Thursday, December 30, 2010

Who is more generous, liberals or conservatives?

Who is more generous, liberals or conservatives?

I'll give you a hint. In 2006-2007 the Obama's gave roughly 6% of their income to charity. John McCain gave about 28%!

In the decade before Joe Biden became vice president, the Biden's gave a total--all ten years combined--of $3,690 to charity, or 0.2 percent of their income. By contrast, in 2005 Vice President Cheney gave 77% to charity. Please read the entire article, "Liberals Give Till it Hurts (You)!"

John Stossel once found that the this is not just true of politicians--it is also true of average liberal and conservative Americans.

Toying with totalitarianism

Think your freedom is not under siege? Think again. These are just isolated examples but they are symptomatic of the mindset of the Left whose motto seems to be, "government knows best."

The more we elect Democrats and "moderate" Republicans to government positions, the more we can expect similar trampling of our freedom.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

"If Christians were treated like Muslims"

If you read only one article this week, please take time to read Gary Baur's short but excellent article in Human Events entitled, "If Christians were treated like Muslims".

"Where's the Line to See Jesus?"

I'm a little late with this one since Christmas is over but it is still worth posting.

Undocumented workers and Unlicensed pharmacists

The politically correct Left apparently wants everyone to stop using the phrase "illegal aliens" for those who are in America illegally. The Left prefers the less offensive phrase, "undocumented workers."

Someone e-mailed Fox and Friends this morning saying that if illegal aliens are undocumented workers, then drug dealers must be "unlicensed pharmacists."

Human DNA and the Encyclopedia Britannica

"Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces" (George Sim Johnson, Wall Street Journal, October 14, 1999, as cited in The Case for the Creator by Lee Strobel, chapter 9).

Monday, December 27, 2010

Please sign the petition to repeal Obamacare

Please sign the petition to repeal Obamacare.

Global warming in England

Just now on Fox and Friends, a British meteorologist says that so far this has been the coldest winter in England in 100 years.

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Will Pigford be Obama's Watergate?

If you haven't heard of Pigford yet, you probably will before the New Year is over. It appears to be a case of horrific fraud and corruption which was apparently covered up by the Democratic Congress.

Uncoverage provides an explanation of the issue--and in the process, a sickening expose of how our legal system really works when in the hands of unscrupulous lawyers (sounds like an idea for a Hollywood movie). If this doesn't convince you that the legal system needs an overhaul nothing will (if corporations made money like this, I suspect their CEO's would be doing hard time)!

How does Obama figure into all this? Read that story on Big Government.

Global warming in the South

According to the Associated Press,
The white Christmas in the South was one for the record books. Columbia,S.C., had its first significant Christmas snow since weather records were first kept in 1887. Atlanta had just over an inch of snow—the first measurable accumulation on Christmas Day since the 1880s.
Darn that global warming!

Obama and the war on Jihadists

While recovering from the flu this morning, I was just watching a CNN's Candy Crowley interview two former high ranking Bush intelligence officials. They said that the Obama administration is pursuing the war on Jihadists at least as aggressively, if not more so, than the Bush administration.

Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that to say I am no fan of the Obama administration would be a big understatement but I do believe in being fair. If what these men say is true, President Obama deserves credit for this.

Friday, December 24, 2010

Michelle Obama and childhood obesity

On this issue, I agree with David Harsanyi, Sarah Palin gets it. Mike Huckabee doesn't.

ACLU attacks Catholic Hospitals

Michele Malkin writes,

Ho, ho, ho! Just in time for Christmas, the American Civil Liberties Union has launched a new salvo against people of faith. Even as billions around the world celebrate the birth of Christ, joyless, abortion-obsessed secularists never take a holiday.
On Wednesday, the ACLU sent a letter to federal health officials urging the government to force Catholic hospitals in the U.S. to perform abortions in violation of their core moral commitment to protecting the lives of the unborn.

Any organization that seeks to force Christian or Jewish individuals or organizations to violate their religious convictions is fundamentally un-American!

Please read Michele's entire, excellent, article!


Wednesday, December 22, 2010

"The Year of Right-Wing Terrorists?"

Please take time to read, "The Year of Right-Wing Terrorists?"

Some people in the Left-wing media are so blinded by hatred they are not playing with a full-deck!

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

ALA supporting Net Neutrality?

Net Neutrality is simply the beginning step of government regulation of the internet. That being the case, it is absolutely astounding that the American Library Association--which prides itself on its fight against censorship-- appears to be supporting Net Neutrality!  Read about it on Safe Libraries.

U.S. Senator on regulating free speech

Unbelievable! In a Congressional hearing a U.S. Senator (a Democrat, of course) suggested that it would be a good thing for the government to regulate free speech by censoring--indeed, banning--Fox News and MSNBC!

Senator Rockefeller also laments that news media "has all but surrendered to the forces of entertainment." Perhaps Rockefeller doesn't understand that this is because news is a competitive business. Those that don't get the ratings, go off the air. We may not like this, but that is the reality of business. Perhaps Rockefeller would prefer that the government just nationalize the news media so the government alone can decide what is fair and balanced! 

The government took a step in that direction today with the decision to implement their Orwellian "Net Neutrality." (Coincidentally, the Hugo Chavez government in Venezuela today also tightened their internet regulation).

Monday, December 20, 2010

Obama, racism and the Pigford farmer's settlement

Wow! This reads like the introduction to a new best-selling fiction. Many will dismiss it as pure fiction, but if even half of it turns out to be true, we're in for an interesting news year!

Consequences of dismantling "Don't ask, don't tell"

On the potential chilling repercussions of dismantling "Don't ask, don't tell" to religious liberty see Daniel Blomberg's outstanding article in Townhall.

Fortunately, the ADF has promised to defend service men and women who are forced to violate their religious convictions due to the government's decision to normalize homosexual behavior in the military.

