Running Commentary on Obama's Proposals...may be modified later...this is off the top of my head...some of these intellectual's best stuff sure doesn't require much thought to refute.
(I'll be editing this and adding more information as I have time to think about what's been said and what is intended.)
1. Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
This is already law. It does nothing except force agencies to comply with the law. And Obama has no say over state agencies.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
Changes to HIPAA are probably needed, and making legitimate connections between the mentally ill and the NICS check system isn't onerous. The problem is, who gets to say what 'mentally ill' means? In the minds of some in charge, anyone who might want to own a firearm is 'mentally ill'. As it stands such a practice is a blank check for government supression of freedom.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
Nothing onerous here, but why do states need incentives if the background check system works as it should?
4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
The categories of individuals who are prohibited from having a gun are, for the most part, well-designed. There are some issues, such as where a woman can claim domestic violence has occurred when it has not, and her male significant other can be restrained from possession of a firearm, sometimes for months or years, even when he is guilty of no crime or intent to commit a crime. The problem is in the details: how will an AG review of the categories keep individuals like Adam Lanza from slipping through a crack (whatever that means)?
No one, not the NRA, not the average gun owner, and certainly not any person with any common sense wants felons, neurotics, or chronically violent people to have a gun. But expanding the categories and definitions to law-abiding citizens won't prevent crime. Enforcing the laws we have, and occasionally shooting the criminally violent perpetrators, will.
5. Propose rule-making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
To the best of my knowledge, this already happens in most jurisdictions. The meaning of 'full background check' is unclear; most jurisdictions run a check in their state database, although many would also use the FBI's database. Not sure what this really does except add paperwork to the local law enforcement officer's load.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
This is actually a good idea on the one hand; those who have doubts about an individual who wants to buy a firearm have been prevented from having access to the NICS check system in the past. C&R FFL holders are instructed NOT to use the NICS system. They should have that option. So should any private individual at (for example) a gun show. Currently, we don't.
Where the problem lies is in FORCING private citizens to do background checks. I should have the right to transfer (give) a firearm to my son when he goes off to college, and I shouldn't have to run a NICS check on him to do so. How will this be enforced?
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
Been there, done that, got nothin' for it. The feds can't even do a national nonsmoking campaign right.
The NRA has run national gun safety campaigns for years, and nobody does it better than they do. Ask just about any child in America to finish this instruction: "Stop! Don't touch! ... " The Feds can't manage anything even close to this effectiveness.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
Nuts. Is he saying that none of the gun locks (already required by law to be distributed with a new firearm) are no good now? Were all the safes made of plastic? (Chinese, I bet!)
9. Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
And this isn't already done? The only time I can think of that it wasn't was when Obama's people were running illegal machine guns to Mexican drug lords. But try suggesting that anyone enforce the law in THAT case. The responsible people are running away from that as FAST and FURIOUS as they can.
10. Release a Department of Justice report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
Again, three words: FAST AND FURIOUS.
11. Nominate a new director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Hmm. Why do I think it might be Feinstein, or Schumer? Or worse?
12. Provide law enforcement, first-responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
Proper training without armed intervention is really simple: Sit down and wait your turn to die.
Anyone who is REALLY serious about protecting kids in schools will make sure there are GUNS in every school, in the hands of trained personnel who aren't afraid to use them to protect the lives of the kids. Otherwise, the schools (since Columbine) already have instituted huge changes in emergency procedures, come up with new security plans, and trained staff for emergency events. If that's all he means, this is another non-sequitur.
And really...is there a law enforcement agency in the entire US that hasn't had active-shooter training since 9/11?
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
I can nail jello to a wall easier than I can define what that sentence says. As one blogger recently said, Obama might as well just say, 'nyuk nyuk nyuk'; it means about the same thing. But there's one little detail in that which WON'T happen...the prosecution of gun crime...you see, too much of it is committed by Democrats with connections (look at Bill Clinton's list of pardons when he left office for a quick summary).
Ask any second-week cadet at the local police academy if there's a difference between 'enforcement' and 'prevention'...but the POTUS seems to think they are synonymous.
14. Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
OK, we'll throw some money at research. We might even learn something. One thing I know will happen: if we learn that having more guns in circulation cuts down on violent crime, this research will be radically altered before it gets published. And since we already have that data, and already know it is true that more guns equals less crime, I wonder what all that tax money will really accomplish?
15. Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun-safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
Read this one: micro-stamping. It is useless, but it is going to be forced on us anyway. We could put a cop in every elementary school in America for less than this will cost, and it won't likely help solve a SINGLE crime, and does absolutely NOTHING to prevent violent crime.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors from asking their patients about guns in their homes.
In other words, you local doctor is now an arm of the Obama administration. Funny, my family doc is a big-time shotgunner (competitive and upland game bird hunter). I wonder how he'll take this? But I feel sorry for the single mom who has a handgun to protect herself and her children when her crusading anti-gun physician decides she's a danger to herself and her kids.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
Wow. Does anyone out there think, even with FERPA or HIPAA, that you can't call the cops when someone threatens to harm you? Really? And remember, when every second counts, the cops are only minutes away.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school-resource officers.
