This blog is dedicated to logical Reasoning, political consciousness, religious dialogue, intelligent thoughts, uncommon wisdom, current events, and humor.
By now, we all know about President Obama’s visit to Notre Dame. It was filled with controversy for Christians and especially for Catholics. Please! Get real! I have 2 quick observations:
First, I find it fascinating that the Republican party – the party that prides itself on less regulation and more personal responsibility – is so determined to pursue Constitutional Amendments against gay marriage and abortion. Whatever happened to leaving regulations to the States? Whatever happened to leaving personal matters to individuals’ decisions? Clearly, all that big talk apply only if they agree with your religious views and political agendas.
Second, let’s assume abortion is killing a living baby. I can truly accept and, in a way, believe that. Now, some one tell me how abortion can be viewed as a much worse act than killing a living person. Remember the 10 Commandments? Remember the sixth one: thou shalt not murder? No where does it say thou shalt not murder only the unborn.
I find it absolutely hypocritical that most Christians who are so against abortion are precisely the same individuals whose core ideology is the same as that of Rush Limbaugh’s and Dick Cheney’s. The same ideology that merits we (the U.S.) are the king of the world, we should govern the world and protect ourselves at any cost, and if some innocent lives are lost in the process, so be it. Every time we drop bombs and rockets to kill terrorists, we inevitably kill some innocent by-standards in the process. Some of those innocent souls are children, newborns and even unborn. Therefore, we are violating the sixth commandment. Where’s the outrage? Where are the protests?
In no way am I suggesting that we should not fiercely protect ourselves or avoid pre-emptive strikes. And I’m not so naive to think that we can do all that with no non-military casualties. But then I don’t have an existential crisis, and I’m not hypocritically against abortion while practically supporting the deaths of unborn and pregnant women in war. That is not for me to resolve. Those of you Christians who are against abortion and thought Obama’s visit to Notre Dame was an abomination must work this out between yourselves and your God. And be careful what conclusion you reach. If you believe that God agrees with your views and supports your plan, you have reached the wrong conclusion. It should be exactly the opposite!
Eternal damnation is not just for those who support or perform abortion. It is also for those who violate the sixth commandment. That could be you. Think about it.
Those who know me are well aware that I don’t have a strong stand, either way, about climate change as a result of human activities. I never miss an opportunity to speak with people on both sides of the issue, which has yielded an interesting pattern for me.
Without too much generalization, we can all agree that most conservatives do not believe in global warming as a result of human activities, while most liberals do. We can further agree that religion is a strong pillar of conservatism. That doesn’t imply, and I didn’t say, that liberals are not as strong in their religious faith. Do not leave me irrelevant comments.
That said, the entire equation of global warming is a simple one for most religious individuals. God created everything, and gave full dominion of it to his most awesome creation (humans):
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
On the right side of the spectrum are most religious people who believe that because God created everything and because humans are the designated beneficiaries of everything on earth, using earth’s natural resources could not possibly harm it, much less cause its destruction.
In the middle are religious folks who believe that dominion does not imply domination. Hence, it is not only possible to harm the earth, it is the responsibility of humans to protect and preserve God’s creations. On the left side of the spectrum are non-religious people who, of course, believe earth can easily be harmed by humans because there’s no Divine power to stop it.
If you don’t believe in a higher power, then you are well versed in the concept of randomness and evolution. As such, have you ever considered that perhaps it is our natural evolutionary programming and destiny to destroy ourselves and our home? Therefore, there may be nothing we can do to prevent this inevitable conclusion. That doesn’t mean you should remain silent about your core beliefs. It merely implies that all efforts to conserve and preserve the environment may be fruitless at the end in light of humans’ built-in mechanism of destruction. The end may be a foregone conclusion.
If you do believe in a higher power, then you are likely to not worry about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or drilling for oil. Earth is only a temporary home for humans, and we simply do not have the power or the influence to destroy God’s earthly creations. Species go extinct by God’s will, not by humans’ carelessness. Ice caps melt as God desires, not because humans spew CO2 into the atmosphere. Therefore, there’s nothing to worry about.