On the definition of marriage

I recently read a lengthy article entitled "What is Marriage?" by Sherif Girgis (Ph.D. candidate in philosophy from Princeton), Robert George (McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princetion) and Ryan Anderson (Ph.D. candidate in Political Science from Notre Dame).

They compare and contrast two views of marriage: 1) The Conjugal View, i.e. that "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together" and 2) The Revisionist View that "Marriage is the union of two people (whether of the same sex or of opposite sexes) who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life) (246).

The authors argue "for legally enshrining the conjugal view of marriage, using arguments that require no appeal to religious authority" (247). In part one, they convincingly argue that "the common good of our society crucially depends on legally enshrining the conjugal view of marriage and would be damaged by enshrining the revisionist view" (248).

Some of the issues the authors address include, 1) equality and justice (equating discrimination against gay marriage with discrimination based on race), 2) the definition of marriage, 3) "How would Gay Civil Marriage Affect You or Your Marriage", 4) Moral and religious freedom, 5) Isn't marriage whatever we say it is?" 6) Wouldn't legalizing same-sex marriage help to "spread traditional norms to the gay community?" 7) "What about partners concrete needs?" 8) Aren't same-sex relationships only natural?" and 9) "Doesn't Traditional Marriage Law Impose Controversial Moral and Religious Views on Everyone?"

The authors demonstrate that "according to the best available sociological evidence, children fare best on virtually every indicator of wellbeing when reared by their wedded biological parents" (257). This "advantage of marriage appears to exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both parents" (258).

Interestingly enough, this benefit to the children appears to hold true even if one of the partners in the heterosexual marriage is also attracted to those of the same sex (258). In other words, the issue is not the sexual orientation of the parents. The issue is that children need a biological father and a biological mother. Redefining marriage to include same sex relationships cannot provide that.

The authors admit that "social and legal developments have already worn the ties that bind spouses to something beyond themselves and thus more securely to each other. But recognizing same-sex unions would mean cutting the last remaining threads" (262). This is significant "Because children fare best on most indicators of health and wellbeing when reared by their wedded biological parents" and "the further erosion of marital norms would adversely affect children" (262). "If same-sex partnerships were recognized as marriages...the ideal would be abolished from our law: no civil institution would any longer reinforce the notion that children need both a mother and a father; that men and women on average bring different gifts to the parenting enterprise; and that boys and girls need and tend to benefit from fathers and mothers in different ways" (263).

Since it is impossible for the state to be value-neutral on the issue of marriage, the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions would force the state "to view conjugal-marriage supporters as bigots who make groundless and invidious distinctions" (263-264). Indeed, "The proposition that support for conjugal conception of marriage is nothing more than a form of bigotry has become so deeply entrenched among marriage revisionists" that such prominent newspapers as the Washington Times and New York Times have promoted the idea (264).

Some of the statistics provided by the article are enlightening. For example,
In the 1980's, Professors David McWhirther and Andrew Mattison, themselves in a romantic relationship, set out to disprove popular beliefs about gay partners' lack of adherence to sexual exclusivity. Of 156 gay couples that they surveyed, whose relationships had lasted from one to thirty-seven years, more than sixty percent had entered the relationship expecting sexual exclusivity, but not one couple stayed sexually exclusively longer than five years" (278).
And, "A 1990's U.K. survey of more than 5,000 men found that the median numbers of partners for men with exclusively heterosexual"...inclinations over the previous five years" was two. By contrast the number median number of partners for homosexual men was 10 (279).

The authors conclude with a thought experiment:  "imagine that human beings reproduced asexually and that human offspring were self-sufficient. In that case would any culture have developed an institution anything like what we know as marriage? It seems clear that the answer is no" (286-287). The reason is that "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together" (246).

Excellent article!  I've only skimmed the surface. Please take time to read all of it.

Where is the outcry from American feminists?

Sudan: Women are punished with "600,000" lashes a year - Jihad Watch

I find it fascinating--no, appalling really--that many American feminists are so hateful to churches that do not allow women to be senior pastors, and yet are so tolerant of Muslims who regularly abuse and even torture women!

Is this what Americans fought and died for in Iraq?

Is this what Americans fought and died for in Iraq: Thousands of Christians flee central Iraq after attacks - Telegraph

Since we are so into immigration, perhaps we should open our doors to all the Iraqi Christians who want to leave--and then pull all of our troops out of Iraq immediately! I'm tired of pouring billions of dollars into a Muslim culture that will not guarantee basic human rights and freedom.

Friday, December 17, 2010

Scientist alleges religious discrimination in Ky. -

Scientist alleges religious discrimination in Ky. -

Decision Points by George W. Bush

I just finished reading Decision Points by George W. Bush. He failed to convinced me that invading and taking over Iraq--as opposed to just destroying the Iraqi military bases and their suspected WMD sites--was the best option. I was also not convinced that the TARP program and all the Bush bailouts were the best option. He says that all of the economists he trusted were telling him the economy would collapse without it, but he fails to convince me that he gave alternative views any serious consideration. 

However, having said this, the book did reinforce my previous conviction that much of the vitriolic hatred leveled against him was unfair, unjust, often hypocritical and more about power than concern for America. 

The book provides a fascinating behind-the-scenes account of the major decisions of the Bush presidency. It was outstanding. I found it hard to put down.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Democrats want to spend 1.1 trillion more of your money!

The Democrats are now proposing a  new1.1 trillion spending bill!

This is insanity!  The bill is not only stuffed with pork, it is 1,900 pages long so very few (if any) Senators have actually read it. If I didn't know better I'd think some of these Lefties are deliberately trying to bring down America so they can replace it with a totalitarian Leftist regime!

