- Little guys can turn at waist and necks: that's the Lego men.
- Building castles out of plastic blocks: for the Lego men.
- Monsters all around, come to tear it down (down down down).
- They don't ever help me pick it up, lazy lazy Lego men.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Lego Men
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Creation
Stephen Hawking books are wonderful. There's an incredible amount of theory and speculation to think about in every chapter (and every paragraph.) For those of us un-trained in the language of physics, his meaning is often difficult to decipher. But sometimes an analogy lights up the mind as Hawking gets us thinking in new ways.
I particularly like the theory that our four dimensional space-time system is the intersection of other dimensions. Well, Hawking doesn’t put it quite that way, but that’s what I read into his stuff. If string theory is correct, then strings could exist in those extra dimensions. Perhaps a one-dimensional string is its own dimension, but more likely it touches multiple dimensions, and potentially can intersect with many other strings. Vibrations on strings don’t make sense – a one dimensional string would need a second dimension for vibrations. Not only that, but a vibration has to happen in the dimension of time. Perhaps the so-called vibration is just the way that strings intersect with each other. We in four dimensional space see the intersections as particles which move in time, and those particles would appear to be following inscrutable laws that we call weak, strong, gravitational and electro-magnetic forces. I’d even guess that two strings which make a glancing touch are perceived as zero mass particles. When two strings impede each other and pull each other between dimensions, we interpret the intersection as mass. And when a whole bunch of strings pile up together, they cause the resultant space-time particles to tend to stay close together, and we call this gravity.
Also, we’ve got the wrong idea about time. There are two different issues. One is a certain alignment of every particle in the universe. The other is a process of change. That’s the uncertainty of which Heisenberg wrote. If we did succeed in going back in time, we’d find that the time we ended up in was different than the original – we’d be there. So the process of change in that time interval would have been altered, and we could not positively say that what we observe is the same as what would have happened without us. Anyway, all you have to do to go time traveling is to rearrange every vibrating string into a specific order, and then carefully adjust the placement (in n-dimensional space) of certain strings until they form the exact combination of matter and energy that you call yourself. Good luck on that!
God may have started in zero-space and created all the dimensions. Think of what God did as grabbing a piece of silly putty and slowly stretching it out until it is has length but no width or depth. Of course, God didn’t start with silly putty. He grabbed a piece of nothing, stretched it out into new dimensions, and gave those dimensions laws on how to interface with each other; we interpret those laws as strings. He did that an infinity of times, because infinity is the same as once to God. These details are completely unimportant to us – we live in the macro world. But I’d like to rewrite Genesis to say something like,
Before time was, God took nothing and stretched it in many dimensions until it became something, and called it change. And somewhere in the first billionth of a nanosecond, and also at all times, God said, “this is good.”
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Hope For Change
Eighteen months ago, the idea of change was very attractive to most of America - we didn't know what change meant but we were all for it. A year ago, the political left set the agenda for change; Obama warned his opponents that it was he who had won the election, and the agenda was his to control. Nine months ago, the TEA parties gained momentum and started to say what change meant to them. Six months ago, the anti-war leftists found that they had been hood-winked; some of the first real change was when they decided that any Obama supported war must be a good war. Three months ago, Obamacare lost the support of the people, yet the democrats couldn't figure that out. Now, TEA supporters set the agenda for change, even while the old symbols of power (congress and the media) oppose it.
Last summer one of my democratic friends crowed that change was upon us. It was just too bad for the rest of us that the change we got was not the change we thought we were voting for. Or maybe he saw the writing on the wall, and was getting used to the idea of real change.
True power isn't political or military. America is in the midst of a peaceful revolution. Let's hope it stays peaceful when the politicians and media wake up.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Linguistics
When it comes to the spoken word, clarity is indispensable. You can’t give it out. Some might say indisposable. I looked it up – indisposable is not a word. So the longer you consider indisposable and indispensable, the more you miss how folks are trying to confuse you.
Let’s back up. By clarity, I mean the ease of someone else glomming on to what you say. Each of us has a limited number of neurons to process sounds into speech. Like some evil Star Trek computer that can be tricked into inaction by trying to divide by zero, brain power gets used up by trying to puzzle out mush-mouth speech. Too few neurons will be left for thinking about the meaning of the words.
One of the reasons American English is becoming the Esperanto of our day is because everybody can understand those words we yell at them. Despite their unappealing aesthetics, our hard, clipped consonants are easy to hear. Singers in English emphasize those consonants lest the words become lost in the music. There's little that Italian and French singers can do to make their words understandable, so songs in those languages (especially operatic arias!) are full of banal lyrics repeated twenty or thirty times until everybody gets them. In any language, an effective orator carefully chooses words that are easiest to hear, even if we have no idea what he's talking about - like hope and change.
