Whose Fault is it, Anyway?

One of the things you learn very quickly when you're thrust into a leadership position (if you're going to be successful, anyway) is that blame fixing and fault finding are wastes of time and energy, and ultimately are destructive.  For too long, however, our culture in general and our leaders - governmental, cultural, ideological - have focused on exactly this.

In a business environment, when you think someone is "at fault" for something, you can discipline them.  In a voluntary endeavor, you can confront them.  But what do you do when the environment is just life?  What if you think that "whites" or "cops" are targeting black men for assassination (more or less)?  What if you think that "blacks" are "thugs" or "Muslims" are vile monsters?  Especially when your frame of reference makes you see the government's non-reaction to most incidents as condoning violence, whether implicitly or explicitly?

If you really, really believe - deep in your bones - that the whole of society and the government is against you, what options do you have? 

You can surrender, certainly.  You can go about your life afraid at every moment that "they" are going to do something to you.  The problem with this option is it breeds cowardice and starts stratifying castes and classes.  We fought a war about that sort of thing about 240 years ago.

You can bury your head in the sand.  You can pretend that you believe other than you do.  In some cases, this may even be the optimal choice.  Certainly it isn't true that "cops" are "targeting black men."  In the vast majority of cases, there's not even questionable behavior.  In those cases where the behavior is questionable, quite frequently full knowledge of the circumstances makes it clear that the behavior was defensible, even if not fully justified.  So we're left with a minority of cases which are sensational and therefore repeated over and over.  Similarly, it certainly isn't true that "Muslims" are terrorists.  Mohammedanism most certainly is an evil death cult (read the book), but the vast majority of Mohammedans in this country are simply here because we're more free than they would be in the lands of their ancestors.  It certainly isn't true that "blacks" are "thugs."  Again, while some indeed are, the vast majority are not.

The problem with that choice, however, is two-fold.  First, it is very difficult to deprogram oneself.  Asking people to do it is asking them to give up part of their identity, and many are simply unwilling to do so.  Second, it can make it so that you are slower to react when there really is a systemic problem.  The unwillingness of many to acknowledge that Mohammedanism - as written - is an evil death cult makes it harder to support those who are not into the evil death cultishness and to oppose those who love blowing up the infidel.

Or, finally, you can oppose the injustice you perceive.  This can be either the best, most moral choice, or the worst, most monstrous.  It is very hard, before the fact and subjectively, to determine which any given act of opposition may be.

I do not know the motives of the murderer last night in Dallas.  I understand he told police that he wanted to kill police, and specifically white police.  One presumes this is because of recent events where two black men have been killed by police.  One case appears (though I don't know the details, so I can make no judgement) to have been a horrible event wherein an innocent man was killed.  One case is already becoming more "nuanced" as we find out more about the history of the victim and the immediate events leading up to his shooting.  Nevertheless, they feed into the balkanization of our nation.  Those who wish to see all blacks as thugs can do so.  Those who wish to see all cops - especially white cops - as racists hunting black men can do so.

This must stop.  It will stop.  What cannot continue, won't.

The problem with it stopping is that it can only stop one of two ways.

The better way is for it to stop because our leaders - governmental, cultural, ideological - stop feeding it and start opposing it.  If he hasn't already (if he has, I haven't seen it) Wayne LaPierre needs to get in front of cameras TODAY and say how horrible the shooting of Philando Castile appears.  No condemnation is necessary, simply the acknowledgement that - based on facts as currently known - this looks like a "bad shoot" and that all citizens should be secure in their second amendment rights.  Similarly, Al Sharpton needs to get in front of cameras TODAY and say how horrific the murders of 5 Dallas police officers last night were - especially if they were based on race.  Again, he does not need to indict everyone in the #BLM movement, simply acknowledge the evil of last night.  The head of CAIR needs to get in front of cameras TODAY and explain how the Islamic community rejects acts of violence and will turn its back on terrorists.

This would help healing begin.  People would be able to back down from this cliff.

The other way, the way I think more likely, is horrific.  There are over 300 million residents in the United States of America.  According to this source, as of 2015, at least 41% of households (2 out of every five) owned guns that the government knows about.  It is safe to assume, when illegal or unregistered (for whatever reason) weapons are taken into account, half the nation is armed.  There are more guns in private circulation in the United States than there are people.

If we do not back off the cliff, if we don't start seeing each other simply as humans and Americans, then the other way for this balkanization to stop is a literal civil war.  The War Between the States was not a civil war (civil war is one where one or more factions are vying for control of a government, the War Between the States was one where one group of states wanted to be out from under the control of the central government).  It was also relatively "clean" (one Northern General's March to the Sea and resulting war crimes notwithstanding).  Civilian populations (exception noted) were generally considered off limits.  Prisoners were generally treated with respect and relative care.

What will come next, if we don't stop it, will be a civil war and it will not be clean.  The only populations will be civilian populations.  Simply being a non-combatant will not grant you safety from being targeted.  Blood will quite literally run in the streets.  This great nation that (I hope) we all love will tear itself apart, and the light and freedom she represents will be extinguished, possibly never to return.

I'm not a child.  I know that Al Sharpton and I will likely never see eye to eye on most issues.  I know that Mohammedanism (world wide) will not reject terrorism overnight.  I know that police are not going to cease making mistakes - some of them quite horrible - just because we "want it real hard."

I also know that if we don't start trying to fix this now, my children will not know the relative peace and freedom that I have known.  I know that if we don't find some way to realize that we are all human, Created Equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, we're going to lose everything we hold dear.

Pray for America.  Pray for reconciliation.  And then act to achieve it.

#Brexit and Donald Trump

First: Congratulations to the People of Great Britain for their courage and commitment to self-rule and local governance.  I'm glad they voted to leave the European Union; it's in their best interests.  The days ahead will be hard, and at every bump in the road talking heads will tell them how "it's their own fault" for choosing independence.  To a degree they're right: independence, self-rule, these things are hard and not without difficulty.  But they are worth far more than the fake "security" of being ruled from afar.

As the English withdrawal from the European Union is analyzed and constantly second-guessed, let me submit to you that it was inevitable, and it shows that Donald Trump has a much better chance to win in November than the Talking Heads would have you believe.  See, I believe that Brexit and the Rise of Trump are both based on the same thing - the realization by the People that their so-called leaders have failed in their actual duties.

National governments have basically two jobs - ensure a "level playing field" inside their borders and protecting their citizens from non-citizens.  That's it.  Both of these are predicated on one foundational idea that the West seems determined to abandon: "Us First."  A nation's government should always, as its first priority, put the well-being and interests of its citizens over the well-being and interests of non-citizens. 

Whether that's non-naturalized immigrants living within its population, foreign threats, foreign business, or even just healthy old international competition, a national government's first priority should be "what is in the best interests of my citizens?"

That's a harder question to answer sometimes that it might seem.  Are trade terriffs on imports good?  How about a lax or strict immigration policy?  What about (any given) war?  Not always easy.

