24 February 2013
A New Blog (by my Daughter!)
My 14-year-old daughter has started a new blog (with my encouragement). If you want to read the musings of a Junior High student, you can find it here.
11 February 2013
Another Successful Season
Well, little Ryan finished his first season of school basketball tonight, and played a good game to boot. We are very proud of him and his team, which won more games than any of the other Jr. High boys teams.
Good job, Rino!
Good job, Rino!
05 February 2013
Courage
I don't know Rosa Parks. I may or may not have liked her as a person, though by the accounts I've read, she was quiet and kind. She may or may not have liked me either.
But one thing I do know: her level of courage is to be admired and never forgotten. We raise statues and monuments (and rightly so) to men who show this kind of bravery in battle. And it is fitting that monuments have been raised in honor of Ms. Parks, for the same kind of bravery.
But her bravery has a bit different edge, for she had no guarantee that anything good would ever come from it. In the culture and time in which she lived, her actions (as should would have known well) might have resulted in nothing more than her death or the death of her family members. But like the soldier in combat, she knew that what she was doing was the right thing to do, even if it cost her dearly. It takes some effort to put ourselves in her place, mentally. We can't really begin to understand the threat level she faced, or the fear that one has knowing that the 'system' would not support us at crunch-time. She knew what the system was, and she knew the risks she was taking and what it could cost her.
There is a good summary of the events that made her famous over on the Gospel Coalition blog, which are there because this week would have been Ms. Park's 100th birthday.
I don't know what it was like to walk in her shoes at the time and place where she lived, but I do know that I can appreciate her courage. And I know that she deserves a place among the greatest who have sacrificed so much to make our country one where Justice can be respected. As we face political issues that threaten to throw away some of that hard-earned justice, perhaps we should look not only to Lincoln and those like him, but also to Ms. Parks and those like her. Perhaps we can get some of the courage we need from the unlikely heroes in our history.
Happy birthday, Ms. Parks.
But one thing I do know: her level of courage is to be admired and never forgotten. We raise statues and monuments (and rightly so) to men who show this kind of bravery in battle. And it is fitting that monuments have been raised in honor of Ms. Parks, for the same kind of bravery.
But her bravery has a bit different edge, for she had no guarantee that anything good would ever come from it. In the culture and time in which she lived, her actions (as should would have known well) might have resulted in nothing more than her death or the death of her family members. But like the soldier in combat, she knew that what she was doing was the right thing to do, even if it cost her dearly. It takes some effort to put ourselves in her place, mentally. We can't really begin to understand the threat level she faced, or the fear that one has knowing that the 'system' would not support us at crunch-time. She knew what the system was, and she knew the risks she was taking and what it could cost her.
There is a good summary of the events that made her famous over on the Gospel Coalition blog, which are there because this week would have been Ms. Park's 100th birthday.
I don't know what it was like to walk in her shoes at the time and place where she lived, but I do know that I can appreciate her courage. And I know that she deserves a place among the greatest who have sacrificed so much to make our country one where Justice can be respected. As we face political issues that threaten to throw away some of that hard-earned justice, perhaps we should look not only to Lincoln and those like him, but also to Ms. Parks and those like her. Perhaps we can get some of the courage we need from the unlikely heroes in our history.
Happy birthday, Ms. Parks.
28 January 2013
Universal Background Checks: Why Not?
So why wouldn't the average Joe (that's my name, so I can say that) support universal background checks? I can think of three reasons:
(1) Background checks are already the law in every case where they should be used.
It is ALREADY a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms and ammunition without having federal firearm dealers license.
It is ALREADY a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check – that's all dealers, everywhere, including at retail stores, gun shows, flea markets or anywhere else.
Further, it is ALREADY a federal felony to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person you know or should have known is not legally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm.
The penalty for selling a gun to a person who is a criminal, mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or an alcohol or drug abuser is a 10-year federal felony. That's now, today, with no changes to the law.
It is even a federal felony to submit false information on a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a firearm.