Mandarin Chinese also is fairly easy on the ear. It emphasizes clear consonants. Some would say the sing-songy nature of the language detracts from its clarity. Maybe the Chinese people just don't want to sound like French opera. Regardless, the pitch in which a vowel is said actually makes a word more understandable. And hilarity ensues when two different words sound the same except for the pitch in which you say them.
Not all dialects of English preserve the good points of the language. Some British speakers, especially the ones hired by National Public Radio to read the news to Americans, favor the soft consonants of French. Not every Brit is that way, mostly the Scots and Eliza Doolittle. And so before going on the air, each news reader attends a special class to reverse the effects of Henry Higginism. I go to sleep listening to the BBC news on NPR - by the time I figure out what they say, my brain has no neurons left to mull over the thoughts that would have kept me awake.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Ideologues Attack Tea Parties
Here's an idea - let's not define a tea party method of reading the constitution. Those viewpoints have little to do with the real problems facing us. Fire the leaders who spout worn-out republican platitudes. Tea parties will work best when we are politically independent. It is an American position to recognize that our country is overtaxed. We will only succeed in changing things when we join with reasonable people of both major political parties.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Of Pharisees and INOs
One answer is the Pharisee test. In the earthly days of Christ Jesus, the Pharisees were a political party in Jerusalem. Mostly they were good people who tried to keep the Law of Moses. But they had one big problem - they thought that keeping the Law meant obeying every nit-picking regulation that some other Pharisee said was a law. By doing so they failed to follow the true Law. To apply the Pharisee test to a modern party member, ask what it takes to be a faithful and pure party member. If he gives you a string of requirements, he's probably a pharisaically pure party hack. But if he has only a few important principles, he may be an INO.
Does this sound like I favor INOs? Yabetcha!
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Motes, Logs and Pogo
- Country - yes. A little fear helps us heed the lessons of the past. Maybe that will spur us on to eliminate deficits and pay down the public debt.
- Obama - no. Nothing good can come for the president by reminding us that the deficit almost tripled during his first year as president.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Nashville Tea Party Convention
The sloganizing at the convention annoyed me. All that chanting of "liberal this" and "socialist that". I had higher hopes for the tea parties. Back in the day at the start of the movement (last spring), the reason to attend a tea party event was to join with other people who think government is too big and we are taxed more than enough. But the politicians played their games. Republicans despised the tea parties for being like RINOs (Republicans in name only) and Democrats scorned them for being closet Republicans. Both resented the perception that the tea parties took some of the best aspects from both sides of American politics.
The Dems and the GOPs fought it out on who was going to define the tea parties - and they both won. The Nashville convention had all the charm of a Republican country club extravaganza. Both political factions should be proud that they have marginalized the tea parties. And the good people at the convention will likely be horrified when they wake up and realize that they are now seen as Republican lite - merely bit players in the same old partisan games.
Obama as the Prodigal Son
If you are not Bible literate, this tweet may make no sense at all. Prodigal means profligate or money waster. Jesus' prodigal son did insult his father and leave home, but the thing that made him prodigal was that he wasted all his money on poor decisions.
Obama received a certain amount of political capital by being elected president. Every new president does. And every president spends this capital on a tough sell. Most presidents have something to show for it. Obama - not so much. He spent his capital on health care, and now he has squat.
After losing his fortune, the prodigal son in the Bible story was hungry and had nothing to eat. He was reduced to envying the swine who ate dry pods. So also Obama. The symptoms are that he heaps spite on the opposition party, then blames them for not working with him. Obama apparently envies the Republicans and stumbles around looking for a way to denigrate them. That's another bad decision.
Finally, the Hebrew prodigal son wises up and returns to his father's house. His father opens his arms and wealth to the son. It's yet to be seen whether the country will open our hearts to Obama. And it is yet to be seen whether Obama will wise up (I hope so.) One thing is for sure, the older brother of the Bible story detests his brother; little doubt the Republicans will make the same mistake.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Sotomayor and Racism
The direct answer is that building self worth at the expense of members of a different race is not necessarily racism. But it can be a precursor of racist ideology. Here's how:
We often think of racism as a purely hateful concept. A racist is someone who hates others simply because of the color of their skin. That is, a racist is a person with no goodness in him or her. We often see no reason for this type of racism except for unadulterated evil. Many people see a racist as the devil incarnate.