Monday, December 13, 2010

Muslims, Yasser Arafat and oppression

"Six months before I took office, the Camp David peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians fell apart. President Clinton had worked tirelessly to bring together Israeli Prime Minster Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Barak made a generous offer to turn over most of the West Bank and Gaza...Arafat turned him down...I didn't blame President Clinton for the failure at Camp David or the violence that followed. I blamed Arafat. America, Europe, and the United Nations had flooded the Palestinian Territories with development aid. A good portion of is was diverted to Arafat's bank account. He made th Forbes list of the world's wealthiest 'kinds, queens, and despots.' Yet his people remained trapped in poverty" (Decision Points by George W. Bush, ch. 13).

It is a sad fact that the biggest oppressors of Muslims in the world has been other Muslims.

SafeLibraries: How ALA Plagiarism Becomes Truth Through the Media Lens; SafeLibraries in USA Today

SafeLibraries: How ALA Plagiarism Becomes Truth Through the Media Lens; SafeLibraries in USA Today

Pro-polygamy economist discovers that polygamy has "institutionalized women into subservience" - Jihad Watch

Pro-polygamy economist discovers that polygamy has "institutionalized women into subservience" - Jihad Watch

"What on earth is happening to marriage"

Katherine Kersten has a good article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune entitled, "What on earth is happening to marriage?"

Friday, December 10, 2010

On taxing the rich

In "Debunking the Millionaires and Billionaires Tax Cut Rhetoric" Matt Towery writes of the vast majority of those "rich" people the Democrats villainize  and seek to punish:
While every big corporation and bank was getting a bailout during the economic collapse, and while those on welfare were seeing extension after extension of their benefits, this small group of Americans -- who already carry the brunt of the nation's tax burden -- struggled. And they are still struggling to keep their businesses and practices going. They are trying to avoid layoffs. They are cutting every possible expense.
These are the nation's most frustrated workers. Even while they have been balancing the economic viability of their enterprises on their own backs and out of their own pockets, they have had to watch as the bailed-out banks have made fortunes. And yet these same banks continue in their unwillingness and inability to lend money to the so-called "super wealthy" owners of small businesses so that they can keep their companies alive.
Excellent points! Please take time to read the entire article.

Wednesday, December 08, 2010

The Obama-Republican compromise

In a closed door session, President Obama and Republican leaders came to a compromise proposal recently. The proposal has to do with the so-called Bush tax cuts (aka Democrat tax hikes), further extension of unemployment benefits (up to three years now), and reinstatement of the "death tax."

Today on his radio show, Hugh Hewitt pointed out that Republicans in the House of Representatives all signed a Pledge to America and that House Republicans who vote for this compromise will be violating at least five promises in that pledge--on the very first piece of legislation to come out after the election!

I think I will be more angry with Republicans who support this massive spending bill than I've been with Obama, Pelosi and Reid. After all, I've come to expect that Obama, Pelosi and Reid will lie to us, but I expect better from Republicans.

Monday, December 06, 2010

"Up from Homophobia"

Steve Chapman, columnist for the Chicago Tribune, has an article in Townhall entitled, "Up from homophobia."  Chapman admits that he once had a strong dislike for gays and "found the whole idea sick and repulsive." But that was before he actually knew anyone who was gay.

One day in college he came back from class and found a note on his desk from his roommate and good friend admitting to being gay. After much soul-searching Chapman finally concluded that gays were not an alien species and that this revelation by his roommate really didn't change anything. He continued to be friends with his roommate and has remained friends for 35 years.

Chapman's point was that it is easy to be homophobic if you don't actually know anyone who is gay. In this case, familiarity, Chapman says, breeds acceptance. Chapman has changed his views and is now in favor of gay marriage and gays in the military.

This is the second of Chapman's articles I've read. In both cases I found his articles to be well written, thoughtful and wrong.

Chapman is certainly right, of course, that gay people are not an "alien species." They are not monsters. They are people just like everyone else. The gay people I've known were nice people who were kind and friendly. I would whole-heartedly agree that people should never be hated, mocked, ridiculed or assaulted for being gay.

From a Christian perspective, however, that is really all beside the point.

First, the issue is not whether someone is friendly or nice. The issue is not even about whether someone is sexually tempted by those of the same sex. The issue is about behavior. Both Old and New Testaments make it clear that having sex with someone of the same sex is sin--just like committing adultery, having sex before marriage, or getting drunk is sin.

Christians know and work with all kinds of people who regularly engage in lifestyles that we consider sinful. We don't hate such people. We may hate the sin, but should love the sinner. The same thing should be true of Christians' attitudes toward people who engage in sex with people of the same sex. Christians should not hate them and we should never ridicule or abuse them. They are sinners for whom Christ died, just like all the rest of us.

But on the other hand, we cannot accept sinful behaviors as OK just because our society has now determined that such behaviors are no longer sinful.

Second, Mr. Chapman seems to be entirely unaware that the real issue involved in re-defining marriage has to do with Freedom of Religion. See "The Consequences of Same Sex Marriage,"  "What's Wrong with Gay Rights?" and "Chai Feldblum against the First Amendment," and "Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty."

"Offended by the Offended"

If you read only one article this week, I would suggest "Offended by the Offended" by Terry Paulson. It is outstanding!

Friday, December 03, 2010

Tracking credit cards without search warrants?

I would be interested to know what judge Andrew Napolitano has to say about the federal government tracking American's credit cards without search warrants.

Global warming and the Mayan moon goddess

Just when you think the Global Warming hysteria couldn't get more wacky, now we find that the Cancun talks on Global Warming began with an appeal to the Mayan moon goddess!

Thursday, December 02, 2010

"The Folly of Attacking Iran"

Steve Chapman, a writer for the Chicago Tribune, has an article in Townhall criticizing plans to attack Iran. His article, "The Folly of Attacking Iran," is thoughtful and deserves careful consideration.

Regarding an "attack on a Middle Eastern country that has not attacked us and poses no threat to our security" Chapman asks, "Haven't we tried that, and didn't we learn anything about starting wars we don't know how to end?"  

Good question. The problem, however, wasn't that we took out what we suspected to be Saddam's WMD program. The problem was that we decided not only to take over the country but to engage in nation-building.  I don't know of anyone who advocates that with Iran. 

