I posted this tidbit: "$15T Federal Debt Equals $160,545 for Each Full-Time Private-Sector American."
S.B.: last time I looked, I, along with my fellow public sector employees, paid income taxes, federal excise taxes, state taxes, etc -- just like those private sector folks! So what does the pro-rationing to "per private sector American" accomplish?
Me: Because the private sector wage earners supply the funding for everything else, including the money that the government takes back from you after they pay you.
S.B.: but the debt is just as much mine, or your local cop, firefighter, or teacher (or insert your other favorite public sector leach on society here) as it is any of those people's. And we contribute equally to paying it down.
Me: I would take issue with the assertion that it is anyone's direct responsibility. But granting you that, it still remains that every single dollar a public sector employee receives in wages and benefits came from the private sector. If we follow the money trail, the taxes you pay were sourced from someone else, placed in government coffers, and then issued to you only to be taken back by the government.
S.B.: and I don't get your point, Rich, if there is one. Clearly we have government for a purpose. Most would argue that government is merely ONE way that we collectively organize to do things that we cannot do individually -- whether that be a space program, fire protection, national defense, etc.
If your implication is that somehow, none of this provides any societal value, then I would say that there's really nothing to argue about -- I wouldn't be working for the gov't if I believed that -- just as I found it hard working for private sector companies that had no higher purpose than providing a return on investment to their shareholders. A position, incidentally, which I don't expect you to embrace.
I am proud of being on the government payroll; what I do has value and I make no apologies for it. I am a productive member of society and if you are implying that I am anything less because I chose a career of doing science in the public interest, then I don't know what to tell you.
Me: You seem to assume I'm making some sort of value judgment, either about you, or about federal workers in general. However, I have pointedly and specifically dealt with a particular economic reality of who pays for what.
I note that you have yet to address that single point, instead making an emotional appeal. It makes me wonder, do you have a rebuttal?
May I also point out that I have not brought up anything about the value of government. Nor have I discussed anything regarding the societal value of government work. Indeed, I have no intention of making a defense of things I did not write about.
So, if you want to actually discuss the crippling nature of the national debt, that would be refreshingly on topic.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Cell phone follies - making distraction illegal but changing nothing - editorial
The Chronicle reports that the Bozeman Commissioners passed an ordinance prohibiting the use of cell phones while driving. Commissioner Carson Taylor was quoted, saying. "Using a cell phone when you're driving is dangerous." We do not know if he provided evidence for his statement, but my guess is that he did not.
Probably because there isn’t any. Statistically speaking, it is not dangerous. The article says that “…5,474 people died and another 448,000 were hurt in crashes involving all forms of distracted driving in 2009.” After a brief search I found that 18% were attributed to hand-held devices. That would be 985 deaths and 80,640 injuries nationwide.
From this we can calculate per capita deaths and injuries in Bozeman caused by drivers distracted by cell phones. The number of deaths per year is basically zero, and injuries, less than 10. In other words, the Commissioners solved a problem that statistically doesn’t exist.
Lacking actual danger to the populace, the Commission legislated against what might happen as a result of engaging in an activity that could be dangerous and might cause injury. Therefore, the law is predicated on the consequence of two, maybe three antecedents. This is akin to outlawing television because there is a boiling pot of food on the stove that could start a fire and kill everyone in the house.
But what is really unfortunate is that the Bozeman Municipal Code already covers the issue: “A person operating or driving a vehicle of any character on the ways of the city open to the public shall drive it in a careful and prudent manner...” (Section 36.03.260)
What, then, is the reason for the law? First, we can safely conclude that this is the pop culture issue de jour. Lacking statistical justification, the law is based on little more than emotion and anecdotes. Kinda like setting tax policy by what Warren Buffet says about his secretary. Second, the city will receive thousands of dollars of additional revenue.
So why the focus on cell phones? Why not some laws to prohibit having sex while driving, playing with your chimpanzee while driving, or listening to an Obama speech while driving? It is unknown why the Commission did not address these clearly dangerous activities.
The Commissioners, attentive to nothing more than feel-good politics, are nevertheless perfectly comfortable giving a pass to drivers breezing through stoplights and bicyclists going the wrong way down one way streets. Having spectacularly solved the Story Mansion situation, the transfer station problem, the parking crisis, the traffic camera question, and the impact fee issue, the Commission can carve yet another notch on the bedpost of nanny government. Well, maybe we’re not getting screwed, but it sure feels like it.
But it gets worse. Consider this troubling quote from the article: “Commissioner Chris Mehl stipulated that the law not go into effect any earlier than Jan. 17, so city officials have time to educate people.” Is anyone else bothered by the idea that we the people must be “educated” in order to ensure conformity? Who, exactly, is charged with taking us aside and educating us? And what does this education consist of?
Yeah, yeah, I know. I’m making too big a deal out of this; it’s just a little thing. But liberty requires eternal vigilance. We must notice when politicians, enamored of their ability to force people to do things, start passing behavior modification laws and then insist that people be indoctrinated to unblinkingly obey them.
Tyrants frequently think big and start small, and tyranny can manifest in degrees. A singular powerful dictator or overtly egregious actions are not necessary prerequisites. A bunch of small town commissioners legislating a small issue still qualifies, and still must be opposed.
These guys have too much power, and apparently, too much time on their hands.
---------------
Probably because there isn’t any. Statistically speaking, it is not dangerous. The article says that “…5,474 people died and another 448,000 were hurt in crashes involving all forms of distracted driving in 2009.” After a brief search I found that 18% were attributed to hand-held devices. That would be 985 deaths and 80,640 injuries nationwide.
From this we can calculate per capita deaths and injuries in Bozeman caused by drivers distracted by cell phones. The number of deaths per year is basically zero, and injuries, less than 10. In other words, the Commissioners solved a problem that statistically doesn’t exist.
Lacking actual danger to the populace, the Commission legislated against what might happen as a result of engaging in an activity that could be dangerous and might cause injury. Therefore, the law is predicated on the consequence of two, maybe three antecedents. This is akin to outlawing television because there is a boiling pot of food on the stove that could start a fire and kill everyone in the house.
But what is really unfortunate is that the Bozeman Municipal Code already covers the issue: “A person operating or driving a vehicle of any character on the ways of the city open to the public shall drive it in a careful and prudent manner...” (Section 36.03.260)
What, then, is the reason for the law? First, we can safely conclude that this is the pop culture issue de jour. Lacking statistical justification, the law is based on little more than emotion and anecdotes. Kinda like setting tax policy by what Warren Buffet says about his secretary. Second, the city will receive thousands of dollars of additional revenue.
So why the focus on cell phones? Why not some laws to prohibit having sex while driving, playing with your chimpanzee while driving, or listening to an Obama speech while driving? It is unknown why the Commission did not address these clearly dangerous activities.
The Commissioners, attentive to nothing more than feel-good politics, are nevertheless perfectly comfortable giving a pass to drivers breezing through stoplights and bicyclists going the wrong way down one way streets. Having spectacularly solved the Story Mansion situation, the transfer station problem, the parking crisis, the traffic camera question, and the impact fee issue, the Commission can carve yet another notch on the bedpost of nanny government. Well, maybe we’re not getting screwed, but it sure feels like it.
But it gets worse. Consider this troubling quote from the article: “Commissioner Chris Mehl stipulated that the law not go into effect any earlier than Jan. 17, so city officials have time to educate people.” Is anyone else bothered by the idea that we the people must be “educated” in order to ensure conformity? Who, exactly, is charged with taking us aside and educating us? And what does this education consist of?
Yeah, yeah, I know. I’m making too big a deal out of this; it’s just a little thing. But liberty requires eternal vigilance. We must notice when politicians, enamored of their ability to force people to do things, start passing behavior modification laws and then insist that people be indoctrinated to unblinkingly obey them.
Tyrants frequently think big and start small, and tyranny can manifest in degrees. A singular powerful dictator or overtly egregious actions are not necessary prerequisites. A bunch of small town commissioners legislating a small issue still qualifies, and still must be opposed.
These guys have too much power, and apparently, too much time on their hands.
---------------
Text of the article, posted here for fair use and discussion purposes:
Bozeman City Commission approves ban on hand-held cell phones while driving Story
The Bozeman City Commission voted 4-1 Monday night to adopt an ordinance banning the use of hand-held devices such as cell phones, laptop computers and GPS navigations systems while driving or bicycling.
"Using a cell phone when you're driving is dangerous," Commissioner Carson Taylor said.
"We're going to have to change the way that we do our business and the way that we communicate with others," Deputy Mayor Sean Becker said.
The commission will consider a second, final passage of the ordinance on Nov. 28. Commissioner Chris Mehl stipulated that the law not go into effect any earlier than Jan. 17, so city officials have time to educate people.