But we may believe that racism can be learned. The skin-head and the black panther learn racism from the actions of others. Therefore, we can forgive the racist; but we must teach ways to resist this type of evil.
Tribalism is the belief that people who are genetically related to one's self are somehow superior to all other people. It is not racist, and is more an excuse for racism than a valid reason. Many non-racists think that their genotype is superior to others, including Sotomayor (who apparently extends this feeling to her phenotype.) Real racism starts with egotism. It is an attempt to justify the tribalistic feelings that you are somehow inherently better than those other kinds of people.
Sotomayor's quote (that a wise latina woman makes better judgments than a white man) is not racist. But if not racist, then what is it? I take my cue from commentators who suggest Sotomayor was making a statement designed to receive positive reviews from her fellow lawyers. And if she truly was playing to her audience, then I figure she was seeking validation from her peers to make herself feel important.
It's been said that the most important thing we can learn from the Sotomayor flap is that nobody likes to be called a racist. It's just as wrong for the liberals to yell racist as for the conservatives to do so. Of course if one side's definition of racist is so loose as to include any hint of racism, then it is only fair that the other side should use the same criteria...
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Fascism and Post-Modern Liberalism
Fascism. Favors an authoritarian government. Totalitarian in scope. The government controls and owns the means of production and the supply of money. A usual example of fascism is Hitler’s Germany and Franco’s Italy. Fascism favors charismatic leaders like Hitler and Franco. Fascism is a populist movement; that is fascist organizers don’t come to power through armed insurrection but by appealing to the common people’s distrust of privileged elites. Hitler was effective at building a strong industrial base in post WWI Germany - he used the industrial magnates to end capitalism and free markets in favor of state controlled industries. Franco also poured a lot of the national wealth into manufacturing.
Classical Liberalism. The definition of liberalism has changed over the years. A good example of American liberalism before 1960 is Adam Smith, the father of capitalist economics. He advanced the idea of the “unseen hand” of progress in the free markets. Smith advocated against a form of statism that was prevalent in the 18’th century – the domination of the economy by kings and nobility. He was considered liberal because his teachings about free markets were leading away from statism. We still use the classic definitions of liberalism in words like “liberal arts”, where liberal simply means open minded.
Post-Modern Liberalism. Even before conservatives abandoned free markets, liberals discarded personal freedom in favor of egalitarianism. Liberalism seems to believe that the unseen hand of free markets oppresses the less powerful. Where Smith noted that self-interest can benefit everybody, post-modern liberalism uses the pejorative term greed. Proponents of post-modern liberalism favor governmental control over the economy as a way to bring fairness to all people. Liberalism supports populist, charismatic leaders. We have recently found that the acknowledged liberals in the current federal administration want the government to control the means of production – by purchasing controlling shares in companies, by denying companies the right to reward their employees, and even by refusing to allow some banks to pay back loans advanced by the federal government.
Defining recent political movements is risky. One can only look at the policies of the people who call themselves liberal or conservative, and think that they are speaking for the majority of like-minded people. Many observers may base their definitions not on economic programs but on the stated intentions of the self-defined conservatives and liberals. Liberalism has been successful in portraying itself as favoring fairness. Liberalism (classical and post-modern) is a strong proponent of all people being equal. Hitler spoke of fairness. We are loathe to believe that he was honest - from our perspective he seems to have favored enslavement of the people to the government and industries. We want to view the intentions of liberalism and fascism as opposite. But if we have no evidence but the stated intentions of the two groups, they are indeed very similar.
When one looks through the lens of economics, he may see that fascism and liberalism both favor big government at the expense of personal liberties. Both strive to control the means of production through the government and both think that government is better than free markets at creating a strong economy.
Conservatism can be just as fascist as liberalism. Conservatism is a political philosophy that means to conserve something. For most of the twentieth century, that something was classical liberalism. Now it increasingly becomes big goverment.
Just about everybody claims to favor fairness. It used to be that conservatives believed that fairness comes when people take control of their own destiny, and that government will usually make things worse. They still pay lip-service to that tenet, even while looking for creative ways to control the private lives of the citizens. Liberals unashamedly think that fairness comes through an outside agency like the government, and that independent people will be victimized by the powerful. Each side denies any noble intentions of the other. True believers often think that the people with whom they disagree are simply lying to build populist support.