Hey, this one makes sense (at least, everything but tying the SRO jobs to federal money). This is basically what the NRA said needs to happen. I wonder if Obama will give the NRA credit for this one? Putting armed officers in schools will, unlike almost everything on this list, actually prevent the deaths of school children.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
Almost all schools and universities have already done this. Between Columbine and Virginia Tech, those folks got the message. I'm not saying all the plans are good ones, but then, the federal plans won't be any good either unless they include putting guns in those facilities. "The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." - Wayne LaPierre. Houses of worship? Some states are foolish enough to make it illegal to carry a concealed weapon in a church. That makes the churches in those states prime targets for any nut (or terrorist) who wants a high body count. Here in Texas, you can carry in church unless the church says no. That law makes more sense.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
There's a lot that could be said about this from a financial perspective, but it really will do nothing to prevent a lunatic from becomming an active shooter if he or she chooses to do so.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
Same as the previous one. What this will do, over time, as more and more people become more and more dependent on Obama-care, is make it easier to control their behavior (like gun ownership) or risk losing their health care. That kind of thinking is what a values-neutral education will get you.
22. Commit to finalizing mental-health parity regulations.
I'm not even sure what this means, other than it gives a politician, rather than a doctor, final say in what's crazy and what's not.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan on mental health.
The idea of Kathleen Sebelius moderating a dialog regarding the safety of children, when she's on record as supporting partial-birth abortion on demand, is so ironically foolish, it might qualify her to be the first person barred from gun ownership on the basis of mental instability. If there ever was a woman who delighted any more in the death of (unborn) children than Sebelius, I've yet to hear of her. And what does the Secretary of Education know about mental health? Can we get Charlie Sheen instead? At least he's had an anger management class.
Now here's some icing on the really stinky cake: Obama has asked for $25 million for state-based strategies that support “young people ages 16 to 25 with mental health or substance abuse issues.”
This is the same president who's ordered the Federal government to NOT enforce federal laws on marijuana use pretending to care about substance abuse. Wow.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
16 January 2013
08 November 2012
A Few Preliminary Thoughts on the Election
As I posted to FB earlier, one theological truth is again proven: God's purposes in election are mysterious (pun intended).
I couldn't write anything yesterday, because I was so angry. The funny part was, I wasn't sure with whom I was the most angry. I was mad at the liberals for further sliding this exceptional country closer to mediocrity, financial slavery, and all that. But I was also mad at my fellow Republicans for not seeing this thing through.
As more numbers are shared by the media, my second target has been borne out as the more culpable. Republicans simply didn't get their base out. Three million fewer Rs voted in 2012 than in 2008. I thought every R alive would be at the polls Tuesday, but many stayed home. Enough to change the outcome of the election. As they say down here in TX, that chaps my hide.
Yes, demographics are important. No one should ignore the demographics of who voted for the left, and the importance of making the tent bigger. But then, how do we do that without compromising our principles? Do we become pro-choice? Unthinkable. At least five million more babies will die in their mothers' wombs during the next four years, and I don't think any election is worth throwing that issue under the bus. We have to find ways to reach out to a broader demographic without compromising the principles that we find critical to our worldview.
Elections have consequences. We are getting, and will get more of, what we deserve. Babies will continue to die, and perversity will continue to be celebrated by our decaying society. I don't know how much of that a Romney victory would have changed in the next four years, but there was always hope for some change.
I couldn't write anything yesterday, because I was so angry. The funny part was, I wasn't sure with whom I was the most angry. I was mad at the liberals for further sliding this exceptional country closer to mediocrity, financial slavery, and all that. But I was also mad at my fellow Republicans for not seeing this thing through.
As more numbers are shared by the media, my second target has been borne out as the more culpable. Republicans simply didn't get their base out. Three million fewer Rs voted in 2012 than in 2008. I thought every R alive would be at the polls Tuesday, but many stayed home. Enough to change the outcome of the election. As they say down here in TX, that chaps my hide.
Yes, demographics are important. No one should ignore the demographics of who voted for the left, and the importance of making the tent bigger. But then, how do we do that without compromising our principles? Do we become pro-choice? Unthinkable. At least five million more babies will die in their mothers' wombs during the next four years, and I don't think any election is worth throwing that issue under the bus. We have to find ways to reach out to a broader demographic without compromising the principles that we find critical to our worldview.
Elections have consequences. We are getting, and will get more of, what we deserve. Babies will continue to die, and perversity will continue to be celebrated by our decaying society. I don't know how much of that a Romney victory would have changed in the next four years, but there was always hope for some change.
07 November 2012
21 August 2012
Is Pedophilia A Version of Homosexuality?
I commented to a recent post on Facebook on this topic. The punchline of the FB post was this-
The context of the comment was a response to a recent Atlantic editorial piece that suggested that Boy Scouts be killed like rabid dogs for the BSA policy which prohibits homosexuals from serving as Scoutmasters. It was a typical leftist hit-piece and really deserves no consideration at all, other than as an example of the hypocrisy and the hate on the far left. It was addressed by a response on Brietbart, and this is from where part of the quote came.