Mayor Jeff Krauss cast the lone vote "no."
"I'm voting ‘no' for the same reason I vote ‘yes' on things like individual rights," Krauss said.
Under the ordinance, if you're caught texting or talking on a hand-held cell phone while behind the wheel, you could be pulled over and fined $100. Using a hands-free communications device such as Bluetooth, however, is allowed.
Commissioners on Monday night changed language in the ordinance to exempt drivers on Interstate 90, who may not even realize they're in the city of Bozeman. Plus, highway patrol officers monitoring highways don't enforce each individual city's laws.
Commissioners also edited a section to allow hands-free users to touch their Bluetooth, or other device, so they can answer calls without violating the law.
Bozeman's ordinance is similar to laws in Butte-Silver Bow, Billings, Whitefish and Helena. Missoula has a ban on texting while driving.
Nine states, Washington D.C. and the Virgin Islands prohibit drivers from using hand-held cell phones, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association. No state bans hands-free cell phone use for the general public. Some states ban all cell phone use by novice and school bus drivers.
Sixteen people spoke during the public comment portion of Monday night's commission meeting.
Ann Justin opposed the law.
Bozeman City Commission approves ban on hand-held cell phones while driving Story
The Bozeman City Commission voted 4-1 Monday night to adopt an ordinance banning the use of hand-held devices such as cell phones, laptop computers and GPS navigations systems while driving or bicycling.
"Using a cell phone when you're driving is dangerous," Commissioner Carson Taylor said.
"We're going to have to change the way that we do our business and the way that we communicate with others," Deputy Mayor Sean Becker said.
The commission will consider a second, final passage of the ordinance on Nov. 28. Commissioner Chris Mehl stipulated that the law not go into effect any earlier than Jan. 17, so city officials have time to educate people.
Mayor Jeff Krauss cast the lone vote "no."
"I'm voting ‘no' for the same reason I vote ‘yes' on things like individual rights," Krauss said.
Under the ordinance, if you're caught texting or talking on a hand-held cell phone while behind the wheel, you could be pulled over and fined $100. Using a hands-free communications device such as Bluetooth, however, is allowed.
Commissioners on Monday night changed language in the ordinance to exempt drivers on Interstate 90, who may not even realize they're in the city of Bozeman. Plus, highway patrol officers monitoring highways don't enforce each individual city's laws.
Commissioners also edited a section to allow hands-free users to touch their Bluetooth, or other device, so they can answer calls without violating the law.
Bozeman's ordinance is similar to laws in Butte-Silver Bow, Billings, Whitefish and Helena. Missoula has a ban on texting while driving.
Nine states, Washington D.C. and the Virgin Islands prohibit drivers from using hand-held cell phones, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association. No state bans hands-free cell phone use for the general public. Some states ban all cell phone use by novice and school bus drivers.
Sixteen people spoke during the public comment portion of Monday night's commission meeting.
Ann Justin opposed the law.
"I find being with my daughter in the car more distracting than talking on my phone - we're arguing about something," Justin said. "How about if you've got two 5-year-olds in the backseat? ... How about political discussions? ... How about eating a hamburger? There are many things that are more distracting, I think, than talking on the phone. I'm capable of doing that."
Gary Vodehnal, vice chairman of the city's Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee, said he recently witnessed a woman crash into another car while talking on her cell phone. She got out of her car, but stayed on the call until Vodehnal, who was bicycling behind her, approached her and suggested she call police.
Gary Vodehnal, vice chairman of the city's Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee, said he recently witnessed a woman crash into another car while talking on her cell phone. She got out of her car, but stayed on the call until Vodehnal, who was bicycling behind her, approached her and suggested she call police.
"She finally said into her phone, ‘Mom, I'm going to have to call you back. I need to take care of something,'" Vodehnal said.
Passing a "distracted-driving" ordinance "will improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers in our community," he said.
In an email to commissioners Monday, Bozeman resident Kent Madin criticized commissioners for allowing hands-free devices and not banning cell phone use entirely. He said the issue isn't whether both the driver's hands are on the wheel, he said.
"If it was, one-armed people couldn't get driver's licenses, nor could people with arms in slings, etc.," Madin said. "All cell phone use should be banned because of the amount of attention bandwidth the call consumes."
According to the federal Department of Transportation, 5,474 people died and another 448,000 were hurt in crashes involving all forms of distracted driving in 2009.
Using electronic devices while driving is distracting, but it's difficult to track how often using such devices causes crashes.
Sixty-three percent of drivers under age 30 acknowledge using a hand-held phone while behind the wheel, according to the DOT. Thirty percent said they've sent text messages while driving.
Amanda Ricker can be reached at aricker@dailychronicle.com
Passing a "distracted-driving" ordinance "will improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers in our community," he said.
In an email to commissioners Monday, Bozeman resident Kent Madin criticized commissioners for allowing hands-free devices and not banning cell phone use entirely. He said the issue isn't whether both the driver's hands are on the wheel, he said.
"If it was, one-armed people couldn't get driver's licenses, nor could people with arms in slings, etc.," Madin said. "All cell phone use should be banned because of the amount of attention bandwidth the call consumes."
According to the federal Department of Transportation, 5,474 people died and another 448,000 were hurt in crashes involving all forms of distracted driving in 2009.
Using electronic devices while driving is distracting, but it's difficult to track how often using such devices causes crashes.
Sixty-three percent of drivers under age 30 acknowledge using a hand-held phone while behind the wheel, according to the DOT. Thirty percent said they've sent text messages while driving.
Amanda Ricker can be reached at aricker@dailychronicle.com
Monday, November 14, 2011
"God does not use angels to accomplish His purposes." An analysis
A FB friend posted this quote, attributed to David Wilkerson: "God uses people. God uses people to perform His work. He does not send angels. Angels weep over it, but God does not use angels to accomplish His purposes. He uses burdened broken-hearted weeping men and women."
I don't accept things as easily as I used to. This quote, while seemingly insightful, struck me as odd. The person who posted it was, I believe, using it to encourage believers to serve God. That is noble and good. There is no doubt that God's people are prone to inaction and antipathy.
But there is something wrong as we continue reading past the first sentence. wilkerson appears to be suggesting that God will only use His people, and then only His people who are weeping and brokenhearted. I certainly accept that God has a unique and powerful calling to His Church to be His body, to do the things He has called us to, and to make a difference in this world. He has anointed His people, He dwells within them, He speaks to them and through them. Quite right.
However, we also know that God uses the ungodly, He uses animals, He uses weather and nature, and He even uses dark forces to accomplish His will. He brings calamity and pours out blessing. All things are in His hand, and every knee will bow. God is not a victim of happenstance. He is certainly not powerless outside the realm of His people.
And yes, God uses His angels. They're all over the Bible, doing battle, functioning as messengers, ministering to God's people. They're quite specifically being used by God to accomplish His purpose. There are dozens of mentions of angels doing all sorts of things. The Bible even refers to heavenly hosts. The term "hosts" translates as "armies." This begs the question, why would God have armies of angels, if they don't execute His purposes?
We now see that this is a bit more complicated. So what is Wilkerson really talking about? I searched around to find the context of the quote. Happily, I found the entire sermon posted here. The topic of Wilkerson's sermon is the backslidden Church, the Church that has compromised, that tolerates sin in its midst and accepts false teaching. Specifically, Wilkerson names the prosperity doctrine. Wilkerson's sermon has nothing at all to do with Christian service! It has everything to do with those who will take up the call to stand for Truth and Righteousness, those who will not tolerate false teaching, those who will weep over the sins of the Church and intercede for it.
And now we understand what Wilkerson is speaking about. He is not saying that only God's people are used by Him. Wilkerson is calling the Church to do its specific job. Only the people of God can deal with the problems in the Church. They are called to do this. The angels aren't.
I don't accept things as easily as I used to. This quote, while seemingly insightful, struck me as odd. The person who posted it was, I believe, using it to encourage believers to serve God. That is noble and good. There is no doubt that God's people are prone to inaction and antipathy.
But there is something wrong as we continue reading past the first sentence. wilkerson appears to be suggesting that God will only use His people, and then only His people who are weeping and brokenhearted. I certainly accept that God has a unique and powerful calling to His Church to be His body, to do the things He has called us to, and to make a difference in this world. He has anointed His people, He dwells within them, He speaks to them and through them. Quite right.
However, we also know that God uses the ungodly, He uses animals, He uses weather and nature, and He even uses dark forces to accomplish His will. He brings calamity and pours out blessing. All things are in His hand, and every knee will bow. God is not a victim of happenstance. He is certainly not powerless outside the realm of His people.