Here’s the interesting dichotomy. Religion and conservatism are all about doing the right thing and personal responsibility. The one glaring exception seems to be in the area of environmental movement. In this case, religion appears to give us a free pass.
I found this interesting. On April 22, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) talked about carbon dioxide in the context of global warming, climate change, or whatever it is called these days.
“Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth.”
“Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful, but there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that Carbon Dioxide is a harmful gas. It is a harmless gas. “
I personally have not decided whether human activity is harmful to the environment. Tag me as indecisive. I don’t care. We simply do not have sufficient evidence, or time line, to irrefutably prove it one way or another, and we never will.
But I’m sufficiently intelligent to know one thing: natural does not necessarily equate to harmless. To think otherwise is just un-naturally stupid.
Do you know what else is natural Congresswoman? Poo. Is poo harmless in your world?
Seems like Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.
It all began on Monday when Sen. Grassley was steamed about AIG bonuses. He suggested that AIG executives should resign or “commit suicide.” Not surprisingly, he apologized the next day by claiming that he didn’t mean suicide literally. → source
So, how can Grassley redeem himself? Easy! He throws himself a press event and utters the following sentence: “From my standpoint, it’s irresponsible for corporations to give bonuses at this time when they’re sucking the tit of the taxpayer.”
One thing is not quite clear to me. Does the sucking tit part come before committing suicide or as a result of it?
To say that Newt Gingrich, former Congressman and potential 2012 Presidential candidate, has lots of ideas for America is a monumental understatement.
Some of Newt’s ideas are refreshingly radical and yet suspiciously alarming at the same time. He would like to require exercise for school children, extend tax breaks to grocery stores that open in the inner city, give bonuses to food stamp recipients who buy fruits and vegetables, make students walk to school if they live close enough, and lots more. → source
Wow, for a die-hard Republican, he certainly walks a thin tight rope of socialism. Government mandates? Really? I wonder what Boss Limbaugh thinks of all this. Gee, I sure hope Newt doesn’t have to apologize!
Anyway, Newt has a fabulously unbelievable – and to some extent deliciously unthinkable – idea for reforming health care. He believes it’s time to consider paying teenage girls not to get pregnant. → same source as above
Yes, you read right! Pay teenagers to not get pregnant. Ironically, his plan does not include paying teenagers to not have sex. That would be too logical – and admittedly difficult to verify without a chastity belt. Just pay them for not getting pregnant . . . while they inevitably engage in sex.
Forgive my ignorance, but isn’t that what Republicans typify as socialism? Isn’t it an example of government hand-out? Can it not be construed as a type of affirmative action? Doesn’t it circumvent personal responsibility without incentivising by the government? Will it require a bail-out at the end?
Newt also believes that states should consider paying teenage girls who become pregnant to take prenatal vitamins to forestall paying additional health expenses for neonatal care down the road. → same source as above
Pay careful attention to the above paragraph: states should consider . . . Some one please leave me a comment and explain conservatism idea of less government to me. How do we the people end up with less government in our lives if, at the end, we shift regulations and mandates from the federal government to the states?
Talk about a power vacuum in the Republican Party. Actually, it resembles a rift in the Republican continuum.
Technically, Rush is a Conservative. You may not agree with his views but, like it or not, he’s a force in the American politics. He possesses political powers and capital that very few can match. He’s the de facto leader of the Conservative movement in America today. You don’t believe me? Name someone else. I dare you.
But watch out! He’s also a very intelligent, calculating, and revengeful individual.
He’s intelligent because he has invented the right combination of message, insult and vision to have gathered over 20 million die-hard and uncharacteristically loyal listeners. That’s not easy to achieve. No one can match him.
He’s calculating because he can do the math. In clear absence of a powerful, visionary and proven leader, the Republican party is in desperate need of direction. Limbaugh understands, all too clearly, that this is his chance to unite Conservatives and, hopefully, Republicans.