Sometimes, however, it is easy.  Is illegal immigration good for a nation's citizens, or bad?  Bad.  There's not even a question here.  Is unchecked immigration from majority muslim countries good, or bad?  Bad.  Again, not even a question - when your best answer is "we don't know they're a threat," you're not arguing that it's good, just that it might not be as bad as feared.  Ergo: bad.

Now, most people don't even think of these things in these terms.  I'm pretty sure the average Englishman doesn't think in terms of terriffs and duties, or immigration policy.  What they do think of is: how easy it is to find a job (harder with lax immigration, and even harder with massive illegal immigration)?  How good is my standard of living (worse with poor trade policy and massive immigration)?  How safe am I in my home (worse with Muslim Terrorists moving easily about the globe, worse with illegal immigrants)?

And that brings us back to our own shores and Donald Trump.  Donald Trump resonantes with people because he understands* these things.  He understands them in his bones.  Look at his campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again."  That says it all in four words.  America was great "before."  What is "before?"  Well, that's up to the individual.  But it's not great now.  So let's make it great again. 

Let's put Americans first.  Let's say that the well being of American businesses, the American worker, is more important to us than the well being of Iraqis, Afghans, Israelis, Austrialians, the British, Canadians, or anyone else.  Let's get control of our borders - all four of them, and stop importing unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce (what, you think we didn't have one?  Everyone starts "unskilled").  Let's stop immigration from majority Muslim countries - we owe them nothing - until either Mohammedanism can tamp down on its more violent tendencies or we can find a way to screen out the terrorists.  Let's stop engaging in wars to benefit others and not ourselves.  If American boys and girls are going to die, let's make it to the benefit of the country they serve, and not just someone else.

And that's where the leaders of Great Britain (not the EU) and the United States have failed.  By allowing massive immigration (usually without requiring assimilation), we import unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce.  The EU member nations are importing terrorists - and it won't be too long before one gets over here.  The so-called leadership of Great Britain and the United States has failed to put their own citizens first, and the citizens are crying "no more."

Of course, they also said (as late as yesterday), that the Brexit would fail.

Will Donald Trump win in November?  I don't know.  People are saying he has no chance.


* - Understanding is not the same as agreeing with or supporting.  Personally, I believe he does both, but whether or not he agrees with or believes in "America First," it is clear that he - unlike the talking heads and Washington Establishment - at least understands it.

Choosing Thankfulness

I've had a bad year.  Actually, I've had a bad 15 months or so.  I could go into the litany of lost jobs, car wrecks, illnesses, family emergencies, and so forth.  I won’t, because specifics aren’t important here.  Several times over the last few weeks, I've mentioned that I can't wait for 2015 to be over, because it's been a bad year, and hoping that 2016 would be better.  If I can just make it to the end of the year, I tell myself, everything will get better next year.

Then the realist (some would call it the 'cynic') in me speaks up.  "You can't know what's going to happen next year," it says.  "You thought this year was bad?  It can get worse."

I'm forced to admit that my realistic side is correct.  It can certainly get worse.  I've had enough stuff go on just in the last few weeks that brought that sharply into focus.  It can always get worse.

Then, a week or two ago, while listening to our preacher give his lesson, something struck me.  It pierced me to the core.

I have spent the last 15 months of my life resenting things that happened to me.  Oh, I've put on a happy face, and certainly not everything that has happened in those months has been bad, but I have been letting the bad set the tone of my life.  Everything seemed to come back to the bad things.
I have been using those bad things as a shield against personal responsibility.  I'll pause for some of you to digest the irony of that statement; I'm a huge fan of personal responsibility.  As it turns out, I'm not quite as huge a fan of it as I thought.

Not that I've been irresponsible in any of my temporal or social duties.  I go to work, I hang out with friends, I try to be a good husband and father.  My bills get paid, dishes get washed, and my house at least does not look like a disaster area.  Usually.

But I have not taken personal responsibility for my eternal duties.  Work is important for a variety of reasons.  Being a good friend, husband and father are incredibly important.  Being a humble, joyful, and above all *thankful* follower of Christ is much more important.  I have failed in all of those. 
I can wax eloquent on how God never gives us a command to "feel," but then when it comes time to choose, I never seem to.  So today - now - I will choose joy.  I will choose humility.  I will choose thankfulness.

I will not resent the jobs lost (one for me, and one for my wife).  I will thank God for the opportunities presented – a new job at better pay with better hours for me, and the chance to be a stay-at-home mom for my wife.  I will not resent the car wrecks; I will thank God that no one was seriously injured, and that our insurance has handled things relatively smoothly.  I will not resent the illnesses; I will thank God for our health, and that none of those illnesses turned critical (and they could have).

Here I can only repeat the prayer in the parable, and hope like the character I too “go away justified.”

“Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner.”

The Funny Thing Is...

...that Donald Trump was right.

If you’ve been living under a rock, you might not have heard about Donald Trump's “racist” (more on that in a moment) comment saying we should stop allowing Mohammedans into America “until our Representatives figure out what’s going on.”  The reaction was predictable, and pathetic.

Most Republicans couldn’t distance themselves fast enough.  Democrats pointed with glee at the “racist” comments and said it “disqualified” Trump from being President (this from the party of the KKK, the Black Panther party, and the Westboro Baptist Church, among others).  Everyone reacted as if there was nothing of substance said.

Yes, Trump is circus clown.  Yes, he’s a carnival barker.  In many ways that’s what makes him so appealing to many.  However, he’s not actually stupid.  So let’s take a serious look at the facts behind the carnival barking.


continue...

Banning History

 

After the Colonies rebelled against England and won their independence, they operated for a time under the Articles of Confederation.  This first attempt at founding an association of free states proved unworkable, and a new Constitution was created.  That Constitution enshrined slavery, counted slaves as 3/5 of a person, and would not have been passed if it had not.  At the time of its passage, the issue of slavery was already contentious, and one of the compromises necessary to see its adoption was that for a certain period, the new Federal government would not address the issue.

As time progressed, the northern states- largely industrial- became even less dependent upon slave labor (though many prominent Northerners still had slaves) and the South – largely agrarian – did not.  As slavery became more repugnant to more people, it is perhaps not surprising that this caused a schism between the two groups.  And perhaps this would have been handled diplomatically, but, for various reasons, it was not.

Now, it is important to understand that the Civil War did not start over slavery.  Read the words of the people who were there.  Even those in the North did not believe slavery was the reason for the war.  Certainly it was a reason for the war.  Certainly had slavery been abolished voluntarily by all parties, there would have been less reason for the war.  But there still would have been reason for it.

The Southern States, already skeptical of the Federal Government, had 50 years of grievances about what they saw as Federal Overreach.  The election of Abraham Lincoln and the still new Republican party – on a forced abolition platform – was a sign to the Southern States that the North no longer respected their sovereignty.  They seceded.  A war between the states was waged.