But I also have some problems with the implications of the comment. Here's how I addressed it in my FB reply-
The whole point of my post is this: we can't equate pedophilia with homosexuality any more than we can equate it with heterosexuality. Placing a gay man who is not a pedophile around boys is no more dangerous than placing a straight man who is not a pedophile around girls. Nonetheless, there are questions around this issue that remain to be resolved. One of the most daunting tasks is to find research which has been conducted in a neutral manner without an a priori agenda. Try an internet search and see how many articles you can find that are not from either the far right or the far left, and clearly so. Isolating facts is difficult. And all the agendas are decidedly not helpful to those seeking a legitimate answer to the questions.
So what are a few of the facts that cause one to question the causality? Well, the first fact with which I can find almost no disagreement is, almost all sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children is committed by males, not females. The other fact which is fairly stable in the research, though it has fluctuated over time, is that about a third of sexual assaults on pre-pubescent children are on boys.
Determining which child-offenders is a heterosexual and which is a homosexual is difficult. Self-identification is risky. And arbitrary labelling is probably not very accurate. For example, how do we choose to label the offender: by the gender of his victim, or the fact that he has a wife? If he molests boys but is married (like the recent offender at Penn State), is he homosexual or heterosexual? What if an offender (who is male) molests both boys and girls? What do we do in the (rare) case of a male offender who is homosexual with his adult relationships but molests girls?
All these are going to be very difficult questions to answer. In the mean time, our duty to protect children outweighs our duty not to offend homosexuals who are indeed not pedophiles.
This is a divisive topic that deserves more thought. It won't be easily answered because getting to the root of what causes pedophilia is not an easy task. It is made even harder when the experts cannot consider 'sin' as part of the problem. But it is a necessary task, and for many more reasons than simply finding the best policy for the Boy Scouts of America concerning who can be a Scoutmaster.
Can you think of a more inappropriate place for a gay man or boy to be than surrounded by other boys? Why don't we just let child molesters teach kindergarten?
The context of the comment was a response to a recent Atlantic editorial piece that suggested that Boy Scouts be killed like rabid dogs for the BSA policy which prohibits homosexuals from serving as Scoutmasters. It was a typical leftist hit-piece and really deserves no consideration at all, other than as an example of the hypocrisy and the hate on the far left. It was addressed by a response on Brietbart, and this is from where part of the quote came.
But I also have some problems with the implications of the comment. Here's how I addressed it in my FB reply-
The argument from the left is that pedophilia and homosexuality are not the same thing. I think that's a true statement, to the degree that it is a sentiment more than a viable descriptor of reality. Pedophilia crosses a lot of other demographic lines than just sexual orientation. The problem is, statistical facts don't favor the sentiment wholesale. The probability of someone being a pedophile is pretty low. The probability of someone being a pedophile given that they are a homosexual is still pretty low, though it is much higher than the probability of being a pedophile given that they are heterosexual*. Correlation does not imply causation, and we shouldn't conclude that being a homosexual is a cause of pedophilia. However, we do know the statistical relationship is different, so we need to try to understand what the underlying causal factors are.[*homosexual and heterosexual are meant in terms of the offense, not status in their 'normal' life...if 'normal life status' is considered, it appears more child-offending males are married than are single...this doesn't really add any information for obvious reasons]
This is a complex problem and deserves a careful analysis, but in the mean time, children cannot be put at risk while we figure out the best answers to the important questions on causality.
There are two mistakes, both of them harmful, that can be made in this situation: (1) to wrongly accuse non-pedophilic homosexuals of wanting access to children for pedophilic reasons, or (2) allowing pedophiles access to children because we don't want to wrongly accuse someone of being a pedophile.
I hope the lesser of two evils is clear to everyone.
The whole point of my post is this: we can't equate pedophilia with homosexuality any more than we can equate it with heterosexuality. Placing a gay man who is not a pedophile around boys is no more dangerous than placing a straight man who is not a pedophile around girls. Nonetheless, there are questions around this issue that remain to be resolved. One of the most daunting tasks is to find research which has been conducted in a neutral manner without an a priori agenda. Try an internet search and see how many articles you can find that are not from either the far right or the far left, and clearly so. Isolating facts is difficult. And all the agendas are decidedly not helpful to those seeking a legitimate answer to the questions.
So what are a few of the facts that cause one to question the causality? Well, the first fact with which I can find almost no disagreement is, almost all sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children is committed by males, not females. The other fact which is fairly stable in the research, though it has fluctuated over time, is that about a third of sexual assaults on pre-pubescent children are on boys.
Determining which child-offenders is a heterosexual and which is a homosexual is difficult. Self-identification is risky. And arbitrary labelling is probably not very accurate. For example, how do we choose to label the offender: by the gender of his victim, or the fact that he has a wife? If he molests boys but is married (like the recent offender at Penn State), is he homosexual or heterosexual? What if an offender (who is male) molests both boys and girls? What do we do in the (rare) case of a male offender who is homosexual with his adult relationships but molests girls?
All these are going to be very difficult questions to answer. In the mean time, our duty to protect children outweighs our duty not to offend homosexuals who are indeed not pedophiles.
This is a divisive topic that deserves more thought. It won't be easily answered because getting to the root of what causes pedophilia is not an easy task. It is made even harder when the experts cannot consider 'sin' as part of the problem. But it is a necessary task, and for many more reasons than simply finding the best policy for the Boy Scouts of America concerning who can be a Scoutmaster.