And yes, God uses His angels. They're all over the Bible, doing battle, functioning as messengers, ministering to God's people. They're quite specifically being used by God to accomplish His purpose. There are dozens of mentions of angels doing all sorts of things. The Bible even refers to heavenly hosts. The term "hosts" translates as "armies." This begs the question, why would God have armies of angels, if they don't execute His purposes?
We now see that this is a bit more complicated. So what is Wilkerson really talking about? I searched around to find the context of the quote. Happily, I found the entire sermon posted here. The topic of Wilkerson's sermon is the backslidden Church, the Church that has compromised, that tolerates sin in its midst and accepts false teaching. Specifically, Wilkerson names the prosperity doctrine. Wilkerson's sermon has nothing at all to do with Christian service! It has everything to do with those who will take up the call to stand for Truth and Righteousness, those who will not tolerate false teaching, those who will weep over the sins of the Church and intercede for it.
And now we understand what Wilkerson is speaking about. He is not saying that only God's people are used by Him. Wilkerson is calling the Church to do its specific job. Only the people of God can deal with the problems in the Church. They are called to do this. The angels aren't.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
I respond to some comments
These comments appeared on the Bozeman Chronicle website in answer to my recent column. I do want to dissect them a bit because of their astonishing fecklessness.
First, magicdragon: "I want him to post his tax forms so we all can see how much he writes off. When I was self employed, I was able to write off thousands that a man working for someone else could not. Does Rich pay a higher percent than his receptionist?"
This is the classic progressive mindset. This writer seems to think he is entitled to see my private financial records, apparently to determine if I pay enough taxes. So I'll make him a deal. If magicdragon would publish all the details of his sex life so that we can determine the appropriateness of his behavior and then penalize him for any, shall we say, inadequacies, I then would be happy to publish my tax records. In other words, it's none of his damn business.
If magicdragon was able to pay lower taxes as a result of being self-employed, he was guilty of tax evasion. A business owner pays both the employer and employee portions of Social Security on himself, rent, phone, postage, utilities, employee salaries and benefits, buys equipment, and of course, pays a plethora of taxes. If there is any money left, then the owner gets a paycheck.
Next, Sonechka: "According to manta.com: '[Rich's company] is a private company which is listed under insurance. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of $500,000 to $1 million and employs a staff of 1 to 4.' You can afford your taxes, Rich."
So this means, I assume, that the only relevant factor regarding taxes is affordability? This would mean that taxes can never be too high, unfair, illegal, or punitive if the target has the ability to pay them. It also suggests that government ought to have to power to determine who has too much money and take it from them.
Implicit in this is the idea that your wealth belongs to the government, who "kindly" allows you to keep some for yourself. However, the principle of private property is a founding concept of our country, an idea which separates us from the monarchy, where the people are subjects or serfs, and the King owns all property. The Constitution notes that we have the right to be secure in our persons and property.
First, magicdragon: "I want him to post his tax forms so we all can see how much he writes off. When I was self employed, I was able to write off thousands that a man working for someone else could not. Does Rich pay a higher percent than his receptionist?"
This is the classic progressive mindset. This writer seems to think he is entitled to see my private financial records, apparently to determine if I pay enough taxes. So I'll make him a deal. If magicdragon would publish all the details of his sex life so that we can determine the appropriateness of his behavior and then penalize him for any, shall we say, inadequacies, I then would be happy to publish my tax records. In other words, it's none of his damn business.
If magicdragon was able to pay lower taxes as a result of being self-employed, he was guilty of tax evasion. A business owner pays both the employer and employee portions of Social Security on himself, rent, phone, postage, utilities, employee salaries and benefits, buys equipment, and of course, pays a plethora of taxes. If there is any money left, then the owner gets a paycheck.
Next, Sonechka: "According to manta.com: '[Rich's company] is a private company which is listed under insurance. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of $500,000 to $1 million and employs a staff of 1 to 4.' You can afford your taxes, Rich."
So this means, I assume, that the only relevant factor regarding taxes is affordability? This would mean that taxes can never be too high, unfair, illegal, or punitive if the target has the ability to pay them. It also suggests that government ought to have to power to determine who has too much money and take it from them.
Implicit in this is the idea that your wealth belongs to the government, who "kindly" allows you to keep some for yourself. However, the principle of private property is a founding concept of our country, an idea which separates us from the monarchy, where the people are subjects or serfs, and the King owns all property. The Constitution notes that we have the right to be secure in our persons and property.
Monday, November 7, 2011
My response to Christine Montano
The thing I noticed first about Christine's letter to the editor is the total absence of name-calling. This alone makes it a noteworthy letter, since she makes her points with the substance of her arguments, not on pejorative language. Well done on that level, Christine.
However, the substance of her arguments must be based on the substance of my column. Does she refute things I actually addressed? And does she accurately represent them? Well, no. It seems that these simple criteria would not be unreasonable to expect of an English teacher at Bozeman High School.
Christine writes: "Unlike Rich, I have recently discovered that total self-reliance is impossible in today’s modern world." Unfortunately for her, I made no statement regarding "total self-reliance." The fact of the matter is that I do not believe that total self reliance is desirable, even if it were possible. True, there are some who make an effort to live "off the grid," but even they will rely on others at times. Nevertheless, there is little advantage in discussing a position that is not mine.
Christine continues: "Bill Anderson’s excellent essay titled “The Myth of Self-Reliance” made me question the viability of libertarianism today since, like it or not, we are interconnected as a society." So, Christine did not get the idea of "total self-reliance" from my column, she got it from Bill Anderson: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-myth-of-self-reliance/
I note for the record that Mr. Anderson never used the word "libertarian." His article references a magazine article, which he describes as advocating self sufficiency. He quotes a paragraph from it to establish his thesis that total self-reliance is not possible: "Before 1776 we were less than free as a country, but Americans were independent in a personal sense. Most people then built their own homes, grew their own food, made their furniture and clothes, and even bred their own horses for transportation. True, life was much harder than now. But the support systems were within reach of almost everyone, and were subject to individual control. People ‘paid’ for much of what they used with their own effort. Almost all the raw materials were renewable. Our material culture was sustainable, and America could be cut off from the rest of the world without the creation of much suffering or hardship... What can be done about our growing dependence in these modern times?"
Maybe I'm not seeing it, but there doesn't appear to be any advocacy of "total self-reliance" contained in the paragraph he quoted. Quite the contrary, this statement, "...but the support systems were within reach of almost everyone..." suggests just the opposite, that people did depend on each other. Hmm, maybe it's just me.
Beyond that, libertarians do not advocate total self-reliance. Perhaps a small few of them do, but it certainly is not a defining tenet of libertarianism. Libertarians do want to bring government down to its constitutional limits, they do want government out of their pockets and personal lives, and they do believe that they are better equipped to make decisions about their own lives. But libertarians are not anarchists or isolationists (except isolation from undue government interference).
Let's continue on to Christine's next point: "What are the long-term effects of “opting out” of local taxes as Rich suggests?" Actually, I did not suggest that we should have the ability to opt out. The point I made is that progressives are in favor of certain targeted taxes, like impact fees, but opposed to the idea of allowing other targeted taxes, based on nothing but political preferences. They like impact fees because these taxes target a villan, and also because they don't have to pay them. Conversely, they like general taxes like property taxes because property taxes support public schools, and they like public schools.
She asks, "What if we chopped down Bozeman’s trees to make more room for 'wonderful creations,' the office buildings Rich celebrates?" Well, people chop down trees all the time for a variety of reasons. But I did not advocate cutting down trees to build condos. All I did was question the tree maintenance tax, which I suppose is sufficent to make me anti-tree.
She continues: "What happens to property values and quality of life in a hardscape town of 'beautiful, useful' office condominiums?" So now I want ALL the trees cut down and office condos built everywhere! Do you see how this is escalating from my simple questioning of a tax? But let's run with the idea. Assume the Gallatin Valley was covered with forests. Eeevil capitalist developers came in and cut down a bunch of trees and built ugly office condos. Did the quality of life change? Yes, upwards. The reason those offices were built is because businesses need a place to operate from, and those businesses sell products and employ people and allow a better quality of life.
Trees, on the other hand, employ no one. They just sit there looking pretty. I would certainly agree that we need pretty things to look at to soften the hardscape, but I would suggest that the two are not mutually exclusive. In any event, since I am not anti-tree or pro-condo, it makes little sense to discuss the point any more.
Christine then pursues another non-sequitur: "What happens to our educated, literate workforce and local businesses when public education quality declines due to lack of funding?" Well, my column made no statement about the level of funding for public schools. We do know, however, that the worst schools in the country (largely located in progressive strongholds like Detroit and D.C.) are among the highest funded. So, there is no real "...correlation among literacy skills, education and criminal activity versus civic responsibility..." with school funding.