Now, this little history lesson is not a defense of slavery, which was and is a hateful institution.  It is not a defense of the Republican party, which is and has been the party of Liberty and Union.  It is a defense of Honor.  Whatever you think of their motives – and, again, slavery in and of itself was not at issue – the Confederates were noble, honorable, and courageous.  We in the south venerate those heroes who were willing to die for what they believed.

Fast forward to today.  A crazy racist killed nine men and women in Charleston, South Carolina.  A picture was found with him holding the flag commonly referred to as the Confederate Flag, more accurately referred to as the Confederate Battle Flag, and most accurately referred to as the Virginia Army Flag.  And Progressives, some looking for anything to blame other than the criminal, others seizing main chance, immediately blamed the flag for the despicable act.

Showing an unfortunate lack of historical knowledge, Mitt Romney called for the removal of the flag from the South Carolina State House grounds.  Reacting, I must hope, more on fear than on principle, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley called for its removal.

Were that all that had happened, this post would not exist, but it is not all that has happened.  Since those two misguided announcements, the furor over the flag has grown.  Stores like Wal-Mart and Amazon stopped selling renditions of the flag.  Apple removed all games which contain the now-hated symbol from it’s app store.  Apparently representing history is now a hate crime.  People have called for the destruction of statues and monuments to Confederate figures.

This is sad and amazing to me.  Forget the flag itself – the history lesson was only to show that there is proper reverence which can be shown for it – this “Ban All the Things” mentality is dangerous and un-American.  Capitulation to these demands is even more dangerous and un-American.  It sets a precedent – one I do not believe we wish to set.

Today it is a symbol which can honestly be viewed as a symbol of hate and racism (I do not deny that the flag has picked up those connotations).  But more than that, it is calls to erase history.  The Gettysburg museum has removed all of its merchandise with the symbol.  Where does it stop?

For Progressives, it doesn’t.  Today it is the flag and some monuments.  What will it be tomorrow?  There are already calls for more “gun control” laws, as though they would have done anything to stop this horrific crime.  Karl Rove has said that the only gun control strong enough would be complete confiscation – and he is wrong, even that would not be enough.

They want to ban our Right to act on our beliefs.

They want to ban our Right to say what we think.

They want to ban our Right to defend ourselves – both from criminals and from tyrants.

The longer we wait to tell them, “no,” the harder it will be to do, and the more likely we will either be forced into silence, or be forced into violence.

Charity and the #IndianaLaw

So earlier I discussed the Virtue of Charity- and specifically what is required to see a resurgence in its practice.  Now I would like to turn to the idiocy among a certain segment of our population as it relates to the Indiana RFRA.

I am not going to explain what an RFRA really is- go over to the Ace of Spades HQ, we’ll probably be talking about it there if you’re really interested.  Or [search engine of choice] Bill Clinton’s 1993 Federal RFRA.

I’m going to discuss Charity as it relates to the RFRA.

First- that there has to be an RFRA at all shows a failure of charity.  Whether or not I agree with same sex marriage, my business is mine to conduct.  If I do not wish to do business with you, that may be bad.  In some cases it may be a failure of charity on my part (it normally is not, however).  However, it is *certainly* a failure of charity, and a much worse one, to impoverish me and have the Government force me at the point of a gun to do business with you.  Had everyone been charitable, then no RFRA would be necessary- wedding cake designers would not be having to make cakes for ceremonies they believe to be sinful, but would be as helpful as possible outside those bounds (in most cases, they are already fulfilling that second part).  The government would not be seizing sacred objects from Indian tribes, and Indian tribes would not be bothering others with their sacred items.

Second- The RFRA is not a license for Christians to be uncharitable, and I have heard of no particular case where they have been.  It is not uncharitable to say, “No, I do not wish to do business with you.”  It might be uncharitable if my objection to doing business with you was something you could not control (your ethnicity, or gender)- but it wouldn’t necessarily be.  It is certainly not uncharitable when my objection is to an action you are going to take because it violates my own moral code.

The Gay Lobby is either ignorant (or, more likely, does not care) of the fact that to Christians and Jews homosexuality is morally reprehensible.  Considering that the wedding ceremony is specifically a Religious one, homosexual weddings are not just immoral; they are making a mockery of Christianity.  And while that is not, no its own, a reason to make them illegal or even prevent them from having legitimacy in the eyes of the State, that is ample reason for a Christian to elect not to support one with his labor.

Do you want charity to rule in this case?  I agree with you.  So let’s all agree to be charitable.  But at this point, there’s only one side that isn’t living up to that bargain.

The Greatest Command

He answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

I've been think about this, the Greatest Commandment, a lot recently.  What does it mean?  How do we obey it?  How are heart, soul, and mind different?

We get a lot of advice on how to love one's neighbor as one's self, but not a whole lot on how to love God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind.  And, while I was thinking about that, I realized something.  I'm fat.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not confined to a chair or anything.  Many people would probably not give my weight a second thought.  Sure, I look overweight, but in modern America, who notices that?  We notice when people aren't far more than we notice when people are.  Fat is just how things are, right?

But God recently hit me with the clue-bat.  See, I have a family history of diabetes so I happen to know that one of the warning signs is being constantly thirsty, especially when you've been drinking water anyway.  And this is where I find myself right now.  Which is kind of scary.

But that got me thinking, in light of the Greatest Commandment, how have I been loving God with my strength?

And the answer came back: I'm not.

I will here stipulate that I do not think I can "lift weights for God."  I don't think getting ripped like a certain Australian actor in a certain comic book movie about a certain Norse god is the objective.

Nevertheless I am convicted that being fat, unable to climb or descend stairs without breathing heavily, and so out of shape that even thinking of walking down to the park is exhausting is *not* what God intended.

I have already told some that I'm starting on a journey of small steps to a new me.  This is a slow life-style change that I hope will get me into better shape.  I had decided that before the clue-bat struck. 

I want to challenge you to think on the same thing.  I'm very cerebrial.  I live in my own head a lot.  Loving God with my mind is not difficult for me.  I'm still not completely sure on the difference between heart and soul, but I find my passion for God growing every day, lately, so I'll chalk that up as a win.  But in modern America, with our computers and cell phones and tablets and cars and... well, that whole "strength" thing doesn't mean as much to us anymore.

So I am committing to love God with my strength by first *building* my strength.

How are you loving God with your strength?

A Miscarriage of Justice

A 17 year old young man is dead.  His family are emotionally wounded, perhaps shattered.  The man who killed him walks free; his conscience is the only punishment (outside of punishment of standing trial) he will receive- provided someone seeking vigilante justice does not kill him.

And none of that is a miscarriage of justice.  The miscarriage of justice is that he was tried in the first place.  The miscarriage of justice is that the young man's family was told their son was murdered, and that the murderer would be jailed.  The miscarriage of justice is that people today want the gunman dead.