We need to enforce the laws we already have; laws that both gun owners, the NRA, and the left agree on. Yet according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice, more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn't pass the background check. Yet, only 44 of those cases were prosecuted. Why, when criminals are caught in act of lying on the form to illegally purchase a firearm, are they not prosecuted? On Thursday, January 10, 2013, in the White House meeting of President Obama's Gun Agenda Task Force, Vice President Joe Biden answered that question, telling NRA's Director of Federal Affairs, James Baker, that the Obama administration didn't have time to prosecute people for lying on the federal background check form.
So the answer, according to Biden is, 'We don't have time to prosecute criminals who break the law, so we need more laws.'
Now there's government efficiency for you!
(2) Universal background checks will turn normal conduct into a criminal offense.
Universal background checks are background checks on EVERY transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, and loan of a firearm between any and all individuals.
Imagine a grandfather who wants to give a family shotgun to his 12-year-old grandson having to do a background check on his grandson before giving him the shotgun.
Or a friend having to do a background check on his lifetime best buddy before lending him a hunting rifle.
Or, if your mother had a prowler at her home, having to do a background check on your own mom before you could give her one of your guns for protection.
The so-called 'gun show loophole' is a myth; a straw man built for political purposes. Every gun sold at a gun show by any of the attendees must go through that respective state's NICS (Federal) background check system. If you don't believe me, go to a gun show near you, walk up to a table, and ask to buy a gun with no paperwork. The nice man behind the table will at best laugh at you. He'll probably call security over. No one selling guns at a gun show wants one of his guns to end up being used in a crime.
(3) It tramples on the rights of the law-abiding citizens while doing little to hamper the efforts of criminals. The one analogy I've seen lately that best describes this is:
Using gun control to prevent violent crime is like trying to prevent drunk driving by making it more difficult for sober people to buy cars.
This agenda focuses on peaceable citizens, not violent criminals who obtain guns on the black market to carry out unspeakable crimes already prohibited under federal and state laws. Instead of stopping crime and eliminating criminal conduct, they are creating more criminals--they are targeting you.
Gun control has never been about the guns, it is about control. The left knows they can never quash our constitutional republic as long as we, the people, can defend ourselves. We'd best not give up that right, especially in small chunks like this universal background checks idea.
-----
Stats cited above came from: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/1/universal-background-checks-%E2%80%93-absolutely-not.aspx
23 January 2013
Time for a New Bumper Sticker
At what point, pastorally speaking, should we stop praying for God to bless American and start asking for God to judge America? I'm not being facetious, I'm being deadly serious.
It's not often I post a video from the other side, but this one is so bad, it's good. It is the flaunting of evil, besides being racist and all those other things the blogosphere has decried.
Don't watch it unless you are prepared to answer my first question, above.
God, judge America.
It's not often I post a video from the other side, but this one is so bad, it's good. It is the flaunting of evil, besides being racist and all those other things the blogosphere has decried.
Don't watch it unless you are prepared to answer my first question, above.
God, judge America.
22 January 2013
16 January 2013
Running Commentary on Obama's Gun Violence Proposals
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.
(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.
Selling My Logos v. 4 Manuals
I've moved on to Logos v. 5, so I'm selling my Morris Proctor L4 manuals. $10 shipped. They are used, but in very good condition (no underlining or highlighting). Includes both volume 1 and volume 2.
If you want them, please leave a comment with an email where I can contact you. Use this format to avoid spambots (using mine as example): jbboren (at) gmail (dot) com.
First reply with 'I'll take them!' and an email gets them.
If you want them, please leave a comment with an email where I can contact you. Use this format to avoid spambots (using mine as example): jbboren (at) gmail (dot) com.
First reply with 'I'll take them!' and an email gets them.
07 January 2013
Isn't It Ironic?
America's direct involvement in Vietnam ended in 1973. The favorite epithet of the obnoxious liberal to cast upon our returning soldiers was "baby killer."
This same group of liberals has seen to the slaughter of over fifty million babies since.......1973.
This same group of liberals has seen to the slaughter of over fifty million babies since.......1973.
Paedophilia as a Sexual Orientation
I've been reading about certain pressures by certain groups to classify paedophilia (pedophilia) as a sexual orientation, separate from heterosexual, homosexual, etc. This story in The Guardian is the latest.