Besides, the U.S. once took out Libya's WMD-making capability, and Israel has done the same with Syria. The results in both cases were good. That, of course, doesn't mean that doing the same in Iran would produce similar results, but comparing our nation-building efforts in Iraq with taking out nuclear capability in Iran is apples and oranges.

Writing of Saudi Arabia's view that the U.S. needs to cut off the head of the snake (Iran), Chapman says, "If a snake comes after you, cutting off its head is the right response. If it's merely curled up in a distant lair, keeping its venom in reserve, staying away makes far more sense."

It sure does--if we were just talking about snakes. Fortunately, most snakes do not prey on people. If you leave them alone, they will probably leave you alone. We cannot say the same thing about Iran. They actively fund terrorists and even engage in terrorist ventures through their proxies. Once they have nuclear weapons, there is reason to believe they will use them, either directly or as means of blackmail.

Chapman, however, questions this assumption "that once Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it will use them."  Chapman says that "zealots and despots" like Ahmadinejad, "have a powerful instinct for for self preservation" just like Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong. Chapman says that "The Iranians know that any use of nuclear weapons traceable to them would be sure to accomplish one thing: their annihilation."

That is assuming, of course, that we could trace a dirty bomb or nuclear explosion back to Iran with enough certainty to justify nuking Tehran. But even if we could trace a nuclear attack back to Iran, nuking a million innocent people in Tehran is no compensation for the million lives Iran would have taken in the initial attack. 

Chapman's argument 
also assumes that the West really would nuke Iran under any circumstances. Many in the West would say that it is just not morally justifiable to kill a million innocent people, not even in response to a nuclear attack.

Finally, Chapman is equating atheist-Communists with Islamic zealots who believe they have  mission from God to bring the entire world under submission to Allah by any and all means necessary. Chapman fails to understand that we are dealing with an entirely different worldview.

Chapman argues that having nuclear weapons would not even "help Iran in pushing its neighbors around" because Iran's nuclear capability would just unite them to unite "in opposition to Tehran--and even closer to the United States."  

I think Chapman significantly and naively underestimates the potential power of nuclear blackmail.

Chapman says that "the only real value of acquiring an atomic arsenal is to deter attack and invasion." He cites Iraq which did not have WMD and was invaded by the U.S. whereas North Korea does have WMD and was not.

Chapman's point is on the tip of a two-edged sword. The other edge of that sword is that once a nation has nuclear weapons and the capability of delivering them, they can commit pretty much any atrocities against their own people or against anyone else who does not have nukes, and there is not much the world community can do about it (take the imperialism of China and the former Soviet Union as examples).

Besides, Chapman is basically dismissing Iran's warnings about wiping Israel off the face of the earth as if these warnings were empty rhetoric (in spite of the fact that Iran has spent millions funding Hamas and Hezbollah attacks against Israel). 

But what if Chapman is wrong? What if Iran really used nuclear weapons against Israel and a million people die. It would be a bit too late to say, "Hmmm, gee, sorry about that. We really didn't think they meant what they said" (even though they said it over and over and over again).

But Chapman is right about one thing. The possible consequences of taking out Iran's nuclear capability could be horrendous!  In fact, I would argue that the only thing worse, would be the possible consequences of NOT taking out Iran's nuclear capability.

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

Please sign the Manhattan Declaration petition

Please sign the petition to ask Apple to restore the Manhattan Declaration to iphones and iPad.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Steve Jobs, Apple and the Manhattan Declaration

My open letter to Steve Jobs and Apple:

As a happy owner of an iPad I must say that I am very disappointed in Apple's recent decision to pull the Manhattan Declaration app, apparently bowing to the pressure exerted by a small but vocal group of intolerant, bigoted gay activists.

Please read the Manhattan Declaration for yourself. There is nothing hateful about it. Take for example, this paragraph from the Manhattan Declaration:
We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God's intention for our lives. We, no less than they, are in constant need of God's patience, love and forgiveness. We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it. Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners. For every sinner, regardless of the sin, is loved by God, who seeks not our destruction but rather the conversion of our hearts. Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to "a more excellent way." As his disciples we will reach out in love to assist all who hear the call and wish to answer it.[emphasis mine]
This certainly expresses disagreement with those who engage in homosexual behaviors, but it is definitely not hateful, unless it is now considered "hateful" simply to express an opposing viewpoint, in which case, those who pressured you into pulling the iPad are no less "hateful" than those of us who signed the Manhattan Declaration.

Please reconsider your decision.

Monday, November 29, 2010

Christmas FlashMob strikes again

Christmas FlashMob strikes again.  Awesome!

Sunday, November 28, 2010

The origin of the term "Islamophobia"

Now we know where the term "Islamophobia" came from. It did not just arise by chance. Read about it here.

Wikileaks revelations

According to the Guardian, some of the 250,000 Wikileaks releases include:
• "Grave fears in Washington and London over the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme, with officials warning that as the country faces economic collapse, government employees could smuggle out enough nuclear material for terrorists to build a bomb."
• "How the hacker attacks which forced Google to quit China in January were orchestrated by a senior member of the Politburo"
• "Allegations that Russia and its intelligence agencies are using mafia bosses to carry out criminal operations, with one cable reporting that the relationship is so close that the country has become a "virtual mafia state"."
The Jerusalem Post adds that the Wikileaks show that Saudi Arabia supports military action against Iran to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
I have couple "off-the-top-of-my-head" reactions to the Wikileaks.
1) The person or people who leaked these documents should be charged with treason and shot.
2) Perhaps it is time to set up a special, secret court (like the FISA court) consisting of a panel judges with the highest security clearance who would have to approve all government requests to make government information classified. I can't help wondering whether government officials don't sometimes (often?) classify information, not for national security but to protect themselves from public scrutiny. If so, this has to stop.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

"a dry run for totalitarianism"

Dr. Keith Ablow, "a psychiatrist and member of the Fox-News Medical A-Team" has an interesting take on the body scanners:

Before the public outcry, TSA had grown to tens of thousands of government "security" personnel who were empowered by rules and regulations to touch travelers' genitals, confiscate their belongings (on slim evidence that they posed any real danger) and demand that they assume the posture of criminals to be scanned head to foot.
If that sounds like a dry run for totalitarianism, it is, at least psychologically. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is the projection of Barack Obama's psyche--wherein, large numbers of uniformed folks establish a major presence in private companies (airlines, in this case) and "teach" the dangerous American population to behave according to rigid, intrusive, infantilizing rules--or be pulled aside for further questioning.

