: I don't Glenn Beck, Sara Palin or Banners. (country music occasionally, I prefer Rock & Roll or Classical) So what are all of these free countries that don't have military budgets?
Me: Kelly, feel free to ignore my comment and restate your position as often as you like.
Me: Kelly, I don't know you at all, you must be a friend of a friend. However, in the circles I travel in people converse and debate by stating a position and pointing out specifically where they disagree with each other.
Nor do they engage in juvenile name-calling.
My post from 17 hours ago contains several factual statements. If you think they're wrong, cite your sources. Simply repeating your unsupported assertion is insufficient. If you want to engage in a civil conversation, you will have to do better.
Me: Kelly writes, then deletes: "If anyone is really curious enough they could simply google your "facts" to verify if they're true. I've done so, have not found anything to substantiate anything you say, so have opted to delete my posts. I don't really want to argue with you. Would appreciate it if you would bow out as well."
Me: This is my thread, why should I bow out?
Expenditures, 2010: $3.456 trillion
Social Security is 20.6% of that
Medicare, 13.2%
Medicaid, 7.2%
Welfare, 9%
Interest on debt, 6.5%
Total: 56.5% = $1.953 trillion
Revenues, 2010: $2.163 trillion
I quote myself: "Those programs, plus the cost of interest on the debt, account for nearly all of the 2 trillion the govt receives in revenue. All the rest is borrowed." Therefore, a true statement.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Another whiny column about men: The 17 Most Annoying Male Habits, Explained Every day,
Found here.
There are SEVENTEEN of these. I couldn't even bear posting all 17. Is it any wonder the world is in such trouble when whiny, self-involved, nit-picky women are given legitimacy and attention in places like MSN? At least they let a man answer the questions rather than have some female PHD psychologist explain to us how men are pigs.
-------------------
REDBOOK readers email columnist Aaron Traister to ask questions about the men in their lives: Why is it so hard for him to spit out the words "I'm sorry"? Is my husband the only man in the world who doesn't want to have sex? And what's up with that wiry hair protruding from his left nostril?! Aaron answers online, kind of like individual counseling, but we decided it was time for group therapy. It helps just to know you're not alone!
Selective Hearing Q: Why does my husband remember so many things about sports but nothing I told him yesterday?
Our relationship with sports predates our relationship with you by many, many years. I remember exactly where I was when the Phillies lost the 1993 World Series; I know who I was with and what I did when the Eagles converted fourth and 26 against the Green Bay Packers (I jumped on my friend's back and rode him around my living room). We've been fluent in sports forever, whereas we've only been speaking feelings and to-do lists for a few years.
Q: Should I be worried if my husband has an "office wife"?
I would be if I discovered that Karel had another spouse, office or otherwise. I think a guy's asking for trouble at home and at work if he has a relationship with a colleague that is intimate enough to involve the word wife. Men aren't always good at answering tough relationship questions, like: Is it okay for me to go out to lunch alone with my "office wife"? What about drinks after work, even with a group? Is it awkward if we have to travel together? Will coworkers get the wrong idea? Heck, I'm not sure even a woman could answer these, which is why I prefer to leave all forms of polygamy to Big Love.
Q: Why does my husband swing our kids around and shake them upside down when he knows they just ate or need to go to sleep?
Reason 1: Children are easier to chase and catch when they're trying to digest or are just about ready for bed. That post-dinner sleepiness also means that when your husband throws them around, he's less likely to get a flailing knee to the head or hyper-toddler-energy-fueled elbow to the crotch. Those are things I take into account before I jostle my kids around.
Reason 2: When your husband sees the finish line for the kids' day, he gets excited. For me, it's like I'm running a 5K and I get a burst of energy when I know I've reached the last mile. I love my kids, but I want them to go to sleep so that I can have some time with my wife, alone. When I know that moment is near, I feel like jumping for joy, or ... grabbing my kids, tossing them in the air, attacking them with a pillow, wrestling them to the ground, flipping them over, and generally shaking them up like a bottle of seltzer left in a Volkswagen on the hottest day of the year.
Q: Why won't men say they're sorry? "I'm sorry you're upset" doesn't count!
We're stubborn. Saying sorry is admitting we're wrong and that we take responsibility for whatever is blowing up in our relationship or our life. In fact, the more wrong I know I am, the less likely I am to say, "I'm sorry." Chalk it up to the "man of the house" hangover, but many of us still struggle with the idea that our word is no longer the final word. We are a generation of guys who saw that our grandfathers, and in some cases our fathers, never had to apologize to their wives for anything, even when it was obvious to everyone they were wrong. Progress is hard. Um, sorry.
Q: Do guys really think women look better without makeup?
I really do think women look better without makeup. However, when Karel read this, she told me I had no idea what I was talking about, and that what I think is "no makeup" is actually "natural makeup." I'm not sure what natural makeup involves, but Karel is probably right on this one.
Q: Do men not notice when they have a single, extra-long eyebrow (or nose, or ear) hair? Or do they know it's there but just don't care?
Yes, I notice all my weird hairs, rashes and boils. I'm comfortable with my body and its imperfections. Most guys are much less disturbed by the things women find so gross on their own bodies, and unless we're single and trying to attract an easily repulsed member of the opposite sex, a lot of us let things slide. There just isn't as much pressure for coupled-up guys to look a certain way. Plus, now that we're married, Karel tweezes, plucks, pokes and trims all my freakish growths long before they start to bother me.
Q: Why can't men tolerate hearing anything negative about their moms?
Moms are sacred to us because they were the first women in our lives, and they spent most of their youth keeping us fed, healthy and happy - and many of them sacrificed a lot to do so. Also, most of us put our mothers through hell with worry in our teens and have been trying to make up for it ever since, and your negativity isn't helping. But mostly, no guy wants to hear the woman he loves ripping on the other woman he loves. So leave his mom alone, unless she's egregiously overstepping boundaries and intruding on your life as a couple, and then broach it veeery slowly, and be veeery careful in your choice of words.
Q: Why does he put the moves on me when he can see I'm in a terrible mood?
Because sex is like a combination of penicillin and Zoloft for men: It's a cure-all and antidepressant rolled into one. We just assume the same is true for you. Your mom's in the hospital for hip-replacement surgery? Sex will cheer you up. Worried about getting laid off? Getting laid will take your mind off it. Here comes the comet? Let's have sex - at least we'll go out with a bang. Your guy isn't being selfish; he really wants to help, and he's suggesting something he thinks will be mutually beneficial. If you are positive a quickie won't boost your mood, let him down easy, or you may wind up with two foul-tempered people.
Q: Why do men sit with their legs splayed at a 100-degree angle?
It's very hard to explain how uncomfortable it is to keep your legs closed to a group of people who don't have penises.
Q: What does he have against my friends?
He may not have anything against them - he just can't keep them straight. I have two friends, and my wife loves them. Karel has a million friends: college besties, high school besties, work friends, mom friends. You guys have deep relationships and superficial ones that look almost identical. I think our attitude is interpreted as cold when, in fact, it is confused. We don't understand your level of investment in some of your friendships, so we're not sure what our level of investment should be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)