Lets touch on whether fascism is more like conservatism than liberalism. Like liberals, fascists did not want to conserve anything, but tried to remake their countries in new ways. But conservatism is indeed the new liberalism, and it is difficult to compare political movements that are seventy years apart other than to say that fascism was a type of liberalism in its day. Which movements favor or deny personal liberties like free speech? A liberal once bemoaned to me the coming Iraq war by stating that the Bush administration should not be sounding the drum beat of war; in this, he opposed the exercise of free speech. But there are numerous examples of conservative and of liberal audiences shouting down a public speaker with whom they disagreed. And so, both seem somewhat opposed to free speech, like the fascists (if book burnings are an indication of their disdain of free speech.)
I’ll conclude with a Hitlerism (can’t remember the exact quote). He said that if through your own words, someone sees something good about your political opponents, then you have failed your cause. Both conservatives and liberals in America have taken this to heart. Each camp intently portrays its opponents as loathsome oafs. This attitude is repugnant. But it segues back to the main point, which now I modify to state: today's conservatives and liberals are both much like 1940's fascists.
I tire of these peas in a pod. It's time to try something different.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Tea Party Thoughts
Lo and behold, some people at the tea party had heard of a similar event held the day before at the same location. Quite a few had read that the tax day rally was slated for 11:00. Still others (including a couple of state reps who claimed to have been invited to speak) said the rally was on for 3:00 that afternoon. Those of us who arrived at noon had learned that time on the internet. The more suspicious folks in the crowd decided that the misinformation was a Democratic party ploy to limit the size of the crowd. Maybe so, but the real problem seemed to be that no person or agency was in charge of organizing the tea party.
Of course, people at the rally were not the only conspiracy theorists that day. Several prominent Democrats claim that the tea party movement is being led by the Republican party. Welll. If so, no wonder the Republicans blew the last election.
Hopefully, the 3:00 tea party went well. Not being a nominee to the Obama cabinet, I had to go home and put my taxes in the mail. And so alas, the later tea party had to go on without me.
A very nice lady from Macon (Missouri) offered me a small poster board and use of a magic marker. So my proud sign said "NO MORE WASTE-ULUS". That may have been a little obscure, but I heard a high school girl explaining to her younger brother that the so-called economic stimulus package is full of waste and ineffeciencies. So I felt good about the sign, and of course was proud of the young lady's keen insight into politics.
There were a lot of signs, but no great memorable ones. There was the typical "Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing its idiot" - this guy got plenty of pictures taken, but I had to explain to some folks that this was a slam against Obama. (Doesn't that sign trot out in one form or another for every president?) Lots of signs said "Taxed Enough Already". And there was a smattering of other messages. But there were no signs with fancy graphics, and no evidence that any group was sponsoring the event.
One guy had a video camera. He drifted around the party, offering to record what people had to say about taxes. He didn't ask me. I'm an old guy with a graying pony-tail, and I don't fit the homeland-security definition of wild-eyed conservative. Perhaps that makes me a poor example for trying to convince conservatives that they need to support the tea party movement. But could be the cameraman was looking for red-necks that could scare liberals about the horrors of tea parties. If so, they absolutely didn't want any spokesman with whom liberals can find the least commonality; and they definitely wouldn't want me.
If you are thinking about going to a tea party, please consider this. The tea party movement appeals to a lot of people, maybe someday the majority of American citizens. The parties of the Democrats and Republicans both fear tea parties for the same reason - we bring together people who oppose both Republican social engineering and Democratic socialism. The American political system works best with two major parties: the social luddites and socialists are afraid that they will have to band together to oppose us. Such a union is not as strange as you might think - both factions love to spend lots of money on big government. And that's where we differ with them. Lots of people differ with them. Let's accept the best of the major parties, and leave the rest to the politics of yore. We can't afford to reject any Democrat or Republican - he or she stands to be a vital member of the American Tea party.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Bible Verses Vs. Bible Stories
Here are a couple of verses that many people uncritically accept as stand-alone statements. And one that most people reject because they don’t take into account what it means in the total story. They are taken from the Holy Bible, the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 18.
Verse 18 says that whatever we “bind” or “loose” on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven. It looks like this means that God will rubber-stamp our decisions. Maybe the Pope uses this verse to explain how he can be inerrant in matters of doctrine (perhaps he justifies this tenet in some other way.) But usually only the insane think we can make decisions for God.
Verse 19 says that whatever a couple of Christians agree about on earth is how God will make it happen in heaven. The religious establishment tries to convince us that only the important holy people (the bishops and mega-church preachers and such) can make the kinds of decisions that God wants. Most of the rest of us think that if two or more people pray the same prayer, then God is obligated to honor the request.