Do you agree?

Friday, November 26, 2010

Librarians fed up with the ALA

More and more librarians are getting fed up with the American Library Association. Its about time!

See Dances with Books and Safe Libraries.

2009 Hate crime statistics

The FBI's 2009 hate crime statistics are out. 128 anti-Islamic hate crimes, 95 anti-Christian (i.e. anti-Protestant plus anti-Catholic) hate crimes and 964 anti-Jewish hate crimes!

In other words, while Muslims complain loudest about being victims of hate crimes, the number of hate crimes committed against Muslims is really not much more than the number committed against "Christians." The number of anti-Jewish hate crimes, on the other hand, is more than four times the number of hate crimes committed against Christians and Muslims put together!

Thursday, November 25, 2010

A history of Thanksgiving in America

"Celebrating Thanksgiving in America" provides an excellent history of Thanksgiving in America. It is well worth spending a few minutes to read sometime today.

Monday, November 22, 2010

The failure of public education

Check out this outstanding article on the failure of public education by Joseph Phillips.

Charlie Rangel: Symptom of a bigger problem

Star Parker has an outstanding article in Townhall entitled, "Charlie Rangel is a Symptom of a Bigger Problem." Among the observations Ms. Parker makes is
Earlier this year, the New York Times profiled the prodigious money raising prowess and dubious ethics of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. The Times editorialized, “Of all the money machines shaving ethical corners, few rival the Congressional Black Caucus…..the caucus spends far more on gala entertainments and golf outings than on the scholarships that billboard its charity drives.”
On behalf of my black granddaughter who is way too young to be outraged (but is absolutely adorable, by the way), I am outraged at a bunch of crooked politicians like Charlie Rangel who rode to power based largely on the color of their skin and then betrayed the very people they were elected to help!

Please take time to read the article.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Christian pastor hauled into court for witnessing, in Kansas

A pastor is being hauled into court for witnessing to Muslims--not in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, but in Kansas! Apparently the authorities in Kansas have never heard of the first Amendment.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Obamanomics: Failure of the stimulus

I was watching "Cashin in" this morning and one of the Obama supporters was bragging about the "fact" that the stimulus package has created 3 million jobs! Others on the panel disputed this "fact" saying that there is no possible way of knowing that.

Let's suspend all reality for a moment and imagine that it was really true. If the government spent roughly 800 billion dollars to stimulate the economy and the result was 3 million new jobs, doesn't that mean that it cost about about $267,000 of your tax money per job!

Does that sound like a very efficient use of money to you? To me it looks like big government politics, payoffs, bureaucracy, corruption and waste. And its your money (well, actually, it is probably also your children's and grandchildren's money).

Massive arms deal to Saudi Arabia

The Obama administration has reportedly managed to push through the most massive arms deal in U.S. history involving "84 F-15 fighter jets and more than 174 attack helicopters"--to Saudi Arabia! (ABC News).

The rationale is that this would be good for American jobs and would provide a counterbalance to Iranian hegemony in the region, and besides, Saudi Arabia has been a good ally. Even Israel is supporting--or at least not vigorously opposing--the deal.

On the other hand, according to the former head of a pro-Israel lobbying group who was interviewed by ABC,
As long as Saudi Arabia is stable and considers itself a friend of the United States, there is not that much concern...The problem is, how stable is a regime run by people in their 80's, with unrest in the south, were neighboring Yemen is harboring al Qaeda?"
Bingo! Besides that, the idea that Saudi Arabia will always ally itself with the United States over against other Muslim nations sounds like it is based much more on wishful thinking than anything else.

Friday, November 19, 2010

Buddhism plain and simple

I recently finished reading a book called Buddhism plain & simple by Steve Hagen. The author is a Zen priest who teaches Buddhism.  Hagen says:

“Buddhism is not a belief system. It’s not about accepting certain tenets or believing a set of claims or principles. It’s about examining the world carefully and about testing every idea. Buddhism is about seeing” (8).

Hagen tells the story of a man who came to the Buddha complaining of his problems. The Buddha listened patiently and then said, “I can’t help you.” The man became indignant so the Buddha explained that everyone has eighty-three problems that no one could do anything about. When the man asked what good the Buddha’s teaching was, the Buddha said that his teaching might help him with the eighty-fourth problem which is that “You want to not have any problems” (17). 

The reality, Hagen insists, is that life is about problems, and Buddhism is about seeing life as it is. In fact, it is “Our longing, our craving, our thirsting for something other than Reality is what dissatisfies us” (19). This dissatisfaction comes from within us.

The way forward, says Hagen, is to see the three truths that 1) “life is fleeting,” 2) that “you are already complete, worthy, whole” and 3) that you are your own refuge and salvation (19). Indeed, Hagen insists that “You are the final authority. Not me, not the Buddha. Not the Bible. Not the government. Not the president. Not mom or Dad. You” (22, cf. 90).

From a Christian perspective this would seem to eliminate the inconvenient truth of sin. Sin is rebellion against God. But if there is no God and I am the final authority, I cannot sin—no matter what I do. Whatever I decide is right or true is, by definition, right and true—because I am the final authority. Of course, if someone decides to rob, harm or kill me or my loved ones, they are their own final authority so whatever they decide to do is right and true also.