I speak, of course, of the case of Florida v Zimmerman, in which George Zimmerman was prosecuted for acting in self defense.  A case in which the special prosecutor did not maintain the properly- even necessary- distance from the case and instead promised young Trayvon Martin's family "Justice for Trayvon."  A case in which a family court judge ran a criminal court in the manner of family court.  A case which should have ended with the Prosecution failed even to prove there was a crime, let alone that Zimmerman was guilty of it.

On that rainy night, George Zimmerman called the police.  His story- a story which has not changed materially since the night of the shooting- is that he exited his vehicle to check the street name and street numbers to better guide police to the correct location.  I do not believe it incredible that he also attempted to locate young Mr. Martin, but there is no proof of that. 

Zimmerman's story continues: after hanging up with police and realizing he had no sight of Martin, he moved to return to his vehicle.  At this point, he was confronted my Mr. Martin.  This was no 12 year old cherub, as the media would have you believe.  He was a 17 year old football player, nearing the prime of his physical life.  He was a thug who liked fighting, and in a series of texts would lament that an opponent had not bled enough.

We do not know the specifics of that conversation.  We do know it was brief.  We also know that it was brief because of how quickly it became physical.  Zimmerman maintains that Martin attacked him, punching him in the nose, and that he (Zimmerman) was too stunned to defend himself until he was on the ground being straddled by Martin.  Zimmerman claims it was at this point he cried for help, and continued to do so until Martin discovered Zimmerman's concealed weapon, whereupon Martin (says Zimmerman) said "You're going to die tonight."

Zimmerman grabbed his gun and fired one shot.  That shot was fatal.  Martin would have lost consciousness within seconds.  He would have been dead within a number of minutes which does not require two digits to count.

All of this is Zimmerman's story.  On the record.  Repeatedly.  Never once has any material claim he made changed.

But what did the evidence say?  What did officers believe?  Evidence showed that Zimmerman had a damaged face, and abrasions on the back of his head.  Evidence showed no outward signs of physical trauma to Martin except scraped knuckles (as may have occured when punching someone in the face), and the single gunshot wound.  When they interviewed him, officers believed Zimmerman was telling the truth.  He was arrested and interrogated that night; he submitted to both without counsel.  The next day, he walked the investigators through his version of events- on camera.

The police decided all the evidence pointed to self defense.  The DA decided all the evidence pointed to self defense.  Mr. Zimmerman was released.

That should have been the end of it.  As tragic as that tale was, it should have ended there.  But it was not to be.  For a variety of reasons- I personally believe because Barack Obama was flagging in the polls- the Media picked up the story.  They decided that the Hispanic Zimmerman must be a white guy.  They decided that Zimmerman must have racially profiled Martin, and edited the 911 call to prove their point.

Because of Rick Scott's cowardice, special prosecutor Angela Corey was assigned to the case.  Using deceptive, even criminal, prosecutorial practices, she indicted Mr. Zimmerman on a charge of 2nd Degree Murder- a charge which requires more than mere rage, it requires a "depraved state of mind."  Ms. Corey promised "Justice for Trayvon."

Now, the trial is over.  For those of us who followed the trial closely, it was a bizarre, frightening thing.  The prosecution seemed to believe it merely needed to provide reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's account was accurate, rather than proving the charge "beyond a reasonable doubt."  The judge made strange decisions- somehow Mr. Zimmerman's past was relevant, but texts from Mr. Martin's phone (showing above mentioned history of violence) were not.  Defense motions were denied almost out of hand.  The Defense methodically destroyed every assertion made by the prosecution.  State's witness after State's witness provided testimony which not only did not contradict Mr. Zimmerman's account, but bolstered it.

Zimmerman was, thankfully, acquitted.  He should never have been tried, but he was.  And now he should be free.  The story should end there.  But it doesn't.

The Media and so-called "intelligencia" would *still* have you believe that Zimmerman was "morally, if not criminally" responsible for the death of Mr. Martin.  And that's the kindest version.  Many believe he literally got away with murder.  The New Black Panther Party wants him dead.  NFL Players wished him dead.  Many are clamoring for Federal Charges.

Zimmerman may have been acquitted, but he will never be free.  He must live now in fear for his life, for the lives of his family and loved ones.  All because of a miscarriage of justice.

The God Who Weeps

When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled.  “Where have you laid him?” he asked.
“Come and see, Lord” they replied
Jesus wept.
-John 11:33-35

This has been a tough week.  From the explosion at the Boston Marathon on Monday to the explosion in West, TX last night, it has been reminder after reminder that life sucks.  From the marathon, families are mourning.  As far as I know there are none missing.  From West, as of the last information I have, there are still people missing- and probably dead.  The nation stands in shock and mourning.

It is at times like this that people search for answers.  They want to know “why?”  And while they focus on the worldly “why” - “Why would someone bomb the Boston Marathon?”  “How did the fire start at the fertilizer plant?” – most people really want to know the cosmic “why?”  Why is the universe so fundamentally unfair?  Among those dead in Boston are mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and an 8 year old boy.  Among those dead in West are (almost certainly- see also: some not accounted for) some of the emergency responders who were trying to combat the blaze in the first place.  None of these people deserved to die.

Now, part of me says, as Clint Eastwood’s character in Unforgiven so famously did: “Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”  That’s a cold and clinical part.  Maybe it’s because I’m a guy.  Maybe it’s because I’m not “all there” emotionally.  Whatever the reason, I understand that bad things happen to good people, and we just have to deal with it.  The only answer is an early exit- and that’s no answer at all.

But part of me says, “God, why?” 

And God answers, “Because the world is fallen.  Because you have chosen Sin over Righteousness.  Because the Prince of the World is defeated, but not powerless.”

And when I hear that answer, it is no comfort.  But then I remember something, something that makes that answer bring comfort.  I remember a man- middle aged for his day, a young man by today’s standards, standing on a road in Bethany- just over two miles from where he would die- crying like a baby because one of his best friends was dead.  Jesus would raise Lazarus in just a little bit- probably about an hour, when all was said and done- yet “Jesus wept.”

I have a God who weeps.  I have a God who knows “it’s not fair.”  I have a God whose Mercy cries out to just make all the bad go away- but holds itself in check so that just a few more might be Saved and live with Him forever.  I have a God who I can cling to and cry like a baby when the world is too much.

And that brings me comfort.  I hope it brings you some, too.

Where We're Headed

CNBC has a story about the EU "saving the banks but losing a generation."  It's a stark and startling insight into how they got where they are, and where we are headed if we don't fix things.

Forget the debt crisis.  Forget the austerity riots.  One quote sums up all the problems they're having, and that we will have:
"We saved the banks but are running the risk of losing a generation," said Martin Schulz, a German socialist who has led the European Parliament, the EU's only directly elected institution, since January last year.

"One of the biggest threats to the European Union is that people entirely lose their confidence in the capacity of the EU to solve their problems. And if the younger generation is losing trust, then in my eyes the European Union is in real danger," he told Reuters in an interview.

Think about that for a moment.  "One of the biggest threats to the European Union is that people entirely lose their confidence in the capacity of the EU to solve their problems."