Once again, since I questioned a tax, in this case property taxes, it apparently makes me anti-education. This is a typical M.O. of the political left. Opposing or criticizing a tax or a government program is synonymous with opposing the goal of the tax or program. Therefore, suggesting tax reform is the same as being anti-education, hating blacks, tossing the poor out into the streets, starving our seniors, and misogyny.
It seems pretty obvious that she is drawing conclusions based on suppositions that are derived from the progressive template. It's not that I think she's dishonest, I think she's reflexively responding based on where she is immersed. She assumes they're true because she surrounds herself with like-minded people, and as a result generally restricts her exposure to contrary ideas. I believe she has rarely had a sit down with someone who has a different political point of view, or if she has, she doesn't like it when it happens.
I must say, however, I am glad that she wrote. Responding to something other than mindless invective was a pleasure for me. She did demonstrate that it is possible to engage in civil dialogue. I hope a few progressives take the hint.
However, the substance of her arguments must be based on the substance of my column. Does she refute things I actually addressed? And does she accurately represent them? Well, no. It seems that these simple criteria would not be unreasonable to expect of an English teacher at Bozeman High School.
Christine writes: "Unlike Rich, I have recently discovered that total self-reliance is impossible in today’s modern world." Unfortunately for her, I made no statement regarding "total self-reliance." The fact of the matter is that I do not believe that total self reliance is desirable, even if it were possible. True, there are some who make an effort to live "off the grid," but even they will rely on others at times. Nevertheless, there is little advantage in discussing a position that is not mine.
Christine continues: "Bill Anderson’s excellent essay titled “The Myth of Self-Reliance” made me question the viability of libertarianism today since, like it or not, we are interconnected as a society." So, Christine did not get the idea of "total self-reliance" from my column, she got it from Bill Anderson: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-myth-of-self-reliance/
I note for the record that Mr. Anderson never used the word "libertarian." His article references a magazine article, which he describes as advocating self sufficiency. He quotes a paragraph from it to establish his thesis that total self-reliance is not possible: "Before 1776 we were less than free as a country, but Americans were independent in a personal sense. Most people then built their own homes, grew their own food, made their furniture and clothes, and even bred their own horses for transportation. True, life was much harder than now. But the support systems were within reach of almost everyone, and were subject to individual control. People ‘paid’ for much of what they used with their own effort. Almost all the raw materials were renewable. Our material culture was sustainable, and America could be cut off from the rest of the world without the creation of much suffering or hardship... What can be done about our growing dependence in these modern times?"
Maybe I'm not seeing it, but there doesn't appear to be any advocacy of "total self-reliance" contained in the paragraph he quoted. Quite the contrary, this statement, "...but the support systems were within reach of almost everyone..." suggests just the opposite, that people did depend on each other. Hmm, maybe it's just me.
Beyond that, libertarians do not advocate total self-reliance. Perhaps a small few of them do, but it certainly is not a defining tenet of libertarianism. Libertarians do want to bring government down to its constitutional limits, they do want government out of their pockets and personal lives, and they do believe that they are better equipped to make decisions about their own lives. But libertarians are not anarchists or isolationists (except isolation from undue government interference).
Let's continue on to Christine's next point: "What are the long-term effects of “opting out” of local taxes as Rich suggests?" Actually, I did not suggest that we should have the ability to opt out. The point I made is that progressives are in favor of certain targeted taxes, like impact fees, but opposed to the idea of allowing other targeted taxes, based on nothing but political preferences. They like impact fees because these taxes target a villan, and also because they don't have to pay them. Conversely, they like general taxes like property taxes because property taxes support public schools, and they like public schools.
She asks, "What if we chopped down Bozeman’s trees to make more room for 'wonderful creations,' the office buildings Rich celebrates?" Well, people chop down trees all the time for a variety of reasons. But I did not advocate cutting down trees to build condos. All I did was question the tree maintenance tax, which I suppose is sufficent to make me anti-tree.
She continues: "What happens to property values and quality of life in a hardscape town of 'beautiful, useful' office condominiums?" So now I want ALL the trees cut down and office condos built everywhere! Do you see how this is escalating from my simple questioning of a tax? But let's run with the idea. Assume the Gallatin Valley was covered with forests. Eeevil capitalist developers came in and cut down a bunch of trees and built ugly office condos. Did the quality of life change? Yes, upwards. The reason those offices were built is because businesses need a place to operate from, and those businesses sell products and employ people and allow a better quality of life.
Trees, on the other hand, employ no one. They just sit there looking pretty. I would certainly agree that we need pretty things to look at to soften the hardscape, but I would suggest that the two are not mutually exclusive. In any event, since I am not anti-tree or pro-condo, it makes little sense to discuss the point any more.
Christine then pursues another non-sequitur: "What happens to our educated, literate workforce and local businesses when public education quality declines due to lack of funding?" Well, my column made no statement about the level of funding for public schools. We do know, however, that the worst schools in the country (largely located in progressive strongholds like Detroit and D.C.) are among the highest funded. So, there is no real "...correlation among literacy skills, education and criminal activity versus civic responsibility..." with school funding.
Once again, since I questioned a tax, in this case property taxes, it apparently makes me anti-education. This is a typical M.O. of the political left. Opposing or criticizing a tax or a government program is synonymous with opposing the goal of the tax or program. Therefore, suggesting tax reform is the same as being anti-education, hating blacks, tossing the poor out into the streets, starving our seniors, and misogyny.
It seems pretty obvious that she is drawing conclusions based on suppositions that are derived from the progressive template. It's not that I think she's dishonest, I think she's reflexively responding based on where she is immersed. She assumes they're true because she surrounds herself with like-minded people, and as a result generally restricts her exposure to contrary ideas. I believe she has rarely had a sit down with someone who has a different political point of view, or if she has, she doesn't like it when it happens.
I must say, however, I am glad that she wrote. Responding to something other than mindless invective was a pleasure for me. She did demonstrate that it is possible to engage in civil dialogue. I hope a few progressives take the hint.
Christine Montano writes a response to my editorial
I'll write a response later.
On Nov. 2, Rich wrote an editorial denouncing his tax bills for tree and street maintenance and property taxes for public schools. Like Rich, I also pay taxes, oppose our wars and bailouts, have no children and have sometimes been attracted to libertarian ideals (although I’m hesitant to jump on any political bandwagon). Unlike Rich, I have recently discovered that total self-reliance is impossible in today’s modern world.
Bill Anderson’s excellent essay titled “The Myth of Self-Reliance” made me question the viability of libertarianism today since, like it or not, we are interconnected as a society. The self-sufficient feudalist societies of the medieval era, Anderson writes, contained hidden costs of illiteracy, isolation, disease, coercion and threat of war. On the other hand, our modern communities are composed of skilled, specialized workers who must depend on each other for our society’s health and vitality. “The Myth of Self-Reliance,” available online, makes for fascinating reading that challenged my political assumptions.
What are the long-term effects of “opting out” of local taxes as Rich suggests? What if we chopped down Bozeman’s trees to make more room for “wonderful creations,” the office buildings Rich celebrates? What happens to property values and quality of life in a hardscape town of “beautiful, useful” office condominiums? What happens to our educated, literate workforce and local businesses when public education quality declines due to lack of funding? What is the correlation among literacy skills, education and criminal activity versus civic responsibility?
On the same day that Rich's editorial appeared, a front-page article indicated that 95 percent of Bozeman High School students scored at or above grade level in reading. As a community, we must be doing something right. Rich, none of us is truly self-reliant anymore.
On Nov. 2, Rich wrote an editorial denouncing his tax bills for tree and street maintenance and property taxes for public schools. Like Rich, I also pay taxes, oppose our wars and bailouts, have no children and have sometimes been attracted to libertarian ideals (although I’m hesitant to jump on any political bandwagon). Unlike Rich, I have recently discovered that total self-reliance is impossible in today’s modern world.
Bill Anderson’s excellent essay titled “The Myth of Self-Reliance” made me question the viability of libertarianism today since, like it or not, we are interconnected as a society. The self-sufficient feudalist societies of the medieval era, Anderson writes, contained hidden costs of illiteracy, isolation, disease, coercion and threat of war. On the other hand, our modern communities are composed of skilled, specialized workers who must depend on each other for our society’s health and vitality. “The Myth of Self-Reliance,” available online, makes for fascinating reading that challenged my political assumptions.
What are the long-term effects of “opting out” of local taxes as Rich suggests? What if we chopped down Bozeman’s trees to make more room for “wonderful creations,” the office buildings Rich celebrates? What happens to property values and quality of life in a hardscape town of “beautiful, useful” office condominiums? What happens to our educated, literate workforce and local businesses when public education quality declines due to lack of funding? What is the correlation among literacy skills, education and criminal activity versus civic responsibility?