It should be noted that from a Christian perspective, this idea that each of us is our own final authority is practically the essence of the fallen sin nature. The essence of sin is rebellion against God which almost always manifests itself in self-centeredness rather than a God-centeredness.

But there is, says Hagen, a fourth truth. This truth is really an eight-fold path (23). The eight-fold path involves seeing what the problem is and resolving to deal with it. Once you "see," “Wise speech, action, and livelihood then follow naturally.” They “provide the foundation for a morality that actually works” (23). This morality “is not a goody-goody code of behavior” in which we are, or pretend to be, good in order to claim some future reward (23).

If the Zen master is referring to Christianity here, he demonstrates his ignorance of Christianity. St. Paul was adamant that Christianity is not about being good in order to “claim a reward as some later date.” Biblical Christianity is about seeing the reality that we have all sinned and fall short of the demands of a holy God, that there is nothing we can do to make this situation right, and that the only way out is turning in repentance and faith to Jesus Christ.

“The first of the four truths is called duhkha (doo-ka). “Duhkha is often translated ‘suffering” but it also includes dissatisfaction. Hagen likens it to a wheel that is out-of kilter. “With each turn of the wheel, each passing day, we experience pain” (25-26).

One form of duhkha involves physical and mental pain (29-30). Another form is change. Hagen insists that until we realize the inevitability of change we will “honestly believe” that by manipulation and control we can “make the world better” for everyone. This however, just creates more havoc, pain and distress, i.e. duhkah (31).

Hagen is right that sometimes efforts to make the world better backfire. Take for example the liberals who got DDT banned in Africa. That has cost literally millions of lives! But the idea that trying to make the world better always brings about havoc is pure nonsense. Try convincing most African-Americans that the world would have been a better place if William Wilberforce (a Christian) had not fought for the elimination of slavery! Try convincing most Jews that the world would have been a better place if America and Britain had not stopped Hitler!

Although Hagen insists that he is not calling for “complacency or inaction” (38) one cannot help wondering if perhaps this Buddhist view that trying to help can just make matters worse is why Buddhists have not done more to provide food, clothing, housing, education, orphanages, medicines, clinics and hospitals around the world. Ideas have consequences.

The second truth of the “Buddha-dharma” is the arising of duhkha which come from craving “to get the object of desire into our hands” (33). This takes three forms, 1) sensual desire, 2) a thirst for existence and 3) a thirst for non-existence (33).  Hagen says that “virtually all the woes of humankind stem from these three forms of craving and, therefore, our pain is self-inflicted” (34). To eliminate the pain, we need to “see” and no longer feed it (37).

Duhka is also related to intention. Hagen tells the story of a time when he was camping and woke up the next day to find that the roof of his Austin Healey Sprite convertible had been ripped. He was furious until he found that it was not done intentionally by some person, but by a raccoon. He suddenly “no longer felt any great suffering (41).

Hagen insists that there are no absolutes. There is no “unchanging ‘good’ and ‘bad.” These are just value judgments and beliefs (42). Instead, we need to act out of “Wholeness” (42). 

“Act out of Wholeness”? Hagen’s point here is interesting because elsewhere in the book he insisted that the problem with traditional morality is precisely that we can never see the whole. Our efforts at being good fail because we can never anticipate all the possible unintended consequences.

There is a story about a discussion Francis Schaeffer had with a Buddhist on this issue of absolutes. The Buddhist was apparently claiming that there were no absolutes and that suffering was all an illusion. Francis Schaeffer walked over to the stove, picked up a steaming hot pot of boiling water and held it over the shocked and frightened Buddhist’s head. The point Schaeffer made was that the Buddhist could talk until he was blue in the face about how there was no good or evil and how suffering was an illusion, but the Buddhist was apparently quite convinced that if someone were to pour boiling hot water on his head that would cause him to suffer and that would be evil!

The fact however, is that from a Buddhist perspective, Hagen is right. If there is no God, there is no one to tell anyone what constitutes good and evil. So when terrorists fly plans into buildings and kill nearly 3,000 innocent fathers and mothers, Buddhists would presumably say there is no such thing as good or bad. This is the recipe for an even more frightening world than the one we already have!

But back to the problem of desires—The solution, says Hagen, is to extinguish our sensual desires, to stop feeding the flame so it goes out (49).

But what kind of world would it be when loved ones could be raped, robbed, or murdered and we do not suffer because we no longer have any desire for their well-being? What kind of world would we have if everyone responded to oppression and injustice by extinguishing all desire to get involved and make things better? Does a religion like this truly deserve to be called one of the world’s “great religions?”

The eight aspects of the fourth truth are “right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right meditation” (53).  Hagen insists, this does not mean right as opposed to wrong, bad or evil. That would imply dualism (and apparently dualism is “wrong”). Right is better understood as “appropriate,” as “seeing verses not seeing,” “Reality as opposed to being deluded by our own prejudices, thoughts and beliefs.” It is “Wholeness rather than fragmentation” (54).

Try as he might, however, Hagen cannot seem to explain his way out of the fact that although he insists that Buddhism is not about beliefs (4), he presents his Buddhist beliefs as "right" and all opposing beliefs as "wrong."

Although Hagen insists that there are no absolutes, no rights and wrongs; to say that these eight aspects are “right” or “appropriate” implies that that other things are “not right” or “not appropriate” or just plain wrong.  It implies that these eight “truths” are absolutes and that those who do not “see” or follow them are on the “wrong” path.  Certainly when Hagen speaks of “our own prejudices, thoughts and beliefs” he is speaking pejoratively of any prejudices, thoughts and beliefs that do not align with the “right” teaching of Buddhism.

“The first aspect of the eightfold path is right view.” This means “not being caught by a particular view” or by “by ideas, concepts, beliefs or opinions.”  Hagen insists that the view of a buddha is of how things actually are” (54).

