We hear a lot these days about laws designed to change OTHER people's behavior. Didn't being a liberal and an environmentalist used to mean "Small is Beautiful" "Living More with Less" and "Tread lightly on the Earth"???
Now Al Gore gets a Nobel for living in a uselessly large and extravagant mansion, and Obama gets a Nobel just for being alive. Am I missing something, or are most of the liberals I know, and know of, hypocrites? Is anyone celebrated for simple living anymore? Naturally, the spoiled rich folks who are TV's talking heads can hardly celebrate folks whose lifestyles put them to shame.
Anyway, enlighten me, correct me, talk to me....
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
More than you asked for, sir.
Qui Verbo Dei contempserunt, eis auferetur etiam verbum hominis.
They that have despised the Word of God, from them shall the word of man also be taken away.
They that have despised the Word of God, from them shall the word of man also be taken away.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Progress: the more things change the more they stay the same
“Progress” in 1914 meant we had learned how to kill millions, and could call it “warfare.”
“Progress” in 1939 meant we could kill millions of undesirables and call it “evolution of the race.”
Progress in 1974 meant we learned we could kill unwanted millions and call it “medicine”
“Progress” in 1939 meant we could kill millions of undesirables and call it “evolution of the race.”
Progress in 1974 meant we learned we could kill unwanted millions and call it “medicine”
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Sojourners brought up God's Law again
...so here I go:
I'd like to comment on a Christian and his/her relation to the Law. They are indeed the “Terms” of another covenant, which does not bind us. We are bound under the Covenant of Grace. But the Ten Commandments are still a perfect statement of God's views. God hasn't, won't, and doesn't need to change his mind. A God any less perfect would be unworthy of our worship. Jesus not only reaffirmed God's commands, but made a few of them much more difficult to follow (adultery and murder). Interestingly, it seems Sabbath keeping was made a tad easier by “it was made for humans, you know” which says to me that it's perfectly OK to think about what they mean—not as critics, but as those who seek to understand. Another important thing to think about: does this particular law make any sense as public policy in a secular society? For many of the Ten, the answer is, obviously, "No." But that doesn't mean Christians should be shy about "this is what I believe." In Psalm 19, David said “the law of the LORD is perfect”
I am heartened to see that “LetJusticeRollDown” [another poster at
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/09/29/thou-shalt-not-abuse-the-ten-commandments/] longs to follow in the footsteps of David, the one “after God's own heart.”
Blessings, for Shalom, the loving reign of God's good laws,
I'd like to comment on a Christian and his/her relation to the Law. They are indeed the “Terms” of another covenant, which does not bind us. We are bound under the Covenant of Grace. But the Ten Commandments are still a perfect statement of God's views. God hasn't, won't, and doesn't need to change his mind. A God any less perfect would be unworthy of our worship. Jesus not only reaffirmed God's commands, but made a few of them much more difficult to follow (adultery and murder). Interestingly, it seems Sabbath keeping was made a tad easier by “it was made for humans, you know” which says to me that it's perfectly OK to think about what they mean—not as critics, but as those who seek to understand. Another important thing to think about: does this particular law make any sense as public policy in a secular society? For many of the Ten, the answer is, obviously, "No." But that doesn't mean Christians should be shy about "this is what I believe." In Psalm 19, David said “the law of the LORD is perfect”
I am heartened to see that “LetJusticeRollDown” [another poster at
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/09/29/thou-shalt-not-abuse-the-ten-commandments/] longs to follow in the footsteps of David, the one “after God's own heart.”
Blessings, for Shalom, the loving reign of God's good laws,
Monday, September 21, 2009
Success and failure
It's often been said that baseball is one of the few professions where you can fail two times out of three and be considered a great success. But an abortionist has an even lower standard(morally if not numerically): it's a successful procedure if only one of his patients leaves the clinic in a medical waste container.
(I am of course aware that this is a complex issue. Many factors go into the decision, and people of good will have differing opinions. But it helps to state mine honestly, and to think carefully about yours! Blessings, Witness4peace)
(I am of course aware that this is a complex issue. Many factors go into the decision, and people of good will have differing opinions. But it helps to state mine honestly, and to think carefully about yours! Blessings, Witness4peace)
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Goverment jobs
Who will work for the “government option” insurance company? Let's see, insurance companies will suffer from the competition, jobs will be at risk, so, if I were an employee at Private Insurance company X, I'd apply for a government job with lifetime tenure! Obama would hire the very people he now chooses to demonize!