28 June 2012
Health Care Law and The Future
Since the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of Obamacare (not entirely unexpected, though one of the names on the positive side of the decision was), the question becomes, 'What now?'
Here's my prediction: This decision won't be as bad as we fear. I predict that without the SCOTUS to run against, there's now a fair-to-middlin' chance that the democrat incumbent in the White House could lose the election, which is a historically rare occurrence. I also think this will lead to 10-15 additional GOP wins in House elections, and one or two wins in the Senate.
All that said, we now have a SCOTUS precedence that the federal government can tax the people in any amount for any reason. That is certainly is a problem.
We'll see how it goes in November.
Here's my prediction: This decision won't be as bad as we fear. I predict that without the SCOTUS to run against, there's now a fair-to-middlin' chance that the democrat incumbent in the White House could lose the election, which is a historically rare occurrence. I also think this will lead to 10-15 additional GOP wins in House elections, and one or two wins in the Senate.
All that said, we now have a SCOTUS precedence that the federal government can tax the people in any amount for any reason. That is certainly is a problem.
We'll see how it goes in November.
08 May 2012
Why an 'Evolving' Position on Moral Issues is Inappropriate for a Sitting President
Barack Obama has pulled a John Kerry numerous times on the issue of same-sex marriage. He was for it before he was, well, not sure about it. Obama says his views on same-sex marriage are 'evolving'.
Evolving views on certain issues are fine. For example, a president's views on foreign policy stances with a particular nation may evolve with circumstances in that nation, including who the leader is, the level of aggressiveness the nation puts forth, or the level of human rights abuses found therein.
Presidents might change their views on defense spending, or welfare policy, or any other host of social or political issues that might change during a presidency. (Some of these may also have a moral component, but they are primarily political issues.) We the public usually support the change if the president was our candidate, and speak out against it if he wasn't. Sometimes we might even consider the substantive nature of the change-of-position, but usually, it's about the man.
But one area where views ought not be shifting is on moral issues. One of the reasons the US Constitution requires a citizen to be at least 40 years old to be eligible to run for the presidency is so that the person might have enough age and maturity to have established a 'moral compass' that guides them through the myriad of decisions they face in office. Moral issues are never about the man, but always about the issue, because the stance on the issue defines the man (or woman) in office.
Ronald Reagan defied even his own party advisors when he called the Soviet Union the, "Evil Empire". They told him such morally decisive language would offend and be long-term destructive to the US position on various Cold War issues between the two countries. But Reagan had a moral compass, and he followed it. It was one of the reasons he was such a successful president. He turned out to be right: the USSR eventually failed as a political experiment, though not until about a year after Reagan left office. His challenge to Gorbachev to "tear down this (Berlin) wall" came to fruition in 1989. This moment may be the defining moment of his presidency as history unfolds.
Even Jimmy Carter was willing to take a moral stand on an issue in which he believed. He issued the famous executive order prohibiting the assassination by US operatives of foreign heads of state, even if they posed a clear and present danger to US national security. I vigorously opposed this move at the time (even though I was about 16), and still think it is wrong today, both on moral and biblical grounds. But I will give President Carter credit for following his moral compass.
A sitting US President needs to have established moral values. Whether you support same-sex marriage or not; whether you think it is a doorway to equality for all or a step toward barbarianism, you should expect your president to have a clear and unequivocal position on it, and to state that position for all. I know Obama has not done that, and I don't think Romney has either.
If neither candidate for President has a clear moral position on this or any other sensitive moral issue, I'm worried. Really worried.
Evolving views on certain issues are fine. For example, a president's views on foreign policy stances with a particular nation may evolve with circumstances in that nation, including who the leader is, the level of aggressiveness the nation puts forth, or the level of human rights abuses found therein.
Presidents might change their views on defense spending, or welfare policy, or any other host of social or political issues that might change during a presidency. (Some of these may also have a moral component, but they are primarily political issues.) We the public usually support the change if the president was our candidate, and speak out against it if he wasn't. Sometimes we might even consider the substantive nature of the change-of-position, but usually, it's about the man.
But one area where views ought not be shifting is on moral issues. One of the reasons the US Constitution requires a citizen to be at least 40 years old to be eligible to run for the presidency is so that the person might have enough age and maturity to have established a 'moral compass' that guides them through the myriad of decisions they face in office. Moral issues are never about the man, but always about the issue, because the stance on the issue defines the man (or woman) in office.
Ronald Reagan defied even his own party advisors when he called the Soviet Union the, "Evil Empire". They told him such morally decisive language would offend and be long-term destructive to the US position on various Cold War issues between the two countries. But Reagan had a moral compass, and he followed it. It was one of the reasons he was such a successful president. He turned out to be right: the USSR eventually failed as a political experiment, though not until about a year after Reagan left office. His challenge to Gorbachev to "tear down this (Berlin) wall" came to fruition in 1989. This moment may be the defining moment of his presidency as history unfolds.
I miss Ronald Reagan.
Even Jimmy Carter was willing to take a moral stand on an issue in which he believed. He issued the famous executive order prohibiting the assassination by US operatives of foreign heads of state, even if they posed a clear and present danger to US national security. I vigorously opposed this move at the time (even though I was about 16), and still think it is wrong today, both on moral and biblical grounds. But I will give President Carter credit for following his moral compass.