There are several positives and several negatives to doing this. First, the homosexual community desperately wants this to happen. Whenever an major event of paedophilia happens, like the Penn State incidents, those in the homosexual community feel (rightly or wrongly) like their sexual orientation is to blame for the crimes against children, when in fact there's good evidence such an orientation is not to blame. The perpetrator in the Penn State case was a married man. So how are we to classify his sexual orientation?
Second, some on the far left are very concerned that this not happen. After all, California just this winter passed a law making it illegal to use reparative therapy to try to change the sexual orientation of minors from homosexual to heterosexual. If paedophilia was reclassified as a sexual orientation, there's no logical reason that paedophiles should not be protected from evil mental health experts who want to help them change in the same way that homosexuals are now protected. (A judge has put the law on hold for now for medical reasons...but the outcome is pretty well assured.)
So the homosexual community is left in a catch-22 situation where opposite outcomes are both equally harmful.
What isn't being factored into the equation by most at this point is this: we have already passed the point of no return on slippery sexual-moral issues. Thus, without some major intervention in culture, the normalization of paedophilia is already a guaranteed outcome. Woe is us!
So my prediction is this: look for the homosexual community to begin to distance itself from the idea that got it to legalized gay marriage- that sexual orientation is innate and cannot be changed; and move toward the idea that sexual orientation is a choice, and a valid moral one based on the idea of what is desirable carrying the greatest moral weight in such a decision. It is this position that will allow that community to continue to lobby for its interests without interfering in the interests of the paedophilia community, or harming itself by being associated with them. Only after a period of time, when paedophilia is as accepted as any other sexual orientation will they allow any association between the two groups.
There are several positives and several negatives to doing this. First, the homosexual community desperately wants this to happen. Whenever an major event of paedophilia happens, like the Penn State incidents, those in the homosexual community feel (rightly or wrongly) like their sexual orientation is to blame for the crimes against children, when in fact there's good evidence such an orientation is not to blame. The perpetrator in the Penn State case was a married man. So how are we to classify his sexual orientation?
Second, some on the far left are very concerned that this not happen. After all, California just this winter passed a law making it illegal to use reparative therapy to try to change the sexual orientation of minors from homosexual to heterosexual. If paedophilia was reclassified as a sexual orientation, there's no logical reason that paedophiles should not be protected from evil mental health experts who want to help them change in the same way that homosexuals are now protected. (A judge has put the law on hold for now for medical reasons...but the outcome is pretty well assured.)
So the homosexual community is left in a catch-22 situation where opposite outcomes are both equally harmful.
What isn't being factored into the equation by most at this point is this: we have already passed the point of no return on slippery sexual-moral issues. Thus, without some major intervention in culture, the normalization of paedophilia is already a guaranteed outcome. Woe is us!
So my prediction is this: look for the homosexual community to begin to distance itself from the idea that got it to legalized gay marriage- that sexual orientation is innate and cannot be changed; and move toward the idea that sexual orientation is a choice, and a valid moral one based on the idea of what is desirable carrying the greatest moral weight in such a decision. It is this position that will allow that community to continue to lobby for its interests without interfering in the interests of the paedophilia community, or harming itself by being associated with them. Only after a period of time, when paedophilia is as accepted as any other sexual orientation will they allow any association between the two groups.
20 December 2012
Sixty Seconds to What?
Imitating one of my favorite blog authors, the Housewife Theologian, I'm naming my blog post after a song. But I bet its a song that neither she, nor many others who read this blog, will remember. It is a tension-filled piece of background music in the Clint Eastwood western, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. (You can play a segment of the song here.) You know the scene...where Eastwood and at least two other bad guys are standing there, looking at each other out of the corners of their eyes, waiting for the first guy to draw.
It is an appropriate song though, as it is almost midnight here. That makes it sixty seconds to the end of the world, if the whole calender thingy is true.
But I don't think so. An ancient native calender might be your idea of how to predict the future, but it's not Mayan.
(rimshot)
It is an appropriate song though, as it is almost midnight here. That makes it sixty seconds to the end of the world, if the whole calender thingy is true.