When Hagen writes this, however, it is hard to understand how he cannot see outside of his own little Buddhist box. To say that the “right view” is to see things as they actually are, is to imply that the way atheists, or Muslims or Christians, or even Hindus who see reality differently, are wrong!  To say that “the view of a buddha is of how things actually are” really means, how a buddha believes they are in accordance with particular Buddhist “ideas, concepts, beliefs [and] opinions.”

Christians, Muslims, and non-Buddhist atheists would say that it is Buddhists who need to see reality as it really is. Although Hagen advocates relativism and denies absolutes, his “right view” is presented as an absolute. It assumes that Buddhists have the right view and others do not.

“The second aspect of the Path is right intention” also called, “right resolve, right motive, or right thought” (55). Right intention involves a passion for truth—which is code for “truth as seen by Buddhists. But, Hagen insists, “You cannot actually learn Truth from anyone.”

If, however, no one can “actually learn Truth from anyone one wonders why Hagen bothered to write the book. For Hagen, truth is “seen only through your own resolve. If you do not resolve to awaken, there is nothing a teacher can do for you” (55). So in other words, seeing the world the way Buddhists see it is not a matter of being convinced by evidence and rational arguments, it is about resolving to see the world as Buddhists see it. If you simply cannot see things that way, it is because you have not resolved to awaken to the Buddhist “truth.”

Let’s call nonsense by its name. I could propose a new religion which insists that frogs are gods and that everyone’s secret desire is to become a frog-god. You might insist that you don’t want to be a frog-god but I would insist that you really need to see reality as it is and acknowledge that deep down inside you really do want to be a frog-god but you just don’t know it because you are not enlightened. You might demand evidence for my preposterous view, but I will simply say that “there is nothing a teacher can do for you” because it is not about being convinced by evidence and rational arguments.” It is about resolving to see Reality. If you would just awaken to the Reality of frog-gods you will become enlightened and may one day—after death—become a frog-god yourself!

“Right speech is the next aspect of the eightfold path” (56). Hagen says that “The most obvious form of right speech is avoiding lying.” Other forms of right speech are “not speaking crudely” and “not speaking ill of others and refraining from gossip and idle talk” (56).

Avoid lying?  Refrain from crude speaking? Why? Who is to say I should avoid lying or refrain from gossip if I am my own final authority? Notice how Hagen writes that right speech involves avoiding these things. He deliberately will not write that these are "wrong" speech. But if right speech involves avoiding these kinds of speech, doesn’t that imply that lying, gossip, and idle talk are wrong forms of speech? Doesn’t that imply the very dualism that Hagen rejected?

Hagen goes on: “Are you using speech because you’re trying to manipulate the world and other people? Or are you speaking in order to help yourself and others wake up? (79).

Apparently, according to Hagen, if you are using speech to “manipulate the world,” that is wrong but if you are using speech to help people see the “truth” of Buddhism, that is right. By this way of thinking, I guess it was wrong for William Wilberforce to use speech to try to manipulate his government to stand against slavery. What he should have been doing is to convince his government that slave traders are not inherently evil and slaves are not inherently good. Perhaps if Wilberforce had been a good Buddhist he could have eased his own personal suffering by not feeding his personal desire to see the slaves freed.

“The forth aspect of the eightfold path is right action. This is action that proceeds from an unfettered mind, a mind not embalmed in rigid thought constructs” (56). Hagen, however, doesn’t mind adherence to rigid thought constructs like the four truths and an eightfold path. It is just non-Buddhist thought constructs that are “rigid.”

Hagen says that the basis for right action is “to refrain from all that is divisive and contentious, to do what promotes harmony and unity. In short, it’s to act out of seeing the Whole. It is to live as a failing leaf—as the steaming wind itself” (91).

Hagen seems blissfully unaware—strange for a Buddhist whose expertise is awareness—that much of this book is divisive and contentious! If there is no basis for morality, who is to say that the basis for right action should be to refrain from all that is divisive and contentious? Perhaps the basis for right action is to see what is best for me and to follow that seeing in my actions.

The fifth aspect “of the eightfold path is right livelihood” (56). This is not a list of approved occupations, but rather guidance to earning a living in “openness, insight, honesty, and harmony” (56-57). But if I am my own final authority, why should I submit to anyone’s view of what constitutes a right livelihood?

The “sixth aspect of the eightfold path, is a conscious and ongoing engagement with each moment” (57). The seventh aspect is right mindfulness which involves “not forgetting what our real problem is: duhkha” (57).  The eighth aspect is right meditation which “is collecting the mind so that it becomes focused, centered, and aware” (57).

All of these “right” attitudes, thoughts or actions implies “wrong” attitudes, thoughts or actions.” As much as Hagen wants to deny dualism, his own dualism comes through at every turn.

Apparently anticipating the objections of people like me, Hagen says that some have compared this eight-fold path with the Ten Commandments. He insists, however, that the eight-fold path does not consist of commandments at all. Hagen gives the example of Nazi’s coming to the home of those hiding Jews, demanding to know if they are hiding Jews. Hagan says that Christians would have to be honest betray the Jews (Is Hagen really unaware of how many Christians risked their lives--and yes, lied--protecting Jews from the Nazis)? Hagen says that from a Buddhist perspective they could lie because “There’s no rule in the end, but only the situation and the inclination of your own mind” (59).

If there is no rule “but only the situation and inclination of your own mind” there is no reason why you would be risking your family’s lives to hide Jews in the first place! In fact, if there is only in “situation and inclination” of one’s own mind, the one who is arresting Jews is not any more or less moral than the one hiding Jews. If the ultimate aim in Buddhism s to eliminate personal suffering, it would seem that the goal would be to eliminate all desire for Jews to live in safety and peace. Without such a desire, you would not be troubled by rumors that Jews were being slaughtered by the millions and you would certainly not put your life in danger by standing up for them.

But what kind of religion is that?

Hagen asks “What would make human existence meaningful or correct” (64). We know that money, fame, sex, learning, power or luxury will not ultimately satisfy (64).