On the same day that Rich's editorial appeared, a front-page article indicated that 95 percent of Bozeman High School students scored at or above grade level in reading. As a community, we must be doing something right. Rich, none of us is truly self-reliant anymore.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Proud to be a liberal - FB conversation
S.B. posted this:
I've ALWAYS been proud to be a liberal.
REFRAMING THE WORD 'LIBERAL'
SHARE if you too ARE PROUD TO BE A LIBERAL!
Monte Wolverton is one of the world's most widely syndicated editorial cartoonists. His work appears in fine newspapers, periodicals, websites and blogs everywhere. I guess this cartoon allows us to safely state that he is a LIBERAL... check more of his toons: http://www.wolvertoon.com/toons/
Me: Meh. A full half of those things are still societal problems that haven't been solved.
S.B.: well, let's see: Consumer protection? Do you think the industry that brought us exploding Pintos and the Corvair would have increased auto safety at this rate without regulation?
Me: It's wonderful that safety has increased. But we don't know what would have happened without government intervention, nor do we know the cost to society in other ways, nor do we know how many deaths and injuries resulted from these regulations.
S.B.: or lead exposures -- remember all the industry bitching about eliminating lead from gas?
S.B.: I can go on, but it won't change your view on the matter, and those of us who are proud of these accomplishments aren't about to consider them failures.
Me: Yeah, and remember trying to drive a wheezer from circa 1977? And I wonder how much cost is added to a vehicle to comply with these regulations, how much natural resources were used in their manufacture, and what other things might have happened in industry without having to devote those resources to government mandates.
You celebrate the easy-to-discern benefits without regarding the unseen detriment. The equation is much bigger than you are allowing for.
Me: will always have air that is too dirty, which justifies the eternal involvement of government in all phases of our lives.
S.B.: I not only remember, but I grew up in a gas station in those years, so worked on them.
But the industry figured it out, and today my brother's corvette goes 0-60 quicker than anything on the road in 1968 or 1978, yet gets 26mpg when he wants to.
And EVERY signficant increase in vehicle fleet economy has been preceded by regulatory action to force those changes.
K,M.: The bad and the good... we lost the chrome. But we don't have to drive 55 anymore.
Me: Assuming there are some overall benefits from a few of these liberal achievements, then do liberals also take the blame for skyrocketing crime, illegitimacy, illiteracy, and inner city desolation that has ocurred over the last 40 years? Or do liberals get credit for all the "good" stuff resulting from their policies, but the bad stuff is someone else's blame?
R.E.: Lest we forget the Community reinvestment act that lead to Freddy mac and fanny mae and the melt down of the housing market.
R.B.: "Assuming" there are benefits? Brother, you're in denial. And to blame a liberal political philosophy for the ills you iterate Rich, is without demonstrable merit. And R.B., claiming that the Community Reinvestment Act led to the housing bubble is either a deliberate falsehood, or just stupidity. There's nothing wrong with being a conservative, but being a stupid, arrogant conservative sucks.
ME: R.B., for liberals to take credit for good things without assuming blame for bad things is without demonstrable merit.
And by the way, you are stupid and arrogant. Or simply a boor.
V.M.: It's stupid to use Conservative OR Liberal as a negative term. I like this way much
I.S.: More than happy to take the blame for the "bad" we've done. Like letting conservatives run roughshod over the country and the economy for the last thirty years and cleaning up their messes instead of letting them wallow in the consequences of their stupidity and arrogance. The only "skyrocketing" that is factual and actual is the massive redistribution of wealth and destruction of the middle class started by St. Ronnie -- who would never be elected today as he would be classified as "too liberal".
R.E.: Cummunity Reinvestedment Act was the Start and then Clinton wanting to make it easier for people to buy houses accelerated the housing bust thru sub par mortgages. even tho the senate was warned that unless something was done Fanny Mae would collapse. They were warned in 2002 that we were heading for a mortgage crisis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
Me: "Like letting conservatives run roughshod over the country and the economy for the last thirty years..." What? With the exception of 2000-2006, liberals were in charge of at least one branch of government, and sometimes all three during the last 30 years.
The only messes that must be cleaned up are liberals and their republican big government co-conspirators who have spent this country into oblivion.
I.S.: Turn off Fox.
Me: Ms. Suver, don't forget to call me a bigot and a homophobe. Whatever name calling assuages your failure to offer substantive rejoinders.
I've ALWAYS been proud to be a liberal.
REFRAMING THE WORD 'LIBERAL'
SHARE if you too ARE PROUD TO BE A LIBERAL!
Monte Wolverton is one of the world's most widely syndicated editorial cartoonists. His work appears in fine newspapers, periodicals, websites and blogs everywhere. I guess this cartoon allows us to safely state that he is a LIBERAL... check more of his toons: http://www.wolvertoon.com/toons/
Me: Meh. A full half of those things are still societal problems that haven't been solved.
S.B.: well, let's see: Consumer protection? Do you think the industry that brought us exploding Pintos and the Corvair would have increased auto safety at this rate without regulation?
Me: It's wonderful that safety has increased. But we don't know what would have happened without government intervention, nor do we know the cost to society in other ways, nor do we know how many deaths and injuries resulted from these regulations.
S.B.: or lead exposures -- remember all the industry bitching about eliminating lead from gas?
S.B.: I can go on, but it won't change your view on the matter, and those of us who are proud of these accomplishments aren't about to consider them failures.
Me: Yeah, and remember trying to drive a wheezer from circa 1977? And I wonder how much cost is added to a vehicle to comply with these regulations, how much natural resources were used in their manufacture, and what other things might have happened in industry without having to devote those resources to government mandates.
You celebrate the easy-to-discern benefits without regarding the unseen detriment. The equation is much bigger than you are allowing for.
Me: will always have air that is too dirty, which justifies the eternal involvement of government in all phases of our lives.
S.B.: I not only remember, but I grew up in a gas station in those years, so worked on them.
But the industry figured it out, and today my brother's corvette goes 0-60 quicker than anything on the road in 1968 or 1978, yet gets 26mpg when he wants to.
And EVERY signficant increase in vehicle fleet economy has been preceded by regulatory action to force those changes.
K,M.: The bad and the good... we lost the chrome. But we don't have to drive 55 anymore.
Me: Assuming there are some overall benefits from a few of these liberal achievements, then do liberals also take the blame for skyrocketing crime, illegitimacy, illiteracy, and inner city desolation that has ocurred over the last 40 years? Or do liberals get credit for all the "good" stuff resulting from their policies, but the bad stuff is someone else's blame?
R.E.: Lest we forget the Community reinvestment act that lead to Freddy mac and fanny mae and the melt down of the housing market.
R.B.: "Assuming" there are benefits? Brother, you're in denial. And to blame a liberal political philosophy for the ills you iterate Rich, is without demonstrable merit. And R.B., claiming that the Community Reinvestment Act led to the housing bubble is either a deliberate falsehood, or just stupidity. There's nothing wrong with being a conservative, but being a stupid, arrogant conservative sucks.
ME: R.B., for liberals to take credit for good things without assuming blame for bad things is without demonstrable merit.
And by the way, you are stupid and arrogant. Or simply a boor.
V.M.: It's stupid to use Conservative OR Liberal as a negative term. I like this way much
I.S.: More than happy to take the blame for the "bad" we've done. Like letting conservatives run roughshod over the country and the economy for the last thirty years and cleaning up their messes instead of letting them wallow in the consequences of their stupidity and arrogance. The only "skyrocketing" that is factual and actual is the massive redistribution of wealth and destruction of the middle class started by St. Ronnie -- who would never be elected today as he would be classified as "too liberal".
R.E.: Cummunity Reinvestedment Act was the Start and then Clinton wanting to make it easier for people to buy houses accelerated the housing bust thru sub par mortgages. even tho the senate was warned that unless something was done Fanny Mae would collapse. They were warned in 2002 that we were heading for a mortgage crisis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
Me: "Like letting conservatives run roughshod over the country and the economy for the last thirty years..." What? With the exception of 2000-2006, liberals were in charge of at least one branch of government, and sometimes all three during the last 30 years.
The only messes that must be cleaned up are liberals and their republican big government co-conspirators who have spent this country into oblivion.
I.S.: Turn off Fox.
Me: Ms. Suver, don't forget to call me a bigot and a homophobe. Whatever name calling assuages your failure to offer substantive rejoinders.
Monday, October 31, 2011
The goals of Occupy
I don't remember where I got this list.
Funny, I didn't realize that anarchists could be so, um, organized.