Let's break this down.
First: His statement assumes that the EU could solve anyone's problems anyway.  No government can solve people's problems.  The EU less than most, since it is not really a government in any meaningful sense anyway.  Even if the government could solve your problem, it could only do so by causing someone else a problem.

Second: His statement completely ignores where people got this fallacious idea in the first place: the Statist policies of Marx and others who believed that Government should "do something."  The idea of Government "doing something," is one that says the Government should be your parent, your nanny, and your boss.  Nothing you do can escape government control.

If the EU wants to fix its unemployment crisis it must take the opposite tack.  Get government as far out of people's lives as possible.  Yes, the lesson will be painful- as many such lessons are.  But it will be better for them in the long run if people realize that it is their job to care for themselves, not the government's job to "solve their problems."

And we are on the same path.  This same theory that the government should "solve [our] problems" is what drives the Democrat party.  It is the theory that says we must take from those who have succeeded and give to those who have failed.  It is the theory that says the Government can, let alone should, mandate that people engage in a specific economic activity.  It is the theory that says people chosen for government service are somehow more special, more qualified, more Human than everyone else, and so only they should be allowed the right to defend themselves.

We must return to the individualism of our past.  We must return to that pioneer spirit that said, "I'll take care of myself.  If I absolutely can't, my family will help."  We must return to the ideas of self-reliance and self-sufficiency.

And we will.  One way or another it will happen.  Either we will change voluntarily and relatively painlessly, or we will change reluctantly and very painfully.  In either case, reality will not be denied. 

We're like a house of cards built on an earthquake generator, and someone's hand is on the switch.  Either we unplug the generator, or we'll all come crashing down.

On Assassinating US Citizens

Rand Paul's filibuster has everyone talking about domestic drone strikes.  This is a good thing, because domestic drone strikes would be A Very Bad Thing.  On the other hand, there are a fair number of conservatives who assert that Rand is wrong that the US Government should not be able to specifically target any US Citizen on US Soil.  They claim that if someone has "taken up arms against the US" they do not deserve Constitutional protections.

This is a highly dangerous position.  I'll even go further.  The US does not have the right to assassinate anyone on US soil- citizen or otherwise.  Let's break it down a little bit.

Conservatives, Liberals, and Socrates' Cave

In Plato's Republic, he relates a (probably fictional) story about a conversation between Socrates and Glaucon in which Socrates postulates a set of prisoners bound in such a way that they had to face a wall on which shadows of the real world played out.  He first posited that those prisoners, raised thus from birth, would believe what they were seeing to be "the real world."  He further expounded on the difficulties if just one of those prisoners was let free, and then even compelled to see more and more of the real world.  Finally, he suggested what would happen if that prisoner, finally having acclimated to the world outside the cave, returned to that cave to try to educate the other prisoners.

The Wikipedia article on the story is pretty good.  Go check it out before you get to the rest of this post.  I'll wait.

...
...
...

Good.  You're back.

I don't know why I was thinking about this the other day, but I was, and I think I hit on a glimmer of understanding.  People, in general, are those prisoners in the cave.  The Media (by and large) are the ones who stoke the fire, decide what order people cross the bridge, and who make sure the prisoners don't break free on their own (not a hard thing to do, once they're acclimated to their position). 

Conservatives are that prisoner (by and large).  We have, by whatever means, broken free from that imprisonment.  At first it was painful and frustrating.  The world shouldn't work like this.  The world didn't work like this.  But, as time passed and we re-verified our new perceptions, we came to accept the real world for what it is.

Liberals, on the other hand, fall into two or three camps.  The first are the prison guards.  They are in league with the Media (actually, the other way 'round.  The Media is beholden to them), and like the situation as it is.  They want people to remain ignorant.  I won't even say that all of them have wholly nefarious motives.  Some of them really believe that "ignorance is bliss" and that those prisoners "aren't capable" of understanding/coping with/dealing with the real world.  Many of them, however, like the power they exert for its own sake.

The second set of liberals are the people walking on the bridge.  They know what the real world is.  However it happened, they are not in the cave.  Some of them escaped.  Others were never in the cave to begin with.  But they never think of the people in the cave unless something happens to bring them sharply to mind.  They support the prison guards for a variety of reasons.  Some of them believe that the prisoners are dangerous- why, they wouldn't be prisoners if they weren't dangerous.  Some of them believe that the prisoners "deserve it" somehow- they'd never be able to tell you how.  Still others believe that if the prisoners were loosed, their own station would suffer.

The third set of liberals are the prisoners themselves, or are a subset of them.  They are comfortable with what they know, and any attempt to instruct them otherwise is heresy.  They believe that conservatives are crazy, and that our tales of the real world are fanciful, even deranged, projections.  They don't believe in the prison guards, because they've never seen them for what they are.  If they give any thought to the possible existence of the guards, they assume that the guards have their best interests at heart, or are doing what they're doing for some justified reason.

Democrat politicians and the Major Media Outlets are the prison guards.  They have allowed some to be free in the sure knowledge that those can be counted on.  Hollywood "limousine Liberals" and other Celebrity liberals/moderates are the people carrying the bundles.  They know how the world works, because it works that way for them especially (Hollywood gets far more targeted tax breaks (read: any) than "Big Oil").  For their various reasons they either don't consider the plight of the prisoners to be something worth worrying about, or (worse) they believe that it is good for them for people to remain in the dark. 

The few principled liberals (about as common as a Conservative Democrat) are the liberals still chained up.  They believe that (for instance) Government should "take care of the people."  They believe the trite that "hard work should always lead to success."  They believe, deep down, in "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."  Any attempt to warn them, to teach them, to give even the most minor shake to their illusion will be met with hostility.

About Focusing on "Mental Health"

In my Jan 16 post "Tyranny in a Velvet Glove" I said this:

    14.  Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to reaserch the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Do you know how easy it is for the DSM-V to be modified based on politics?  Congratulations, owners of multiple guns.  You can now be diagnosed as mentally-ill.

Then, just two days later, I wrote this:

So there you have it.  Now, simply believing in the Federalist (I love how they have Newspeak-ized the term "anti-Federalist" to mean "anti-Nationalist") system, and that the Federal Government might maybe be overstepping its bounds a little bit makes you a dangerous and violent criminal.

Now, I'm sure there are some who rolled their eyes and thought, "okay, now you're over reacting."

Maybe y'all should tell that to Doctor Lee Heib, MD.  Here's what she wrote (published last night):

Wait … not so fast. The problem is one of definition: Who is mentally ill?

The use of psychiatry against dissidents in the Soviet Union was one of the major human rights scandals of the 1970s and 1980s. Overt tyrants don’t need to employ psychiatry as a weapon, but establishing a dictatorship that pretends to be a republic requires a stealthy way of silencing opponents. As the Soviets discovered, not everyone is afraid to speak out, and when dissidents are perceived by the public as speaking truth, they must somehow be discredited.
So there you have it.  Not from some schlub on the internet, but from someone in medicine who can see how the SCOAMT is manipulating that profession for his own political ends.