A sitting US President needs to have established moral values. Whether you support same-sex marriage or not; whether you think it is a doorway to equality for all or a step toward barbarianism, you should expect your president to have a clear and unequivocal position on it, and to state that position for all. I know Obama has not done that, and I don't think Romney has either.
If neither candidate for President has a clear moral position on this or any other sensitive moral issue, I'm worried. Really worried.
27 April 2012
Update on Proposed Farm Chore Law
From today's Daily Caller-
Under pressure from farming advocates in rural communities, and following a report by The Daily Caller, the Obama administration withdrew a proposed rule Thursday that would have applied child labor laws to family farms.
Critics complained that the regulation would have drastically changed the extent to which children could work on farms owned by family members. The U.S. Department of Labor cited public outcry as the reason for withdrawing the rule.
“The decision to withdraw this rule — including provisions to define the ‘parental exemption’ — was made in response to thousands of comments expressing concerns about the effect of the proposed rules on small family-owned farms,” the Department said in a press release Thursday evening. “To be clear, this regulation will not be pursued for the duration of the Obama administration.”
02 April 2012
What Do You Think?
The US Supreme Court has finished the hearings on the Obama health care package. Here's my prediction:
The Supreme Court will NOT overturn the law.
OK, I'm on record. What's your guess?
The Supreme Court will NOT overturn the law.
OK, I'm on record. What's your guess?
28 March 2011
Spring Rolls On
Well, March is almost over, and I still don't have much to say. I've been so busy going to my sons' baseball games, I don't have time to think.
A few tidbits-
I just saw that a Southwest Airlines flight from Orlando to Chicago had to make an emergency landing in Louisville. Apparently, there were some smoking wires in the cockpit. They should arrest those wires. I understand it's a federal offense to smoke on a domestic flight. <>
I just found out today that the head football coach is going to move my son, Will up to varsity for Spring football. He's just a freshman. So now I'm both very proud and very nervous. Those other boys are very, very, big. And fast.
I just got a promotion to full professor. I'm pretty excited about that...it's the highest academic rank one can achieve short of retiring and being named Emeritus professor. And as one retired gentleman explained once, 'Emeritus' is from the Latin: E means your out, and meritus means you deserved it!
I just had the honor of co-approving the money for a new state champion wall sign for the high school gym. (I'm one of the VPs for the Canyon Eagle booster club.) The Lady Eagles went 38-0 this year; were the only undefeated team in the state of Texas, boys or girls; and the state championship game was Coach Lombard's 1100th career win. He hasn't lost a hundred yet (98 loses). That's almost unimaginable. He's quite a coach, and a great Christian man who brought glory to God in the process of winning this title. Hats off. This was his 14th state title here at Canyon. Wow. On top of that, the Lady Eagles are now ranked in the top 12 nationally by USA Today magazine.
Our interim pastor preached on hell yesterday. You don't hear that very often anymore. Contrary to what we hear, everyone I talked to at church found it to be a positive, not a negative, sermon. Good job, Dr. Shaw!
We only have two more lessons left in 2 Peter. That means I have to find something to do for the summer. Last summer, I used a six-week video series called, Chosen By God with R. C. Sproul. Maybe I can find something like it for a different tact for early summer. Then, by request, we are going to do some systematic theology, starting with the doctrine of prayer. I'm looking forward to that study, even though it will be a tough prep, as I'll get some magnificent Bible study from it.
Just saw a pair of funny tweets from Fred Thompson- "Reporter at Biden fundraiser locked in closet. Only allowed out during Biden speech. Now that's what I call adding insult to injury."
And, "Hillary: U.S. won’t go into Syria the way it has in Libya. Oh, so Obama's going to go in with a plan?"
Good ones, Fred!
A few tidbits-
I just saw that a Southwest Airlines flight from Orlando to Chicago had to make an emergency landing in Louisville. Apparently, there were some smoking wires in the cockpit. They should arrest those wires. I understand it's a federal offense to smoke on a domestic flight. <
I just found out today that the head football coach is going to move my son, Will up to varsity for Spring football. He's just a freshman. So now I'm both very proud and very nervous. Those other boys are very, very, big. And fast.
I just got a promotion to full professor. I'm pretty excited about that...it's the highest academic rank one can achieve short of retiring and being named Emeritus professor. And as one retired gentleman explained once, 'Emeritus' is from the Latin: E means your out, and meritus means you deserved it!
I just had the honor of co-approving the money for a new state champion wall sign for the high school gym. (I'm one of the VPs for the Canyon Eagle booster club.) The Lady Eagles went 38-0 this year; were the only undefeated team in the state of Texas, boys or girls; and the state championship game was Coach Lombard's 1100th career win. He hasn't lost a hundred yet (98 loses). That's almost unimaginable. He's quite a coach, and a great Christian man who brought glory to God in the process of winning this title. Hats off. This was his 14th state title here at Canyon. Wow. On top of that, the Lady Eagles are now ranked in the top 12 nationally by USA Today magazine.
Our interim pastor preached on hell yesterday. You don't hear that very often anymore. Contrary to what we hear, everyone I talked to at church found it to be a positive, not a negative, sermon. Good job, Dr. Shaw!