1. Complete bans on federal political contributions, replaced by public campaign financing.
2. Reversal of the "Citizens United v. FEC" Supreme Court decision.
3. Combating Washington's "revolving door."
4. Bans on gifts to federal officials.
5. Tax reform--eliminating special carve-outs and increasing progressiveness.
6. Single-payer health care.
7. Increased environmental regulation.
8. Reduction of the national debt through a progressive income tax and elimination of corporate handouts.
9. Federal job-training programs.
10. Student loan debt forgiveness.
11. Immigration policy, including amnesty for illegals.
12. Recalling the U.S. military globally.
13. Education mandates and teacher pay.
14. Massive expansion of public works projects.
15. Spurring China to end currency manipulation.
16. Reenactment of the Glass-Steagall Act.
17. Refinance all underwater mortgages at 1% interest rate.
18. One-year freeze on all foreclosures.
19. Free air time for all political candidates who gather sufficient signatures.
20. Immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Funny, I didn't realize that anarchists could be so, um, organized.
1. Complete bans on federal political contributions, replaced by public campaign financing.
2. Reversal of the "Citizens United v. FEC" Supreme Court decision.
3. Combating Washington's "revolving door."
4. Bans on gifts to federal officials.
5. Tax reform--eliminating special carve-outs and increasing progressiveness.
6. Single-payer health care.
7. Increased environmental regulation.
8. Reduction of the national debt through a progressive income tax and elimination of corporate handouts.
9. Federal job-training programs.
10. Student loan debt forgiveness.
11. Immigration policy, including amnesty for illegals.
12. Recalling the U.S. military globally.
13. Education mandates and teacher pay.
14. Massive expansion of public works projects.
15. Spurring China to end currency manipulation.
16. Reenactment of the Glass-Steagall Act.
17. Refinance all underwater mortgages at 1% interest rate.
18. One-year freeze on all foreclosures.
19. Free air time for all political candidates who gather sufficient signatures.
20. Immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
My response to Mr. Lourie
His letter is here. My original editorial is here.
--------------
Mr. Lourie,
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my column. I read your letter with interest. You know, as I re-read your letter, it became clear that you seem to be responding to someone else’s column, not mine. You make statements about things I never wrote about. Examples:
1) “…which cares for the needs of its citizens, particularly those unable to care for themselves — the poor, ill, unemployed, elderly.”
2) “His proposed solutions to the financial tragedies which have befallen the country as a result of Wall Street greed and criminality under Bush deregulation have proven socially and economically wrong.”
3) “Reducing deficits on the backs of the poor while enriching billionaires doesn’t work and is morally repugnant.”
4) “Blaming Obama for our economic woes while claiming that Reagan, Bush and Bush were blameless is a ludicrous fabrication.”
5) “Reducing taxes on the rich has never stimulated economies, created jobs, reduced deficits nor ended recessions. Claiming that it will is a lie.”
6) “Bush’s unfunded wars, tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of Wall Street turned that surplus into our current financial debacle. [Rich] and tea party liars can keep repeating the opposite, but facts don’t change. “
Well, that’s interesting. After eliminating the things I did not write about, there is very little left of your letter. Although I would be happy to discuss those things with you, I don't feel compelled to defend positions I never took.
But, I will address those things that are related to my column:
1) Regarding the lack of a surplus during the 1990s, you may look for yourself: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm . This is the government’s own website. Clearly the national debt increased all through the 1990s. Therefore, I did not lie.
2) Ok, so there is no #2. So I guess if you have additional commentary regarding what I actually wrote, I would be interested to read it.
Thanks,
Rich
--------------
Mr. Lourie,
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my column. I read your letter with interest. You know, as I re-read your letter, it became clear that you seem to be responding to someone else’s column, not mine. You make statements about things I never wrote about. Examples:
1) “…which cares for the needs of its citizens, particularly those unable to care for themselves — the poor, ill, unemployed, elderly.”
2) “His proposed solutions to the financial tragedies which have befallen the country as a result of Wall Street greed and criminality under Bush deregulation have proven socially and economically wrong.”
3) “Reducing deficits on the backs of the poor while enriching billionaires doesn’t work and is morally repugnant.”
4) “Blaming Obama for our economic woes while claiming that Reagan, Bush and Bush were blameless is a ludicrous fabrication.”
5) “Reducing taxes on the rich has never stimulated economies, created jobs, reduced deficits nor ended recessions. Claiming that it will is a lie.”
6) “Bush’s unfunded wars, tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of Wall Street turned that surplus into our current financial debacle. [Rich] and tea party liars can keep repeating the opposite, but facts don’t change. “
Well, that’s interesting. After eliminating the things I did not write about, there is very little left of your letter. Although I would be happy to discuss those things with you, I don't feel compelled to defend positions I never took.
But, I will address those things that are related to my column:
1) Regarding the lack of a surplus during the 1990s, you may look for yourself: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm . This is the government’s own website. Clearly the national debt increased all through the 1990s. Therefore, I did not lie.
2) Ok, so there is no #2. So I guess if you have additional commentary regarding what I actually wrote, I would be interested to read it.
Thanks,
Rich
Dan Lourie's criticism of my editorial
This is a letter to the editor from Dan Lourie, responding to my editorial.
The reactionary right-wing ideology of Rich, as shown in his recent op-ed, is insidious, amoral, dishonest and ignorant of history. It shows not a glimmer of the American experiment in a democracy which cares for the needs of its citizens, particularly those unable to care for themselves — the poor, ill, unemployed, elderly. His proposed solutions to the financial tragedies which have befallen the country as a result of Wall Street greed and criminality under Bush deregulation have proven socially and economically wrong. Reducing deficits on the backs of the poor while enriching billionaires doesn’t work and is morally repugnant. They are lies and should be challenged.
Blaming Obama for our economic woes while claiming that Reagan, Bush and Bush were blameless is a ludicrous fabrication. Reducing taxes on the rich has never stimulated economies, created jobs, reduced deficits nor ended recessions. Claiming that it will is a lie. President Reagan had to raise taxes eleven times to keep his “trickle down” fantasy from bankrupting the nation. The first seven years of the GW Bush presidency increased the deficit by almost twice as much as the 32 years from JFK through GHW Bush combined.
Fact: Clinton’s administration bequeathed to President Bush a $236 billion surplus, a 10-year surplus forecast of $5.6 trillion. Bush’s unfunded wars, tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of Wall Street turned that surplus into our current financial debacle. Rich and tea party liars can keep repeating the opposite, but facts don’t change.
Claiming that “conservatives have opposed deficit spending” after witnessing eight years of Bush profligacy is absolute hypocrisy. Fact: the first two fiscal years of the Obama presidency have seen unprecedented deficit decreases.
I encourage readers to turn off the right-wing Fox News lie machine and seek the truth.
I sent him an email, saying "Accusing someone of lying is a serious matter. Perhaps you could indentify two or three lies I made." No response as of yet. My response is here.
The reactionary right-wing ideology of Rich, as shown in his recent op-ed, is insidious, amoral, dishonest and ignorant of history. It shows not a glimmer of the American experiment in a democracy which cares for the needs of its citizens, particularly those unable to care for themselves — the poor, ill, unemployed, elderly. His proposed solutions to the financial tragedies which have befallen the country as a result of Wall Street greed and criminality under Bush deregulation have proven socially and economically wrong. Reducing deficits on the backs of the poor while enriching billionaires doesn’t work and is morally repugnant. They are lies and should be challenged.
Blaming Obama for our economic woes while claiming that Reagan, Bush and Bush were blameless is a ludicrous fabrication. Reducing taxes on the rich has never stimulated economies, created jobs, reduced deficits nor ended recessions. Claiming that it will is a lie. President Reagan had to raise taxes eleven times to keep his “trickle down” fantasy from bankrupting the nation. The first seven years of the GW Bush presidency increased the deficit by almost twice as much as the 32 years from JFK through GHW Bush combined.
Fact: Clinton’s administration bequeathed to President Bush a $236 billion surplus, a 10-year surplus forecast of $5.6 trillion. Bush’s unfunded wars, tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of Wall Street turned that surplus into our current financial debacle. Rich and tea party liars can keep repeating the opposite, but facts don’t change.
Claiming that “conservatives have opposed deficit spending” after witnessing eight years of Bush profligacy is absolute hypocrisy. Fact: the first two fiscal years of the Obama presidency have seen unprecedented deficit decreases.
I encourage readers to turn off the right-wing Fox News lie machine and seek the truth.
I sent him an email, saying "Accusing someone of lying is a serious matter. Perhaps you could indentify two or three lies I made." No response as of yet. My response is here.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Uganda's LRA atrocities - FB Conversation
A friend posted a video regarding the ongoing problems in Uganda.
"...President Obama that 100 U.S. advisory troops have been deployed to Central Africa to help combat the LRA and remove Joseph Kony from the battlefield..."
E.J.: The LRA needs to be stopped.
Me: they need to be stopped, but why the US government?