Now, I hear you saying, "But she's not a psychiatrist, and that was the USSR.  How would she know?"

Well, the plural of anecdote is not data, but when anecdotes confirm (or seem to confirm) a prediction, then it's time to at least take a theory seriously.  So here's just one anecdote from her piece- click over to read the whole thing.

Brandon Raub, USMC veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, made quite colorful anti-war and anti-administration remarks in a Facebook page. He was subsequently drug away in handcuffs by local authorities purportedly at the request of mental health workers.

Col. Thierry Dupuis, county police chief, acted under the state’s emergency custody statute which allows a magistrate to order civil detention and psych evaluation of anyone considered potentially dangerous – i.e., he was hauled off and jailed for a “pre-crime.” He hadn’t hurt anyone. He hadn’t done anything overt except express his beliefs on paper. And anyone with a three-inch kitchen knife is “potentially dangerous.”

Mental health is a tricky issue, and no one wants true psychotics to own weapons.  However, there is often no way to find the "true psychotics" until it's too late.  So we have two choices- disarm everyone, or deal with the fact that sometimes crazy people will get their hands on weapons and do crazy things with them.

Disarming everyone is not really on the table.  Even if we wanted to do so, we would not be able to (and you can take my guns from my cold, dead hands).

...And the Wages of Sin are Death

The Malthusians over at the New York Times have a new piece up (I found it via Drudge) crying and wringing their hands over "planet-warming emissions."  You see, the Europeans (because we must be exactly like the Europeans) have accepted the racket known as "carbon trading" and have already enforced it on power providers and manufacturers.  The NYT wants you to think this is a simple "cap" system whereby a power plant or manufacturer simply pays penalties if they release "too much" carbon into the air.  In reality, these are almost always rackets whereby people like Al Gore get rich.  The scam is this: some companies know they'll never hit that carbon limit.  So they sell some of their quota.  Now they make more money, and the company that buys that part of the quota is hit with fewer fines.  It is, in essence, a way for successful enterprises to be forced to subsidize their less successful counterparts.

Well, Europe was about to do the same to airlines.  Everyone (and I mean "everyone who wasn't going to profit from this scam,") proclaimed and emphatic, "NO!"

The US said no, China said no, India said no, the airlines said no.  Eventually Europe got the idea, and decided to postpone the plan "for just one year."  Yeah, we'll see how that works out for them.

In the meantime, in case you needed more evidence that a) the current environmental movement is made of Malthusians (people who want humanity to die off) and b) is not based upon science, but rather a quasi-religion which just happens to have Al Gore as its Chief Priest and Prophet, the NYT gives us this gem of a line:

For many people reading this, air travel is their most serious environmental sin. One round-trip flight from New York to Europe or to San Francisco creates about 2 or 3 tons of carbon dioxide per person. The average American generates about 19 tons of carbon dioxide a year; the average European, 10.

What's Missing Here?

I got this from FotB tsrblke:

In accordance with the Jeanne Clery Campus Security Act, the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (DPSEP) is sharing the following Campus Safety Notice about an incident reported to DPSEP.

This morning, the [1] Metropolitan Police Department notified DPSEP that a student was robbed at approximately 2:00 a.m.  near the corner of [1] Boulevard and [1] Avenue on the edge of the campus.

The student was approached by unknown subject, who displayed a silver handgun. The student surrendered her purse and cellphone, and the subject fled the scene in a dark-colored SUV.

The student was not injured during the incident. City police are investigating the matter, and DPSEP will increase its evening patrols in the vicinity.

The subject is described as a black male in his early 20s, 5’8”-6’ feet tall, thin build, wearing a dark-colored ski jacket, black pants and a black knit cap.

In addition to making you aware of this incident, we would like to share the following safety tips.
If possible,don't walk alone at night.
Always remain alert and aware of your surroundings.
Scan parking lots,sidewalks and streets for suspicious persons and activity.
Look confident and purposeful when you walk.
Don’t flash your personal belongings such as MP3 players, cell phones, and laptops
Report suspicious activity or persons to DPSEP or the Metropolitan Police Department.
If you are the victim of a crime:
Report the incident immediately by calling DPSEP at [Phone] or 911.
Make a mental note of the suspect’s gender, race, age, height, clothing and distinguishing characteristics.
If more than one suspect is involved, concentrate on the person closest to you.
Try to note the direction of travel of the suspect(s) from the scene.
Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness' [1] Program also provides free safety escorts for students, faculty, staff and visitors who want to be accompanied to cars,other buildings or across campus. [1] operates: Monday through Wednesday - 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., Thursday - 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., Friday - 6:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m., Saturday - 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m., and Sunday - 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.  To request a safety escort call [Phone]
For additional crime prevention tips and safety information, visit the DPSEP web site a [Website removed]

[1] - Redacted by request

He has two points- one with which I agree, and one with which I don't:

The one I don't agree with is that he takes exception to this line: "Look confident and purposeful when you walk."  Yet self-defense experts will tell you this is an invaluable piece of advice.  They sometimes put it another way, "Don't act like a victim."  Merely looking confident and purposeful is a way to help say, "I'm not easy pickings.  Wait for the next guy."

The other point he makes, with which I agree, is this: no where in that email is any talk of self-defense.  The closest they get is to tell you that you can get a "free" safety escort.  In fact, this specific incident would not have been helped by the safety escort- that program (per the email) only runs 6P - 1A Mon - Wed.  That means they knocked off at 1A on Thursday morning.  The robbery happened at 2 AM.

Of further note, the robber was apparently not terribly concerned with the fact that robbery was illegal.  Nor that it was illegal to carry a gun on campus.  It's almost as if criminals don't obey the law.

Now, this was a simple robbery.  Most self-defense experts will also tell you just to comply with a robber.  For one thing, this one already had his gun out.  Had the student had a weapon, and attempted to draw it, she probably would have been shot herself.  For another, even if he didn't have a gun at all, by the time a robber is demanding your stuff, he's close enough that you probably don't have time to pull a gun and fire (with anything resembling accuracy) before he could be hitting/kicking/stabbing you.

But what if it hadn't been a simple robbery?  What if it had been a rape attempt?  An assault? 

Bad people are going to do bad things.  That's simply the way the world works.  Given that truth, I want the ability to defend myself when the situation rises.  Liberals would have you believe that the mere ability to defend yourself is worse than getting robbed, raped, or beaten to death.

Causal Confusion

You've probably heard or seen commercials from the National Association of Realtors about "the benefits of home ownership."  These include better grades for kids, more cohesive family units, higher employment, and unicorns (I think I made that last one up).  To hear them tell it, if everyone just bought a house, everything would be better. 

Even granting them the best of motives, this is irresponsible advertising and giving people false expectations.  And I don't grant them the best of motives.

You see, the premise of these commercials is a fallacious conflation of causal relationships.  For my Liberal readers: it gets cause and effect backwards.