He’s revengeful because he has sent a clear message to all Conservatives and Republicans: you’re either with him or you’re against him. Wow, where have I heard that before! Cross Rush and he will destroy your political future. I listen to him a couple of times a week for about 15 minutes as I go to lunch, and his message has been exceptionally clear. Conservatives must unite and destroy liberalism at any cost.
Even Michael Steele has bowed to him in submission → source
Michael Steele told Politico on Monday: “I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele said. “It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not.”
Rahm Emanuel
I will now pause so you contemplate Limbaugh’s power in amazement.
It is now clear to everyone that proving Rush is the leader of the right has been the Administration’s plan all along.
Rahm Emanuel must be happy; he got exactly the fight he was seeking. It’ll be a very dangerous and dirty fight. Rush is much more adept at it than Rahm.
I admit it. I did not listen to or watch President Obama’s speech on Tuesday addressing the joint sessions of Congress. I did, however, watch the Republican response by Bobby Jindal. I always listen to the opposition response (Democrat or Republican). That’s where I learn more detail, and I use that as my measuring stick. I had no intention of blogging about Jindal’s response. It’s already been blogged to death. But what the heck . . .
Where did Republicans find this guy? He’s as charismatic on camera as John Kerry. His uncomfortable reading of the tele-prompter was as non-engaging as watching Mr. Rogers anchor the nightly news. Mr. Jindal, didn’t anyone inform you that a story about your immigrant parents is now cliche? It’s been doen already by Obama – and masterfully. If you keep talking about it, the Republicans may begin investigating the authenticity of your birth certificate too. The only portion of Jindal’s speech that I could get into was the last few minutes when he spoke about what conservative values mean.
Rachael Maddow’s views are too far to the left for me, but I got a chuckle out of her reaction to Jindal’s rebuttal. She’s really funny sometimes.
But watch out everyone. Rush Limbaugh is mad and he’s not going to take it anymore. During his radio show on Wednesday, 2/25/09, he gave a stern warning to conservatives:
“Because if you think people on our side, I’m talking to you, those of you who think Jindal was horrible, in fact, I don’t want to hear from you ever again if you think that what Bobby Jindal said was bad or what he said was wrong or not said well, because, folks, style is not going to take our country back.”
No Rush. You’re wrong. Style counts. Reagan’s success was not accidental. He had style. He had charisma. He brought people to his side. He spoke elegantly. He didn’t fumble through his speeches. And, more importantly, he fully comprehended the concept and importance of being popular.
By the way, here’s a nice article about 10 things you probably don’t know about Bobby Jindal.
Sharpen your #2 pencils everyone. History revisionists are hard at work. The plan is to exonerate the Bush administration from the events of 911.
A recent email from RNC chairman, Ron Duncan, to a number of registered Republicans states:
“For the last eight years, President Bush has led our country with firm determination and a steady hand in the face of numerous challenges and crises. He restored honor and integrity to the White House and protected America from another terrorist attack.” → source
Wow! Really? For the past 8 years?! Don’t you mean for the past 7.5 years? Those first few months were very crucial, you know!
It’s not as if the administration had any advanced warning about the impending terrorist attacks. I mean, there was no presidential briefing titled “Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.” or anything similar!
Even the former Vice President is not missing a beat – so to speak. During an interview on Meet the Press, Bob Schieffer asked Cheney: “I’d guess I’d ask you the question that Ronald Reagan used to ask. Are we better off now than we were 8 years ago?”
Dick Cheney: “Well, I think we’ve done some very good things in the course of the last 8 years. Defending the country against further terrorist attacks like 911 I think is a major accomplishment for example . . .”
Did you catch that? He’s a masterful speaker. In other words, 911 was not his problem and it did not occur during his watch.
Do you really think that was a simple mistake and he really didn’t mean to imply that? Do you also think that the ‘bridge to nowhere’ really was a bridge to a major metropolitan area?
So, if God forbids something happens in the next 4 years, Obama has failed. In contrast, a report titled “Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.” landing on Bush’s lap was non-actionable.