E.J.: Why not the US government? I am not sure why you would not want to see this man stopped at any cost...
Me: Well, would you support the idea of a foreign power landing a strike team in D.C. to take out Obama?
C.H.: Obama and Joseph Kony are very different. If Obama was kidnapping children, and turning the girls into sex slaves and the boys into soldiers who are forced to kill their families, then yes, I would want to see that happen. The things that Kony has done are down right evil.
C.H.: Plus, the country of Uganda has been asking for help with this for years. We are not talking about political figures. They are there to help stop a rebel army.
Me: So you would support a foreign strike team if Obama was evil enough?
C.H.: If he had been terrorizing us for decades, commiting war crimes against the citizens of our country, and was fighting against our own military, then yes. Truly, it's an absurd argument, because like I said, there is no comparison between Obama and Kony. Obama is an elected official, who is doing the job he was brought into office for. Kony is a war criminal that the country of Uganda has been trying to stop for over twenty years. And, we aren't just going in there on our own as some foreign strike team. The Ugandan government asked for our assistance. And, just this last year, a petition went around the US asking our government to give Uganda the aid they needed in this matter. So, this has been supported by citizens of both countries.
C.H.: And, it's not a matter of revenge. Trust me, if there was a better solution, I would be happy for it. But the LRA has to be stopped. An entire generation in parts of Africa has grown up living in fear of their brutality.
Me: Judging by your response, you are hardly in a position to judge absurdity. You just told me that you support the idea of a foreign force assassinating an American president on our soil.
I don't trust you, I don't know you. But I am absolutely sure that there is a better solution than to put Americans into a fight that isn't ours, fighting an intractable problem.
C.H.: Wow, that is not what I meant at all. I am sorry you took it that way. I was simply trying to show a scenario that would make it possible to compare the two. That is why I said it was absurd. Because you can't really compare the two. I was just referring to the fact that Obama is our president, and Kony is not an elected official. Obama could not actually do the things I said and still be president. I definitely do not want to see any harm come to our president.
You have every right to feel that way about the soldiers being there. If you have a better solution, I would honestly love to hear it. This atrocity has been going on for decades, and it has to stop somehow.
If it makes you feel any better, the one-hundred soldiers who were put on the ground are supposed to be there in an advisory capacity, not to actually fight. I hope that really is the case. I don't want to see any of our soldiers put in harms way if they don't have to be.
Me: This is the problem. It all depends on what kind of scenario we speculate upon. Obama himself is not the subject, he is simply a convenient Important American Figure. Insert your own character in the scenario and ask if it would be appropriate or desirable for a foreign force, even one invited by our authorities, to come and kill that person? For example, would it be desirable to invite the Russians to come in and kill Jeffrey Dahmer, or the masterminds of the WTC attack?
The point is, when the scenario playing out in Uganda is compared to a similar situation in the US, suddenly it doesn't seem so agreeable, does it?
We sent advisors to Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Korea. We have a demonstrated history of intervening in the affairs of other nations with uniformly disasterous results. We always have a noble cause as an excuse. There is always some atrocity or evil tyrant to stop. What makes you think that the US will limit its involvement to these 100 "advisors?" What makes you think that we will be able fix a situation that has been going on for decades?
My solution is that the US government should mind its own business and stay out of the affairs of other nations.
C.H.: I absolutely agree that we can't be policing the world. Personally, I think it is right to step in and help in a limited capacity if our allies ask for it, but that is just my opinion. There really is nothing in our country that can compare to what the LRA has done and is doing, and I would like to think that if there was, that our allies would help us when asked.
"...President Obama that 100 U.S. advisory troops have been deployed to Central Africa to help combat the LRA and remove Joseph Kony from the battlefield..."
E.J.: The LRA needs to be stopped.
Me: they need to be stopped, but why the US government?
E.J.: Why not the US government? I am not sure why you would not want to see this man stopped at any cost...
Me: Well, would you support the idea of a foreign power landing a strike team in D.C. to take out Obama?
C.H.: Obama and Joseph Kony are very different. If Obama was kidnapping children, and turning the girls into sex slaves and the boys into soldiers who are forced to kill their families, then yes, I would want to see that happen. The things that Kony has done are down right evil.
C.H.: Plus, the country of Uganda has been asking for help with this for years. We are not talking about political figures. They are there to help stop a rebel army.
Me: So you would support a foreign strike team if Obama was evil enough?
C.H.: If he had been terrorizing us for decades, commiting war crimes against the citizens of our country, and was fighting against our own military, then yes. Truly, it's an absurd argument, because like I said, there is no comparison between Obama and Kony. Obama is an elected official, who is doing the job he was brought into office for. Kony is a war criminal that the country of Uganda has been trying to stop for over twenty years. And, we aren't just going in there on our own as some foreign strike team. The Ugandan government asked for our assistance. And, just this last year, a petition went around the US asking our government to give Uganda the aid they needed in this matter. So, this has been supported by citizens of both countries.
C.H.: And, it's not a matter of revenge. Trust me, if there was a better solution, I would be happy for it. But the LRA has to be stopped. An entire generation in parts of Africa has grown up living in fear of their brutality.
Me: Judging by your response, you are hardly in a position to judge absurdity. You just told me that you support the idea of a foreign force assassinating an American president on our soil.
I don't trust you, I don't know you. But I am absolutely sure that there is a better solution than to put Americans into a fight that isn't ours, fighting an intractable problem.
C.H.: Wow, that is not what I meant at all. I am sorry you took it that way. I was simply trying to show a scenario that would make it possible to compare the two. That is why I said it was absurd. Because you can't really compare the two. I was just referring to the fact that Obama is our president, and Kony is not an elected official. Obama could not actually do the things I said and still be president. I definitely do not want to see any harm come to our president.
You have every right to feel that way about the soldiers being there. If you have a better solution, I would honestly love to hear it. This atrocity has been going on for decades, and it has to stop somehow.
If it makes you feel any better, the one-hundred soldiers who were put on the ground are supposed to be there in an advisory capacity, not to actually fight. I hope that really is the case. I don't want to see any of our soldiers put in harms way if they don't have to be.
Me: This is the problem. It all depends on what kind of scenario we speculate upon. Obama himself is not the subject, he is simply a convenient Important American Figure. Insert your own character in the scenario and ask if it would be appropriate or desirable for a foreign force, even one invited by our authorities, to come and kill that person? For example, would it be desirable to invite the Russians to come in and kill Jeffrey Dahmer, or the masterminds of the WTC attack?
The point is, when the scenario playing out in Uganda is compared to a similar situation in the US, suddenly it doesn't seem so agreeable, does it?
We sent advisors to Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Korea. We have a demonstrated history of intervening in the affairs of other nations with uniformly disasterous results. We always have a noble cause as an excuse. There is always some atrocity or evil tyrant to stop. What makes you think that the US will limit its involvement to these 100 "advisors?" What makes you think that we will be able fix a situation that has been going on for decades?
My solution is that the US government should mind its own business and stay out of the affairs of other nations.
C.H.: I absolutely agree that we can't be policing the world. Personally, I think it is right to step in and help in a limited capacity if our allies ask for it, but that is just my opinion. There really is nothing in our country that can compare to what the LRA has done and is doing, and I would like to think that if there was, that our allies would help us when asked.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Name calling for me but not thee - FB conversation
Dennis Prager wrote an interesting article that made a few assertions about atheists: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=359933&fb_comment_id=fbc_10150504192403776_22450260_10150504899303776&ref=notif¬if_t=open_graph_comment
Someone made this comment:
"More straw men. Liberals are not necessarily atheists,nor are they in any way "anti-family" ,nor do they think that there is no such thing as right and wrong and that anything should be permissible ,etc.
But evangelical Christians tend to be appallingly ignorant,narrow-minded, self-righteous and insufferably sanctimonious. They think that they and they alone will go to "heaven" and that all those who do not share their rigid and irrational beliefs are doomed to "hell". Their bigotry toward gay people is despicable.
Their relentless Bible-thumping and arrogance is disgusting."
I replied, quoting him: 'But evangelical Christians tend to be appallingly ignorant,narrow-minded, self-righteous and insufferably sanctimonious.'
Um, straw man, meet irony.
He replied: SOME liberals and some Christians and some of anything are DISGUSTING...that's not the point.
My rejoinder: 'Tend to be' has now become 'some.' Feel free to backtrack as far as you like.
So, do you HAVE a point besides engaging in the same gratuitous stereotyping that so offends you?
And he responds: Wait a minute, LIBERALS aren't nec anything except, probably GOOD things, and CAN lie, cheat and steal in the name of the CAUSE.
And then this: When neither side is perfect, I can still chose which one is less dangerous.
Me: "Tend to be." "Some." And now, "neither side is perfect." Let's keep those goal posts moving...