In the early days of my blog, I addressed it this way: frugality fosters wealth, not the other way around.  You see, the fact is that couples who are committed to each other and their children, who work hard and save money, and who have the personal habits associated with those things will tend to own homes.  It is not owning the home that makes them committed and hard working.  Exactly the opposite, it's the commitment and hard work that makes them good candidates for home ownership.

Unfortunately, this disease does not simply effect the NAR.  It seems to have spread everywhere.  Colleges tell you that getting a degree will enhance your prospects, when the truth is (especially in this age of degrees in Underwater Basket Weaving), that the kind of people who are likely to be successful are the same ones who will tend to get college degrees.  More over, they will tend to get STEM degrees, not Liberal Arts degrees.

This really gets to the heart of our "because I deserve it!" society.  We have ceased being a society of personal responsibility and liberty- the society that built this nation into the greatest on earth- and have become a society of "steps to success" and "easy money."  Our grandparents and great-grandparents did not believe that there were certain steps that would lead to wealth and prosperity.  Rather they realized that accomplishing certain goals would require certain steps.  Our parents, for various reasons, began getting that backward, and they imparted that to my generation. 

Now, people believe that if they go to college, they are owed a job when they graduate.  They believe that once they sign to purchase a house, they are owed prosperity and a good school and a job.

It's completely backwards, and it will change.  The only question is if it will change because we, as a society, set out to change it, or if it will change because the gods of the copy-book headings will force it on us.

Small Business Owners React to Obamacare; Leftists Cry

H/T Gabe at Ace of Spades.

Let us stipulate, for the record, that no one enjoys seeing people further impoverished.  That said, I can't help but indulge in some schadenfreude, here.  If I had to guess, I'd say that the "single mother of three" was more than happy that she was going to be able to soak her bargain-basement employer for a high-speed health plan.  I wouldn't even be surprised to find out she was an Obama voter.

Across the nation, economic reality is rearing its inevitable head, and Leftists are crying that "it's not fair!"  Some are even threatening to boycott entire corporations because of the hard decisions franchise owners face.  They are shocked, shocked that small business owners are cutting part-time employees hours to avoid them suddenly being considered "full time" despite not working full-time hours.

What, exactly, did they think would happen?

Well, honestly, most of them didn't.  To most of them, especially rich actors, the economy is magic, and money is merely a talisman used to work that magic.  They have no understanding of the economy, and they believe that it is not understandable.  So when they heard "free health care," and "a right to health care," they never stopped to ponder economic realities like TANSTAAFL, or that the laws of supply and demand stem from the core fact of the scarcity of resources. 

But then there are those who did think about it.  Most of them, I will generously grant, really should have fallen into the first group.  They don't understand economic reality.  Unfortunately, they think they do.  So when they heard "employer paid health care" they thought, "Yeah!  Every worker deserves (oh, how I hate that word- DT) health care!"  To them, those business owners are all just greedy jerks who want to become rich "on the backs of their employees."

Some few, however, thought about economic reality, and understood it.  They are simply evil.  They understood exactly what would happen.  Indeed, they understood that this was the design of the law.  Small business owners, especially restaurant owners (either family restaurants or franchise owners), tend to work on very small margins.  That is, after they've paid their businesses' bills, including payroll, what they actually take home is fairly modest.  Anything that cuts into that margin poses a very serious threat of putting them in a negative feedback loop which would end in bankruptcy and (and this is important) the closing of their business.  What, exactly, do they think will happen to those workers?

See, the point of Obamacare is (as admitted by the Malignant Traitor himself) to be a "Trojan Horse" for single payer.  The Democrats want more people forced out of their insurance and onto the Exchanges.  That is the only possible outcome of all the mandates and fees baked into the law.  Once enough people are forced onto the "Public Option," they'll be able to cry, "See?!  We told you those evil capitalists were only in for the money!  They don't care about you!" and enact single payer.

And once the Government controls your access to health care, the Government controls every facet of your life.

Ban Human Nature

This piece, from Ace, sums up why I think most "gun control" advocates are either naive or dishonest. 

As Ace points out, the only realistic way to stop gun violence is to prevent anyone anywhere from having a gun.  That means police and the military, too.  As long as guns exist, there is the possibility bad people will get them and do bad things with them.  So the only plausible "gun control" that could prevent mass gun violence is an absolute ban on guns. 

Now, Ace's point is primarily the dishonesty with which gun control advocates routinely act.  He points out that they claim not to want to "ban guns," and yet, logically, that is the only policy they can pursue.  I have a different point.

The only way to stop tragedies like what happened in Newtown, CT is to ban human nature.  That's it.  The only thing that could have stopped this particular tragedy, or any of the others before, is to lobotomize the entire population.  Sure, it's the "nuke the site from orbit" form of deterring violence, but there's a reason that quote ends with "it's the only way to be sure."

Do gun control advocates believe that murder didn't exist until the 1364?  Do they believe that people have not been wreaking violence against each other since before recorded history?

Here, they will often fall back on the dishonest line of argument that "guns make murder easier."  That is, as far as it goes, a true statement.  It is much easier to shoot someone with a handgun than it is to stab them with a knife.  What it misses is the amount of effort these mass killers go to.

They often purchase semi-specialized equipment.  They usually purchase special magazines and a fair number of them.  They purchase ammunition, sometimes for weeks or months before the actual atrocity.  Many of them map out exactly what they're going to do, and even have a plan for how to deal with the police (it usually involves shooting themselves, but it's still a plan).

Yet, for all this effort, we're supposed to think they would be deterred just because they could "only" use a bow or crossbow?  Or are gun control advocates actually seeking to ban all projectile weapons?  Well, I guess no one could possibly use an axe or a hammer to kill someone.

The fact is that people have been killing each other for as long as there have been people.  You're never going to stop it, either.  Indeed, what makes it so easy to commit these kinds of acts is not the existence of guns, but human nature.

See, everyone wants to feel safe.  Weapons, by definition, are not safe (there is no such thing as an unloaded gun).  Therefore, people tend to want to avoid weapons.  In most cases, if you got people to sit down and think through it, they probably wouldn't be afraid of the weapons.  They wouldn't even be afraid of some unknown assailant having a weapon.  Their problem would be, I believe, that weapons make them realize how dangerous the world is in general, and they don't want those reminders.  No one wants to be forced to realize, every single minute of every single day, how fragile life is.

So most people avoid weapons.  My mother grew up on a farm in Western Texas.  Her daddy required that she and her sister be familiar with how to shoot.  Nevertheless, she's not particularly comfortable around guns.  She doesn't particularly like them.  In a life where guns were just a fact of life, and were used to save lives both human and animal on more than one occasion, she still would rather avoid them.

The problem with "most people" avoiding weapons, and wanting others to avoid weapons, is that it means the bad guys are more likely than the average person to have a weapon.