But I don't think so. An ancient native calender might be your idea of how to predict the future, but it's not Mayan.
(rimshot)
Spam Attacks
As much as I hate to do so, I'm going to have to reinstate the dreaded captcha thing for comments: I'm getting overloaded with spam attacks.
Perhaps I can remove it in a few weeks if things slow down.
Perhaps I can remove it in a few weeks if things slow down.
17 December 2012
My Heart Breaks for Families in Newtown
Some of the numbness is wearing off. Since the events of last week, since the shootings happened, I've been pretty numb. I think this is a psychological defense that we have; a defense I have as a parent. I'm afraid if I felt the full weight of what happened, I'd lose my mind. Thank God for small blessings, including psychological anesthesia.
But now some of that numbness is wearing off, and I can think more about what has happened, and it is not an easy thing to do. I have four kids. I have pictured in my mind what it might be like to be one of the parents of a child who lost her life at school that day. My kids are at school right now. Are they sitting attentively in class while the teacher explains how to conjugate a verb? Are they laughing with their friends in the cafeteria? Will the school day today end like the last one, with smiling kids coming in the house to tell me about their day?
Or will it end like the day did in Connecticut last week? I think about what that might be like...coming home to the still-unmade bed where she got up that morning; lying there and smelling the unmistakable smell of your child and knowing that it is fading and will never be back again. The sibling, looking at the Legos that he was playing with along with the sister that will not be back to finish the fort, and not able to make any sense of it. The grandparent, with the cute packages already wrapped and under the Christmas tree, with her name on the sticker, packages which won't be opened by the one for whom they were lovingly prepared.
I hurt so much for those families.
I found this statement from a pastor in Newtown, in this blog post. It helps, a bit. But I don't know anything that can really help other than the strength that God Himself can provide an individual at a time like this. Here's a quote from the blog-
I have opinions, and some strong ones, on what should be done to prevent this. I have strong opinions on the wrong responses as well, and these are the very things that I see starting to happen within the government and in the media as well. But right now is probably not the time to focus on how to respond to the foolishness of a secular culture and a secular government, as much as it is time to weep with those who weep, and try to find good things (God-glorifying things) to say to those who have questions they can't answer, and of course to pray for the relief from pain through which the families of those kids are now walking. It's every parents' worst fear, and it is a pain that cannot really be imagined, I think, until it happens. And even then, there are no words to describe it.
If it weren't for God's grace, and the assurance I have in Christ; if I lived in a world of nihilistic existence, I would not retain my sanity. I could not maintain a grip on life itself, and the only question left, like Hume had to ask, would be when to effect my own demise. This grace and this assurance are the message we must continue to communicate to those in our (very demonstrably) lost world.
Humanistic solutions will fail. Secular methods of comfort will remain cold and empty. Only the assurance of a reason to exist; of a loving and sovereign God, can begin to help us answer the questions we have or provide us with any comfort in life and in death.
But now some of that numbness is wearing off, and I can think more about what has happened, and it is not an easy thing to do. I have four kids. I have pictured in my mind what it might be like to be one of the parents of a child who lost her life at school that day. My kids are at school right now. Are they sitting attentively in class while the teacher explains how to conjugate a verb? Are they laughing with their friends in the cafeteria? Will the school day today end like the last one, with smiling kids coming in the house to tell me about their day?
Or will it end like the day did in Connecticut last week? I think about what that might be like...coming home to the still-unmade bed where she got up that morning; lying there and smelling the unmistakable smell of your child and knowing that it is fading and will never be back again. The sibling, looking at the Legos that he was playing with along with the sister that will not be back to finish the fort, and not able to make any sense of it. The grandparent, with the cute packages already wrapped and under the Christmas tree, with her name on the sticker, packages which won't be opened by the one for whom they were lovingly prepared.
I hurt so much for those families.
I found this statement from a pastor in Newtown, in this blog post. It helps, a bit. But I don't know anything that can really help other than the strength that God Himself can provide an individual at a time like this. Here's a quote from the blog-
It has to be noted that this kind of sin and horrible loss is not absent in the pages of Scripture. Job had his family murdered by the devil, and Job responded with a heart of faith: “The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.” And Job’s faith in the sovereign hand of God must remain ours now.