Someone made this comment:
"More straw men. Liberals are not necessarily atheists,nor are they in any way "anti-family" ,nor do they think that there is no such thing as right and wrong and that anything should be permissible ,etc.
But evangelical Christians tend to be appallingly ignorant,narrow-minded, self-righteous and insufferably sanctimonious. They think that they and they alone will go to "heaven" and that all those who do not share their rigid and irrational beliefs are doomed to "hell". Their bigotry toward gay people is despicable.
Their relentless Bible-thumping and arrogance is disgusting."
I replied, quoting him: 'But evangelical Christians tend to be appallingly ignorant,narrow-minded, self-righteous and insufferably sanctimonious.'
Um, straw man, meet irony.
He replied: SOME liberals and some Christians and some of anything are DISGUSTING...that's not the point.
My rejoinder: 'Tend to be' has now become 'some.' Feel free to backtrack as far as you like.
So, do you HAVE a point besides engaging in the same gratuitous stereotyping that so offends you?
And he responds: Wait a minute, LIBERALS aren't nec anything except, probably GOOD things, and CAN lie, cheat and steal in the name of the CAUSE.
And then this: When neither side is perfect, I can still chose which one is less dangerous.
Me: "Tend to be." "Some." And now, "neither side is perfect." Let's keep those goal posts moving...
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Editorial, Baucus on the deficits
Senator Baucus recently sent out an email touting his appointment to what he called the “debt reduction committee,” officially known as “Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.” Here are some excerpts:
"…I'm working with my colleagues to come up with a plan to cut our nation's debt."
Excellent. It’s an issue conservatives have been hammering for decades. But let’s define some terms. The deficit is the yearly budget shortfall, while the national debt is the total of all deficits. Senator Baucus, as you will see, conflates the two.
His email included a deficit projection, which shows an immediate large reduction in the deficit, then continuing smaller deficits over the next 10 years. He explains: "...we've already taken major steps out of [the recent large deficits]… the leveling out we see over the next ten years is because of the Budget Control Act we passed in July."
The Senator is certainly proud of that budget deal, but it was vociferously opposed by the political left, accompanied by their routinely hyperbolic rhetoric about children starving and people dying. I suppose it’s racist and homophobic as well. And lest we forget, conservatives and the TEA party also opposed the deal because it continues to furiously add to the national debt.
By the Senator's own admission, there will be deficits for the forseeable future. Unfortunately, these continuing deficits mean the national debt will INCREASE.
Deficits must be eliminated and a surplus achieved to reduce the debt. Remember, that is his stated goal.
"...the 90's we were a time of surplus. Our budget was balanced with money to spare. And we were not adding to the total debt."
This persistent myth about the Clinton “surplus” is contradicted by the government's own website: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm. A quick review reveals the national debt increased all through the 90s.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Fewer bank choices - FB conversation
S.B. posted a link to this chart:
S.B.: interesting graphic showing the concentration of financial power into fewer and fewer banks. Certainly THIS can't be good for innovation in the economy or even just the financial sector?
J.L.: *yoink* I knew cats were evil
B.R.: Excellent graphic, it really adds perspective to the argument for deregulating the financial sector. If competition inspires innovation, it's probably best having those four entities as the only ones competing, they have a proven track record of putting American's best interests first. Let's fix this economy with new jobs! More jobs! More money! Buy stuff you can't afford! Hurray for usur...I mean credit!
L.B.: Two words: credit union.
Me: Hmmm, I wonder how many of these got bailed out...
Me: By the way, Travelers is no longer a part of CITI group, been that way for years.
R.B.: Granted I think this source is kind of dated, the following biggest banks from here were bailed out:
Citi Bank - $25 bil
Wells Fargo - $25 bil
JP Morgan - 25 bil (has since paid back the loan)
Bank of America - $15 bil (has since paid back the loan)
Me: So we can conclude, then, that these four banks are hand-picked by the government?
P.H.:handpicked by the government? Uh, yeah...NO. Not even close.
Me: What else is a bailout? Some institutions are deemed worthy of government largess, others not. And now we are left with the four winners picked by government, enhanced at taxpayer expense, which are now poised to really begin taking advantage of us.
By the way, do you have anything like a rebuttal available? Or is it capitalism's fault somehow? Your rudimentary denial brings no value to the conversation.
P.H.: Neither are your comments
Me: No one asked you to read them. Typical leftist.
P.H.: You're right! (Yawn) time to turn the channel...
S.B.: interesting graphic showing the concentration of financial power into fewer and fewer banks. Certainly THIS can't be good for innovation in the economy or even just the financial sector?
J.L.: *yoink* I knew cats were evil
B.R.: Excellent graphic, it really adds perspective to the argument for deregulating the financial sector. If competition inspires innovation, it's probably best having those four entities as the only ones competing, they have a proven track record of putting American's best interests first. Let's fix this economy with new jobs! More jobs! More money! Buy stuff you can't afford! Hurray for usur...I mean credit!
L.B.: Two words: credit union.
Me: Hmmm, I wonder how many of these got bailed out...
Me: By the way, Travelers is no longer a part of CITI group, been that way for years.
R.B.: Granted I think this source is kind of dated, the following biggest banks from here were bailed out:
Citi Bank - $25 bil
Wells Fargo - $25 bil
JP Morgan - 25 bil (has since paid back the loan)
Bank of America - $15 bil (has since paid back the loan)
Me: So we can conclude, then, that these four banks are hand-picked by the government?
P.H.:handpicked by the government? Uh, yeah...NO. Not even close.
Me: What else is a bailout? Some institutions are deemed worthy of government largess, others not. And now we are left with the four winners picked by government, enhanced at taxpayer expense, which are now poised to really begin taking advantage of us.
By the way, do you have anything like a rebuttal available? Or is it capitalism's fault somehow? Your rudimentary denial brings no value to the conversation.
P.H.: Neither are your comments
Me: No one asked you to read them. Typical leftist.
P.H.: You're right! (Yawn) time to turn the channel...
My final score
As I mentioned before, I intentionally failed every question. They still want me to have the sticker and be a good little scientist. No thanks.
So I took the quiz.
I took the quiz and purposely tried to get every one wrong in order to see the responses. It is formatted as a series of quotes and responses:
Quote #1 "If you have one volcano in the world, that one volcano puts out more carbon dioxide than everything that man puts out. I don't think [global warming is] a farce, but I think temperatures go up and I think temperatures go down."
Nope, that's not science!
That was three-time U.S. senate candidate John Raese from West Virginia incorrectly asserting that volcanoes today produce more carbon dioxide than humans. When you compare natural factors that affect the climate — such as solar variation and volcanic eruptions — with human activities that affect the climate, scientists have found time and again that humans have been a major contributor to climate change over the last 50 years. In fact, the U.S. Geological Survey found that volcanic carbon dioxide emissions were less than 1 percent when compared to the global emissions released from the burning of fossil fuels.
Quote #2 "I'm not a meteorologist. All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring."
Unfortunately, it's true.
This was Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah, confirming that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and is primarily caused by human activity. He went on to add "If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we'd listen to them."
Quote #3 "This year, we witnessed weather disaster after weather disaster. There have been massive floods, fire, droughts, and heat waves. Yet earlier this year the House passed a bill that repealed EPA's scientific finding that climate change is occurring."
Unfortunately, it's true.
That was Representative Henry Waxman from California, commenting on the number of extreme weather events we've seen recently across the United States. Powerful rain and snow storms and intense drought periods are well-documented consequence of a global warming.
Quote #4 "The EPA has been implementing regulations to force utilities to reduce emissions of pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, and mercury even though the current emissions are not causing air-quality or public-health problems anywhere in America."
Nope, that's not science.
That was Steven Milloy, Fox News commentator and founder of the website junkscience.com, incorrectly stating in an op-ed in the Washington Times that there have been no health impacts from global warming emissions. In fact, recent Union of Concerned Scientists analysis shows that global warming threatens public health and raises health care costs by increasing ground-level ozone — the primary component of smog, which can exacerbate lung diseases such as asthma and cause breathing difficulties even in healthy individuals.
Quote #5 The planet used to be dramatically warmer when we had dinosaurs and no people. To the best of my knowledge the dinosaurs weren't driving cars."
Uh-uh, that's not science.
That was Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives attempting to explain away the facts of human-caused global warming by talking about Earth's temperature 245 to 65 million years ago. While it's true that when dinosaurs roamed the planet, global average temperatures were much higher, it's faulty logic to assume that therefore means that the temperature increases scientists have seen in the last thousand years are not caused by human activity. Scientists have found that heat-trapping emissions from human sources over the past half-century by far outweigh emissions from natural sources.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
There are no anti-intellectual democrats? FB conversation
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?
“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?
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…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)