Imagine if this young man had walked into that school with an axe, or a sword.  With the possible exception of the specific body count, do we really think the outcome would have been much different?  No one there could defend themselves.  To the extent they could, it would have been because they could have met him on some kind of equal footing; say, by grabbing a baseball bat from the P.E. closet.

You're never going to stop this kind of violence.  It has been with us since the first caveman realized it was easier to kill Grog and take his stuff than to barter with Grog for Grog's stuff.  It will continue until the race of Man is gone.

It's simply human nature.

Let's Be Honest

There's a problem in our country.  It's a deep sickness that affects everything we do, or see.  It's called "politics," and I don't believe it has a cure.

On Friday, the the town of Newtown, CT was the scene of a terrible act of evil.  A young man, apparently mentally ill, took a veritable arsenal to a school, after having already killed his mother, and killed over two dozen people.  He then took his own life.  This is a senseless act of mindless violence.

"Senseless": It has no sense.  No amount of rational thinking will ever allow us to understand what was going through that young man's head.

"Mindless": He wasn't using his mind.  Perhaps he was incapable of using his mind.  Someone thinking clearly doesn't target innocent children in some random act of violence.

As a nation, we all feel wounded by the events that unfolded.  Some of those wounds will close quickly.  Some of those wounds will never close.  The only thing we should be worrying about is how provide some measure of comfort and compassion to the survivors of Friday's attack.

Yet, for some reason, people believe politics must be brought into the discussion.

One professional political pundit, I can't even remember which one, remarked that 2nd Amendment advocates would probably be calling for "arming kindergartners," before we even knew all the victims.  See, it was important to get it on record immediately that more people having guns wouldn't have stopped this attack.  Never mind that he's wrong.

In what was supposed to be a prayer service for the victims and their families, the President decided to make a call for increased gun control.  On the other side of things, 2nd Amendment advocates were pre-politicising the event, since history says that exactly what did happen (increased call for gun control) would happen.

Now, those are things that can certainly be discussed.  It is in our nature to want to avoid this kind of pain and monstrosity.  When something like this happens, we rightly review to see what, if anything, could be done to prevent future recurrence.  So I don't have a problem that it's being discussed.  I do have two problems with the discussion, however.

The first, and most important, is the timing.  The political discussion was occurring, on both sides of the aisle, by around 1 PM CST, if not earlier.  The President politicized a prayer service.  It seems little or no consideration was given to the grief of those affected.

The second reason, however, is that the discussion is not honest.  As Ace so correctly pointed out on Friday, whenever Liberals say they want to have a "discussion" about guns, what they really mean is they want to demonize them and push for more gun control.  They're just smart enough that they know they can't say that out loud.  For the gun rights advocates' part, they seldom mention the shear danger involved with a totally armed populace.

Today there will be more posts from me.  I've been out since last week with a bad back, and today is the first I can even really use my laptop while laid out on the couch.  I hope to avoid some of the dishonesty in this discussion.  Most of all, I hope that we can all be honest about our goals, and see the facts for what they really are.

Beware Liberals Bearing Newspeak

I normally pay the amount of attention to Cory Booker that one would more readily associate with one's appendix function.  However, when FotB tsrblke sent me this on twitter, I just couldn't help myself.

Time to mock a self-important liberal douche mercilessly.

Let's start where he does:

This morning, I will begin living on a food budget of $30 a week / $4.32 per day.  This is the financial equivalent of the budget provided to people participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, in the State of New Jersey.  I will live only on a SNAP equivalent food budget for the next seven days.

Okay, first off, what part of "supplemental" didn't you understand, Mr. Booker?  The assumption is that SNAP will not be the only way you're paying for your groceries.  The assumption is that you will have some other form of income- a job, disability, or some other form of government assistance.  Proving that you'll have a hard time living on an amount you were never intended to live on proves precisely nothing, you self-important sub-moron.

Next:

A Twitter user tweeted me her opinion that "nutrition is not the responsibility of the government".  This comment caused me to reflect on the families and children in my community who benefit from SNAP assistance and deserve deeper consideration.  In my own quest to better understand the outcomes of SNAP assistance, I suggested to this specific Twitter user that we both live on a SNAP equivalent food budget for a week and document our experience.

So are you saying that nutrition is the responsibility of the government?  You do realize, do you not, that anything that is the government's "responsibility" is also theirs to withhold?  Also, I sincerely doubt that anyone in Cory Booker's "community" relies on SNAP for their groceries.  Whether or not they receive it is a different matter, but I sincerely doubt anyone around him relies on $30/week for their food.

My goals for the #SNAPChallenge are to raise awareness and understanding of food insecurity; reduce the stigma of SNAP participation; elevate innovative local and national food justice initiatives and food policy; and, amplify compassion for individuals and communities in need of assistance.

This just might be his most ignorant quote.  And that's saying something.  First off, "food insecurity" is something dreamt up by the loony left.  The idea of 21+ meals a week is due directly to American affluence.  Most cultures in the world still get by on one or two meals a day.  I don't wish that on anyone, but let's not pretend that starvation is some big problem in America.  It's certainly not a big enough problem that Government needs to get involved.

As for reducing "the stigma of SNAP participation?"  Seriously?  We want to reduce the stigma of living off the government teet?  How about we increase the stigma?  How about people who have to rely on forcing their neighbors to provide their meals have a little bit of shame?  Relying on the benevolence of others should be humbling, at least, and "shaming" is not going too far.

"Food justice initiative?"  Seriously, now he's just throwing random words together.  What the heck is "food justice?"  Is everyone now entitled to a pound of Swish Shard per week?  Is having a rib eye the new desegregation?

As for compassion, hows this?  Give to food banks.  Give to local charities.  Cory Booker is not a poor man.  The Tarrant County Food Bank can feed three people for a dollar.  How about, instead of this stupid "#SNAPChallenge," he uses that $30/week to feed 10 people per week?  How does that sound?  But, of course, it's not about charity and compassion, it's about an ever-growing government, and the need that Liberals have for Government to "take care" of people 24/7/365 from cradle to grave.  Nevermind the resulting loss of Liberty.

We'll end here:

We have much work to do at the local level to address a legacy of structural inequities in the American food system.  As more and more working people and families - many holding down more than one job - face greater and greater challenges to juggle housing, medical, and transportation costs, meeting nutritional needs becomes a serious problem and a social justice issue.

What "legacy of structural inequities?"  Unless he really does mean that everyone should be entitled to their weekly rib eye, I have no idea what he's talking about.  As for those "working people and families" that are "holding down more than one job," don't they, by definition, have more income than just $30/wk to buy groceries?  And before I cry about their challenges to juggle "housing, medical, and transportation costs," I think I want an accounting of where their money goes.  Do they have ipads?  Iphones?  Is Mr. Booker perhaps unaware that health insurance premiums have gone up $2,500 per year for families since the very beginnings of Obamacare, and that they'll be going up any more?  I wonder about Mr. Booker's take on repealing ObamaCare so that those "working people and families" might be able to keep that $2,500/yr for themselves?