So, the mortgage meltdown was caused by the Republicans and on their watch, right? No so fast!
As early as April of 2001, the Bush administration, while working on its 2002 budget, called the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a “potential problem” that could “cause strong repercussions in the financial markets.” In 2003, John Snow, the then Treasury Secretary, lobbied Congress to create a new federal agency to effectively regulate the two mortgage giants. At that time, Barney Frank, a ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, was adamantly arguing that “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis.”
Barney Frank: “The more people, in my judgement, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially, and withstand some of the disaster scenarios, and even if there were problems, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.”
Even Alan Greenspan, during a House Financial Services Committee Hearing in 2005, argued for regulating Fannie and Freddie.
John McCain added his concerned voice in 2006 during a speech on the Senate Floor: ” . . . and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market . . . the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.”
This entire situation is laced with irony. Here we have Republicans arguing for more regulation while key Democrats arguing that the system is working just fine – mostly in the name of providing affordable housing to all.
I am fully aware that current financial and mortgage disasters were caused by a series of fairly complicated events. Clearly what’s presented here does not fully explain everything, but it is certainly something to think about.
We have certainly kicked off the new year with a wave of Op-Ed articles that have completely different tones than in the past 8 years.
On January 4, the New York Times published an Op-Ed article written by John Bolton (former ambassador to the UN) and John Yoo (law professor and former deputy assistant attorney general) titled “Restore the Senate’s Treaty Power”. In it, they argued that the Senate must exercise its constitutional power to prevent the President from taking unilateral international actions. Mr. Bolton and Mr. Yoo are worried that President Obama will push through a Kyoto style treaty agenda.
Like past presidents, Mr. Obama will likely be tempted to avoid the requirement that treaties must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate. The usual methods around this constitutional constraint are executive agreements or a majority vote in the House and Senate to pass a treaty as a simple law (known as a Congressional-executive agreement).
No kidding? How convenient! Now that a Democrat is about to become President, it is apparently of the utmost importance to ensure that Congress’ power is in place. The Constitution has been around for a couple of hundred years. Where the hell were you guys in the past 8 years? Oh, that’s right! With a conservative administration in power, there was no Constitution to worry about, was there?
The article went on:
The framers of the Constitution designed the treaty process with a bias against “entangling alliances,” as Thomas Jefferson described them in his first inaugural address. They designated the Senate as the body responsible to protect the interests of the states from being bargained away by the president in deals with foreign nations. The framers required a supermajority to ensure that treaties would reflect a broad consensus and careful, mature decision-making.
What is truly sad about all this is that I completely agree with the Op-Ed. Senate’s treaty power must be enacted and exercised. But it should have been enacted 8 years ago. I ask again, where the hell were you gentlemen during Bush’s Presidency? Was your computer broken? Could you not have written this Op-Ed 8 years ago?
Even by their own admission, Mr. Bolton and Mr. Yoo conceded that President Bush did not seek a supermajority in the Senate during his years in office.
President George W. Bush resisted many efforts at global governance. But his administration still sometimes fell into the temptation to flout the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority in the Senate.
You guys (Bolton & Yoo) are pathetic. You are correct in your view, but pathetic in your timing and execution. Don’t you know that until you demonstrate you are willing to drink your own Kool-aid, no one other than members of your own base will hold you and your opinions in high regard?
Posted by jmjorat 
Posted by jmjorat 
Posted by jmjorat 
Seems like Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.
To say that Newt Gingrich, former Congressman and potential 2012 Presidential candidate, has lots of ideas for America is a monumental understatement.
I admit it. I did not listen to or watch President Obama’s speech on Tuesday addressing the joint sessions of Congress. I did, however, watch the Republican response by Bobby Jindal. I always listen to the opposition response (Democrat or Republican). That’s where I learn more detail, and I use that as my measuring stick. I had no intention of blogging about Jindal’s response. It’s already been blogged to death. But what the heck . . .
RSS Feed This Blog