At the same time, we remember that Job also asked “why?” as we are prone to do. We must realize, however, that God never answered Job’s why question, nor did he permit Job to question his wisdom. Instead, God simply pointed Job back to his own glorious character, sovereignty and wisdom. And Job found a place of blessedness when he rested there. His blessing came by resting in the glorious purposes of God. I think we want answers, but God does not give us answers. Instead, he reveals his character and glory. And that is faith—leaning on the sovereign hand of God. Not knowing why, but knowing who to lean on through the loss. God does not answer our questions; he IS our answer.
I have opinions, and some strong ones, on what should be done to prevent this. I have strong opinions on the wrong responses as well, and these are the very things that I see starting to happen within the government and in the media as well. But right now is probably not the time to focus on how to respond to the foolishness of a secular culture and a secular government, as much as it is time to weep with those who weep, and try to find good things (God-glorifying things) to say to those who have questions they can't answer, and of course to pray for the relief from pain through which the families of those kids are now walking. It's every parents' worst fear, and it is a pain that cannot really be imagined, I think, until it happens. And even then, there are no words to describe it.
If it weren't for God's grace, and the assurance I have in Christ; if I lived in a world of nihilistic existence, I would not retain my sanity. I could not maintain a grip on life itself, and the only question left, like Hume had to ask, would be when to effect my own demise. This grace and this assurance are the message we must continue to communicate to those in our (very demonstrably) lost world.
Humanistic solutions will fail. Secular methods of comfort will remain cold and empty. Only the assurance of a reason to exist; of a loving and sovereign God, can begin to help us answer the questions we have or provide us with any comfort in life and in death.
The Problem With Works-Based Salvation, in Simple Terms
I think today's Calvin and Hobbes cartoon illustrates a great deal of what Martin Luther was trying to say in his Heidelberg Disputation, but says it in a lot simpler terms.
If you want the longer version, I highly recommend two books. The first is the classic by Gerhard Forde, On Being a Theologian of the Cross. The second is Alistair McGrath's look at the same material, Luther's Theology of the Cross.
I'm planning to re-read Forde's book, as it is one that can't be absorbed fully on the first (or likely the second or third) reading.
I'm working on McGrath's book now. Good stuff. But Calvin (the kid, not the theologian) says it pretty well above.
If you want the longer version, I highly recommend two books. The first is the classic by Gerhard Forde, On Being a Theologian of the Cross. The second is Alistair McGrath's look at the same material, Luther's Theology of the Cross.
I'm planning to re-read Forde's book, as it is one that can't be absorbed fully on the first (or likely the second or third) reading.
I'm working on McGrath's book now. Good stuff. But Calvin (the kid, not the theologian) says it pretty well above.
05 December 2012
Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Handbasket?
I really like what Doug Wilson says here.
And this is the position the American people are now in. We have thieves in Congress and in the White House because we have thievery in our hearts. Because we have larceny in our hearts, wanting to pay off 2012 debts with 2022 money, we put up with Bernake's monkeyshines at the Fed. Because we have larceny in our hearts, we hear a politician say that the rich should pay their "fair share" and we reflexively say yeah! -- in the name of justice. Thus we call rank injustice justice (Is. 5:20), and we do it because there is larceny in our little piggy hearts. Because we have larceny in our hearts, we call it greed when someone wants to keep the money he made, and we don't call it greed when we want to take it away from him. But we are the ones with sticky fingers -- and we have sticky fingers because of our sticky hearts.
Because we have larceny in our hearts, we cannot follow any economic arguments that have square shoulders, an upright posture, and an honest face. Who do they think they are anyway?
By the way, and I simply make this point in passing, it will do no good to get off this charge by appealing to our cultural memories of Robin Hood. He was not robbing the rich to give to the poor. He was robbing the tax collectors in order to get the money back to the people who had earned it in the first place. The Sherwood Forest hideout had a Gadsden flag flying over it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)