Monday, September 14, 2009
From a thread about nationalization of health care
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/09/10/obamas-health-care-speech-hope-over-fear/#comment-16559995
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/6202/what-right-to-health-care
Check out this column from the Boston Globe about what a “right” is, and isn't. The Bill of Rights is about freedom; liberal elitists and their fellow travelers like Jim Wallis have turned it into an entitlement, an obligation that impinges on the freedoms of others. Instead of deeds of mercy, which the Bible commands in no uncertain terms, Rev. Jim is substituting the secular notion of entitlement: something someone else is forced to do for me, for free, regardless of my behavior. There's a world of difference.
True, the Canadian system is technically independent of the US but their people, as patients, aren't. That should be obvious [from their travel to the US for urgent treatment, and their use of our medical schools and privately manufactured medical products]. I know little about European systems; there may be something or a lot to learn from them. But not if we don't get the fundamentals of what is a right and what is personal responsibility straight from the beginning. And not if we don't tell the truth: that Obama and Jim are steering us in the disastrous direction of nationalization regardless of the satisfaction of the majority with many essential aspects of the current private system.
There also was an earlier ref on this site to this column:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/
It's well known (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090913/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_primary_care;_ylt=Akup8mKE8f.5OwsjV4kAZCT34494;_ylu=X3oDMTJ1aWU0OWJvBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwOTEzL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX3ByaW1hcnlfY2FyZQRjcG9zAzUEcG9zAzUEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawM1MG1pbGxpb25uZXc-), that there aren't enough primary care physicians to handle a sudden influx of people with free or subsidized government insurance. True, primary care CAN save costs later on, but will all these new patients pay any better attention than you and I? Ten or 20 million more people being told to quit smoking, lose weight, and exercise? The emergency is not about health care delivery or insurance, but public health—people are failing to take elementary steps to better health. It appears that Obama has no plan to deal with this other than to insist that his plan will solve everything. Yeah, right. That is so wildly optimistic as to border on outright falsehood.
While I am indeed impressed with our new Surgeon General's dedication to the health of the poor, I still feel her weight sends the wrong message: look how far I got by ignoring medical advice. So she is a good, very good, person, but a rotten example of the preventive care that is our only hope for real savings in a plan that refuses to limit malpractice abuse. Please don't dismiss this as criticizing someone with a problem I don't have--in fact, bad food is too readily available and inexpensive to the poor in America. If this is addressed, as a priority far higher than the socialization of medicine, Obama will have done some good.
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/6202/what-right-to-health-care
Check out this column from the Boston Globe about what a “right” is, and isn't. The Bill of Rights is about freedom; liberal elitists and their fellow travelers like Jim Wallis have turned it into an entitlement, an obligation that impinges on the freedoms of others. Instead of deeds of mercy, which the Bible commands in no uncertain terms, Rev. Jim is substituting the secular notion of entitlement: something someone else is forced to do for me, for free, regardless of my behavior. There's a world of difference.
True, the Canadian system is technically independent of the US but their people, as patients, aren't. That should be obvious [from their travel to the US for urgent treatment, and their use of our medical schools and privately manufactured medical products]. I know little about European systems; there may be something or a lot to learn from them. But not if we don't get the fundamentals of what is a right and what is personal responsibility straight from the beginning. And not if we don't tell the truth: that Obama and Jim are steering us in the disastrous direction of nationalization regardless of the satisfaction of the majority with many essential aspects of the current private system.
There also was an earlier ref on this site to this column:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/
It's well known (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090913/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_primary_care;_ylt=Akup8mKE8f.5OwsjV4kAZCT34494;_ylu=X3oDMTJ1aWU0OWJvBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwOTEzL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX3ByaW1hcnlfY2FyZQRjcG9zAzUEcG9zAzUEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawM1MG1pbGxpb25uZXc-), that there aren't enough primary care physicians to handle a sudden influx of people with free or subsidized government insurance. True, primary care CAN save costs later on, but will all these new patients pay any better attention than you and I? Ten or 20 million more people being told to quit smoking, lose weight, and exercise? The emergency is not about health care delivery or insurance, but public health—people are failing to take elementary steps to better health. It appears that Obama has no plan to deal with this other than to insist that his plan will solve everything. Yeah, right. That is so wildly optimistic as to border on outright falsehood.
While I am indeed impressed with our new Surgeon General's dedication to the health of the poor, I still feel her weight sends the wrong message: look how far I got by ignoring medical advice. So she is a good, very good, person, but a rotten example of the preventive care that is our only hope for real savings in a plan that refuses to limit malpractice abuse. Please don't dismiss this as criticizing someone with a problem I don't have--in fact, bad food is too readily available and inexpensive to the poor in America. If this is addressed, as a priority far higher than the socialization of medicine, Obama will have done some good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)