This is actually a very good observation. The writer of Ecclesiastes taught that none of these things would satisfy and that the answer could be found only in loving God and keeping his commandments. Buddhists have a different answer: “The only thing that truly satisfies is seeing Reality—seeing what’s really going on—in ourselves, others, and the world” (65).

Unfortunately, if people are being robbed, raped, molested, or enslaved, it is hard to understand how just seeing the Reality of the situation is going to help much.

Truth and Reality, says Hagen, are self-evident (70).

Really? To many Christians the “Reality” that there is a God is self-evident. To the atheist, the “Truth” that there is no God s self-evident. Hagen’s assertion that Truth and Reality are self-evident appears to be remarkably naive.

Reality, says Hagen is not something you can conceive, but something you can see or perceive. He warns against our conceptions of reality. He says that “Whenever we conceptionalize we create contradictions (72). For example, he says we can conceive of the book we are reading as a book only because we “conceive of it as separate from other things” when in fact “it is the sun as well,” since “if not for the sun, trees would not grow to produce the pulp for paper” (72).

I guess by the same “logic” since my mother gave birth to me that means I am my mother! If my Freshman students used this kind of “logic” in an essay, they would fail the essay.

Hagen writes that you assume that there is something “out there” and you want it, or don’t want it, or like it or try to get it or try to avoid it, etc. This, says Hagen, is the leaning of the mind. The mind does not just lean toward things like sex and money— even wanting enlightenment is leaning. If you determine not to allow your mind to lean anymore, your mind is leaning. The more you try to stop leaning the more you are leaning. “You cannot make your mind not lean—at least, not directly. But when you observe what actually takes place from moment to moment, the mind, of its own accord, straightens up” (75-76).

The whole point seems to be to come to a place where your mind is no longer leaning, no longer wanting. But why should we want to come to a place where we are no longer wanting? The answer appears to be that it will break the chain of confusion and suffering.

This sounds like a very self-centered way of looking at the world. It sounds like the whole duty of man to avoid pain and suffering. And yet, many people find great fulfillment precisely in giving themselves in love and service to others. For example, loving and caring about my wife, children, grandchildren can be extraordinarily painful at times. And yet many of us can’t imagine a life in which our mind is apparently so cold, so calloused and so self-centered that it does not “lean” or want, or desire (and therefore actively seek) what is best for our loved ones or our neighbors!

When talking about the self, Hagen (and the Buddha) used the analogy of a cork floating down a constantly moving and changing stream—everything changes except the cork.

“While we generally admit to changes in our body, our mind, our thoughts, our feelings, our understandings, and our beliefs, we still believe, ‘I myself don’t change. I’m still me. I’m an unchanging cork in an ever-changing stream” (128). Hagen writes, “Our belief in non-existence arises only as a result of holding the notion of existence in the first place” (135).

So we shouldn’t believe in existence? And Hagen calls this seeing reality it is?

“The fact is,” Hagen insists, “that there are no corks in the stream. There is only stream” (128). If we’d only relax, we’d notice that there’s no abiding self to be either pleased or damaged. This is what we have to see—that all is flux and movement and flow. It’s because we believe there’s some static being in the midst of all this—an imagined permanence we call ‘I’—that we suffer dukha” (129). 

If there is no “I”, then who is it that is supposed to “see” in order to be enlightened?

As an example, Hagen points out that “the book you’re holding now doesn’t appear at all like the closed book you picked up a while ago to read.” It has changed. In fact, the “it” is “only a mental construction” (131).  Science teaches us that “this book’ is a collection of rapidly moving molecules” that are in constant flux. The book is only a mental construction (132). “When buddhas look at the world, they don’t see solidity. They don’t see selves. They see only flux. This is not to say that the awakened no longer see forms like the rest of us. They do. But they see forms—or rather, ‘formness’—as illusory” (145).

Hagan says that “Relative truths are why we fight wars, why we fear people who aren’t like us, and why we debate the abortion question but come no closer to a resolution of it. Ultimate Truth, on the other hand, is direct perception. And what is directly perceived (as opposed to conceived) is that no separate, individualized things exist as such (143).

But throughout history billions and billions of people look at the world and perceive that there is something out there besides themselves. Buddhists want to convince us that our perceptions are all wrong—they are really just conceptions or even deceptions. The Reality, says the Buddhist is that there is “nothing to be experienced by this seamless, thoroughgoing relativity and flux” (143).

Hagen’s Buddhism reminds me of the story about the emperor’s new clothes in which a tailor managed to convince the kingdom that the emperor had beautiful new clothes which only the truly wise could see. No one wanted to appear unwise so everyone pretended to see the clothes—everyone except a child who exclaimed, the emperor is naked! Suddenly everyone realized they had been duped. Similarly, Buddhists want to convince the world that what we all experience as reality—the world of books and things and suffering—is not real at all. They are all just constantly changing, flowing illusions. Buddhists want us to become enlightened and “see” Reality for what it is—just like the tailor in the story about the emperor’s new clothes wanted people to “see” the “reality” of the beautiful clothes. Just like the tailor's “reality” of the emperors beautiful clothes, it is the Buddhist “Reality” that is the illusion!

Hagen wrote that Buddhism is about “examining the world carefully and about testing every idea” (9). For over 50 years I have examined the world carefully. I have also tested Hagen’s Buddhist ideas and perceive them to be nonsense. I wonder if that makes me a Buddhist.

Afterthoughts: One of the nice things about blogs, as opposed to print articles, is that blogs can be updated. After further reflection I thought I should balance my negative assessment above with a positive observation which is that Buddhism as a whole seems to be one of the world's genuinely peaceful religions.

Although there are relatively isolated cases in which Buddhists (or professing Buddhists) have persecuted Christians (for example, see here, and here, and here and here), for the most part Buddhists seem to be peaceful. They are not violently trying to bring the world into submission to their religion, and for this, we can be grateful.