We only have two more lessons left in 2 Peter. That means I have to find something to do for the summer. Last summer, I used a six-week video series called, Chosen By God with R. C. Sproul. Maybe I can find something like it for a different tact for early summer. Then, by request, we are going to do some systematic theology, starting with the doctrine of prayer. I'm looking forward to that study, even though it will be a tough prep, as I'll get some magnificent Bible study from it.
Just saw a pair of funny tweets from Fred Thompson- "Reporter at Biden fundraiser locked in closet. Only allowed out during Biden speech. Now that's what I call adding insult to injury."
And, "Hillary: U.S. won’t go into Syria the way it has in Libya. Oh, so Obama's going to go in with a plan?"
Good ones, Fred!
21 February 2011
Uncle Jay Gets This One Right
This week's post is spot on and funny to boot. Check it out.
17 January 2011
Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue (book review)
I was given the opportunity by Ligonier Ministries to post a review of their recent book Abortion: A rational look at an emotional issue, by R. C. Sproul. I first heard about the book when Ligonier decided to send a copy to every member of Congress at the convening of the next congress this January. (Ligonier gave the opportunity for their followers to purchase a copy for a congressman, which I did...hopefully he or she will read it. I love the idea that the copy I paid for might end up on Nancy Pelosi's desk!)
Here's the link to the book on Ligonier's website-
http://www.ligonier.org/store/abortion-hardcover/
I'll do this review in three parts, as it is a bit long for normal blog reading. Each part of the review will correspond to the same part of the book, since the book is divided into three parts.
First, the list of names in the endorsements section is a roll call of superstars of evangelicalism: Jim Daly (Focus on the Family), Marvin Olasky (World Magazine), Randy Alcorn (author), Russell D. Moore (pastor and seminary dean), John MacArthur (pastor and author), Chuck Swindoll (pastor and author), Peter Jones (apologist and author), and others.
The book is not long; about 150 pages plus appendices, notes, bibliography, and an index. The book was first published in 1990. This is the 20th anniversary edition.
Part One is titled, Abortion: The ethical dilemma of our time.
Ch 1- 'A Nation Divided'- Sproul deals with the following issues in the first chapter-
Abortion is a divisive issue intertwined in our culture; core question is, "Is abortion a form of murder?"; what is a fetus...when does life begin?; philosophical basis for making decisions about right and wrong. This chapter is a good introduction to some of the problems in thinking about the issue of abortion.
Ch 2- 'The Sanctity of Life'- The second chapter moves to some philosophical foundations for why both believers and unbelievers can understand the value of human life. These issues are highlighted in this chapter-
The nature of man; biblical roots of the concept of sanctity of life; the relation (morally) of the death penalty to abortion; the potential desctruction of actual life versus the actual destruction of potential life. This chapter moves the reader into deeper thinking about the issues involved in abortion, as well as general issues related to life and death.
Ch 3- 'The Sanctity of Life and Natural Law'- Sproul continues to develop the themes from chapter 2 in this chapter. Here, he deals with these issues-
Abortion as an act against nature; our culture's intense concern for living individuals but not for the unborn; the early church's opposition to abortion; the connection between abortion and infanticide in early cultures.
Ch 4- 'When Does Life Begin'- Sproul deals with some of the key issues in the legal realm as well as the philosophical realm in this chapter-
Scriptural support for the idea of the fetus as human life; scriptural distinction of the unborn baby from the mother; the power of prejudice in decision making and the forming of opinions; 'What should we do if we remain unsure of the answer?' Dr. Sproul will more fully develop this last idea in the next chapter.
Ch 5- 'What if You Are Not Sure about Abortion?'- In a continuation from the last chapter, Sproul deals with these issues-
The argumentum ad populum; the logic of dealing with the rightness/wrongness of abortion; the conscience and abortion (Luther- 'To act against conscience is neither right nor safe'). Dr. Sproul makes a cogent logical argument for the moral duty of anyone who may have doubts, one way or the other, about any moral dilemma. This is a valuable chapter for what is probably the majority of non-believers on the topic of abortion...not sure about what is right or wrong.
Ch 6- 'The Role of Government in Abortion'- Sproul moves to the political side of the issues in this chapter-
'Is abortion a private ethical issue or does it fall within the scope of government regulation and control?' (p. 75); the role of government in restraining evil in society; separation of church and state; the moral implications of law (and how this does not entangle church and state); how Roe v. Wade was the state's greatest failure at being the state. This chapter breaks down some of the mythology that has developed around the 'wall of separation' issues between the church and the state, and shows why the state's dealing with moral issues falls fully within the appropriate sphere of activity for a state.
To be continued...
____________________
FCC disclaimer: Ligonier provided me with a PDF copy of the book for review purposes. Anyone who writes a review is eligible to receive a paper copy of the book.
Here is the copyright information for the book. Portions used in this review were used by permission, per email on December 6, 2010, from D. Finnamore.
This book's copyright information: © 2010 by R.C. Sproul, Published by Reformation Trust Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Here's the link to the book on Ligonier's website-
http://www.ligonier.org/store/abortion-hardcover/
I'll do this review in three parts, as it is a bit long for normal blog reading. Each part of the review will correspond to the same part of the book, since the book is divided into three parts.
First, the list of names in the endorsements section is a roll call of superstars of evangelicalism: Jim Daly (Focus on the Family), Marvin Olasky (World Magazine), Randy Alcorn (author), Russell D. Moore (pastor and seminary dean), John MacArthur (pastor and author), Chuck Swindoll (pastor and author), Peter Jones (apologist and author), and others.
The book is not long; about 150 pages plus appendices, notes, bibliography, and an index. The book was first published in 1990. This is the 20th anniversary edition.
Part One is titled, Abortion: The ethical dilemma of our time.
Ch 1- 'A Nation Divided'- Sproul deals with the following issues in the first chapter-
Abortion is a divisive issue intertwined in our culture; core question is, "Is abortion a form of murder?"; what is a fetus...when does life begin?; philosophical basis for making decisions about right and wrong. This chapter is a good introduction to some of the problems in thinking about the issue of abortion.
Ch 2- 'The Sanctity of Life'- The second chapter moves to some philosophical foundations for why both believers and unbelievers can understand the value of human life. These issues are highlighted in this chapter-
The nature of man; biblical roots of the concept of sanctity of life; the relation (morally) of the death penalty to abortion; the potential desctruction of actual life versus the actual destruction of potential life. This chapter moves the reader into deeper thinking about the issues involved in abortion, as well as general issues related to life and death.
Ch 3- 'The Sanctity of Life and Natural Law'- Sproul continues to develop the themes from chapter 2 in this chapter. Here, he deals with these issues-
Abortion as an act against nature; our culture's intense concern for living individuals but not for the unborn; the early church's opposition to abortion; the connection between abortion and infanticide in early cultures.
Ch 4- 'When Does Life Begin'- Sproul deals with some of the key issues in the legal realm as well as the philosophical realm in this chapter-
Scriptural support for the idea of the fetus as human life; scriptural distinction of the unborn baby from the mother; the power of prejudice in decision making and the forming of opinions; 'What should we do if we remain unsure of the answer?' Dr. Sproul will more fully develop this last idea in the next chapter.
Ch 5- 'What if You Are Not Sure about Abortion?'- In a continuation from the last chapter, Sproul deals with these issues-
The argumentum ad populum; the logic of dealing with the rightness/wrongness of abortion; the conscience and abortion (Luther- 'To act against conscience is neither right nor safe'). Dr. Sproul makes a cogent logical argument for the moral duty of anyone who may have doubts, one way or the other, about any moral dilemma. This is a valuable chapter for what is probably the majority of non-believers on the topic of abortion...not sure about what is right or wrong.
Ch 6- 'The Role of Government in Abortion'- Sproul moves to the political side of the issues in this chapter-
'Is abortion a private ethical issue or does it fall within the scope of government regulation and control?' (p. 75); the role of government in restraining evil in society; separation of church and state; the moral implications of law (and how this does not entangle church and state); how Roe v. Wade was the state's greatest failure at being the state. This chapter breaks down some of the mythology that has developed around the 'wall of separation' issues between the church and the state, and shows why the state's dealing with moral issues falls fully within the appropriate sphere of activity for a state.
To be continued...
____________________
FCC disclaimer: Ligonier provided me with a PDF copy of the book for review purposes. Anyone who writes a review is eligible to receive a paper copy of the book.
Here is the copyright information for the book. Portions used in this review were used by permission, per email on December 6, 2010, from D. Finnamore.
This book's copyright information: © 2010 by R.C. Sproul, Published by Reformation Trust Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
18 November 2010
Gate Rape
Here's some more fallout on the TSA adventure. I'm beginning to think we might be able to get some things changed, especially if Drudge, et al., keep it up.
I picked up the term Gate Rape from a blog where it was so named by an airline captain. I think it'll stick.
I picked up the term Gate Rape from a blog where it was so named by an airline captain. I think it'll stick.
08 September 2010
Burning the Quran is Wrong (But For Other Reasons Than You've Been Told)
I can't think of anything that makes me more angry (the kind of deep-seated, moral anger) than churches who do the wrong thing and do it on a pedestal for all to see. You can be sure that the secular media will take every advantage to help make idiots who profess faith to look even more idiotic than they actually are.
The first example is the (so-called) church in Kansas (which I refuse to name or link) that protests at the funerals of soldiers, sailors, and marines killed in action. But that's a whole other blog post...I'll stay focused here on the current controversy. (And thank God for the Patriot Guard Riders!)
The church in Florida (again, I'll leave it unnamed and unlinked) that plans to have a 'Burn the Quran Day' on September 11 is making a big mistake. Others have gone on-and-on about how it is un-American or intolerant or some violation of some sense of decency (and they are mostly right about that). The problem I have is a bit different. I haven't heard it put my way on the national media, but that doesn't surprise me...the national media isn't really worried about the gospel, after all.
That's the key: the gospel. The church in Florida should be focused on their mission to glorify God through worship and the proclamation of the gospel. Instead, they are bogged down in some type of moralism, expressed through political posturing or protest. If they were concerned with ever having any kind of credibility with Muslims who might be in their community, they would obviously not engage in such provocative behavior. I understand that Muslims often don't respect the Bible, and treat it with contempt. But to respond likewise with the Quran is just the opposite of what the gospel demands. The action will have no constructive effect. No Muslim anywhere will look at this and say, "Gee, maybe we are being too hard on those other religions...we should lighten up." More importantly, no Muslim will say, "I'm curious about this Jesus fellow...I think I'll find some people of the book and inquire about him further."
The bottom line is this- no person of islamic faith or tendency will ever be reached with the gospel by provocation. The media attention makes it even worse; the barriers to the gospel won't be felt in Florida alone, but in various places all over the world. That does not bring glory to God.
And that's why 'Burn a Quran Day' is wrong.
The first example is the (so-called) church in Kansas (which I refuse to name or link) that protests at the funerals of soldiers, sailors, and marines killed in action. But that's a whole other blog post...I'll stay focused here on the current controversy. (And thank God for the Patriot Guard Riders!)
The church in Florida (again, I'll leave it unnamed and unlinked) that plans to have a 'Burn the Quran Day' on September 11 is making a big mistake. Others have gone on-and-on about how it is un-American or intolerant or some violation of some sense of decency (and they are mostly right about that). The problem I have is a bit different. I haven't heard it put my way on the national media, but that doesn't surprise me...the national media isn't really worried about the gospel, after all.
That's the key: the gospel. The church in Florida should be focused on their mission to glorify God through worship and the proclamation of the gospel. Instead, they are bogged down in some type of moralism, expressed through political posturing or protest. If they were concerned with ever having any kind of credibility with Muslims who might be in their community, they would obviously not engage in such provocative behavior. I understand that Muslims often don't respect the Bible, and treat it with contempt. But to respond likewise with the Quran is just the opposite of what the gospel demands. The action will have no constructive effect. No Muslim anywhere will look at this and say, "Gee, maybe we are being too hard on those other religions...we should lighten up." More importantly, no Muslim will say, "I'm curious about this Jesus fellow...I think I'll find some people of the book and inquire about him further."
The bottom line is this- no person of islamic faith or tendency will ever be reached with the gospel by provocation. The media attention makes it even worse; the barriers to the gospel won't be felt in Florida alone, but in various places all over the world. That does not bring glory to God.
And that's why 'Burn a Quran Day' is wrong.
30 July 2009
Elections Have Consequences
I began building an AR-15 about June of 2008. I wanted the experience of building my own, rather than buying one off the shelf, and I wanted to know how they were put together so I could work on mine if they ever needed repair.
Big mistake.
I should have realized with the election of BHO coming up, AR parts would all but disappear. I remember when Clinton was elected, and the "Clinton Gun Ban" was passed in 1993. The same thing happened...no ammo to be had, primers and powder were unavailable except at ludicrous prices, high-capacity magazines were selling for $100 each, and so on. I don't know why I didn't put two and two together and realize the same thing was coming in November '08. I suppose we all forgot how good we had it under GWB.
In any case, I have finally completed the lower, except for the buttstock. I can't find the recoil tube and collapsible stock I want. Finally, uppers are coming back into availability, though the prices are at least $100 more per each unit. Instead of building the upper, I think I'll snag a whole one when I can and save the project for more sane political times.
While the gun grab didn't happen like some thought, it may still be coming. The democrats are to busy doing the health care grab right now. Looks like they will pull it off, albeit after the summer recess. The only thing that can stop it now is folks in the districts of blue-dog democrats getting in the face of their representative until he or she has no doubt about the wrongheadedness of socialized medicine. I don't see that happening...the electorate is too gullable, naive, or downright myopic for such to happen, I fear.
But stranger things have happened. BHO's approval numbers are nearly as low as Carter's were at this point, and lower than GWB's. (That's gotta rankle the libs...) Congress, in spite of the almost inhuman charisma of BHO, will never show altruism in this day and age...if the poll numbers are a threat, they'll do the populist thing. Unfortunately, that only benefits us about half the time, since the populace is even less altruistic than their congressional representatives.
Big mistake.
I should have realized with the election of BHO coming up, AR parts would all but disappear. I remember when Clinton was elected, and the "Clinton Gun Ban" was passed in 1993. The same thing happened...no ammo to be had, primers and powder were unavailable except at ludicrous prices, high-capacity magazines were selling for $100 each, and so on. I don't know why I didn't put two and two together and realize the same thing was coming in November '08. I suppose we all forgot how good we had it under GWB.
In any case, I have finally completed the lower, except for the buttstock. I can't find the recoil tube and collapsible stock I want. Finally, uppers are coming back into availability, though the prices are at least $100 more per each unit. Instead of building the upper, I think I'll snag a whole one when I can and save the project for more sane political times.
While the gun grab didn't happen like some thought, it may still be coming. The democrats are to busy doing the health care grab right now. Looks like they will pull it off, albeit after the summer recess. The only thing that can stop it now is folks in the districts of blue-dog democrats getting in the face of their representative until he or she has no doubt about the wrongheadedness of socialized medicine. I don't see that happening...the electorate is too gullable, naive, or downright myopic for such to happen, I fear.
But stranger things have happened. BHO's approval numbers are nearly as low as Carter's were at this point, and lower than GWB's. (That's gotta rankle the libs...) Congress, in spite of the almost inhuman charisma of BHO, will never show altruism in this day and age...if the poll numbers are a threat, they'll do the populist thing. Unfortunately, that only benefits us about half the time, since the populace is even less altruistic than their congressional representatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)