Verse 20 says that if two or three people are gathered in the name of God, then God will be there also. We often use this as a throw-away line. Have you ever been to a church meeting where only one other person shows up? We usually shrug and say, “well, wherever two are gathered…” Surely if God was there, a lot of people would have shown up.
You’ve probably already realized that these three verses make more sense together than does any verse by itself. Let’s look at more context of the verses. The whole story Jesus was telling is about resolving conflicts or reconciling two members of a church. It is from Matthew 18: 15-20 of the Holy Bible (New Revised Standard Version):
‘If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.’
In context, within verse 19 Jesus states that a group of Christians (even two or three) can make a decision to pass judgment on another Christian. They don’t have to be the grand poobah or any other high muckety-muck of a church. But they do have to be united in trying to find what God wants. And they may find that either, neither or both of the aggrieved parties are in the wrong.
And verse 20 promises that God will be present when we are trying to reconcile people to each other. We can pretty well figure that no person or group can discern the will of God unless God is leading them. And if we follow Jesus’ guidelines, then God’s Spirit will be there, showing us how to bring people together. Perhaps God is present every time we get together for worship, or music practice, or church building maintenance, or whatever; but that’s not what Jesus is saying in the verse.
The part of verse 17 about treating someone like a tax collector needs to be read in context with the preceding paragraph (verses 10 through 14). God doesn’t want to lose anyone. God does want a Christian to repent of the things that he has done wrong. And so, there can’t be any situation in which God would want us to treat another Christian in such a way that it would hinder his rejection of sin. Indeed, going back yet another paragraph (verses 5 through 9), we see that Jesus harshly criticizes anyone who causes another person to sin. Making a pariah of someone may not cause him to sin, but perhaps it will; this is another place we're going to need God's guidance.
This brings us to verse 18. In context with the rest of the story, bind or loose means to form or sever a tie between a person and a church. The church must bring people to God. But it is not a contradiction that God would allow us to loose anyone that God does not want to lose. It is Jesus' way of telling us that God doesn’t reject someone just because his church casts him away. The verse must be important - Jesus uses his "Truly I tell you" words to start it out. So this bears repeating: the church is one means of God's saving grace, but we have no right to think that we can ever remove anyone from the grace of God.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Obama Runs GM
The GM bailout severely curtailed the power of the corporation. In most times, a bailout would also have damaged the employee’s union. But the United Auto Workers refused to negotiate with the government. This made it look like the union thought GM was not in serious trouble. And GM looked like they were going after some easy money.
If GM really was close to bankruptcy, the government should have made it plain that both company and employees were getting the benefit. That is, they should have waited until the UAW was willing to make as many concessions as did the company. The upshot of the ill-timed bailout is that GM lost power which the UAW gained, and the government lost credibility.
The union now has the power to fire the chairman and probably the entire board of directors. They also have a huge amount of influence over President Obama. If the UAW says fire the chairman, Obama has just enough power to save face by acting like he did the firing.
Though Obama fired the GM chairman, the UAW pulled his strings.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Signs of a Failing Presidency
I see a monumental crisis for our country. The headlines will read, “President Resigns.” The television news will broadcast 24/7 as the historic events unfold. Mock coffins will be dragged through the streets as for a funeral. You will have given up the office of president of the United States of America.
Politicians and pundits will wonder how they could have missed seeing the tell-tales. Steve Kroft will rue that he berated you for being punch drunk when he should have given sympathy to a man in deep distress. Jay Leno will publicly apologize for encouraging a joke about handicapped people. The White House social secretary will regret allowing you to choose a specious gift for the British prime minister. The secretary of state will ask forgiveness for not assigning an aide to check your diplomatic mail. Many people in the print and broadcast media will search for answers as to why they failed to delve into the life of the man they supported for president. And people all around the country will seek absolution for having allowed a political neophyte to take on the challenges of the highest elective office in the nation.
But in all the places where somebody should have stepped up and helped, you alone are to blame. The office of president is too big for one person to fulfill by himself. You thought that if able to be elected president, then presidential expertise would follow. When things became chaotic, you could have saved yourself by delegating a few of the details of office. But instead of looking for good people to staff the Treasury Department, you let policy-making positions set idle. Instead of looking for qualified nominees for his cabinet, you supported people who don’t pay their taxes. Instead of trusting your adviser’s opinions on matters of state, you thought politicking is what the people of the country most want.
What a sad time of crisis in America. But Mr. Obama, it’s not too late. You’ve got to get help to change your policies for the country, to manage the demands of the presidency, and to put your emotional life back into order. Time is short. If you don’t make changes soon, the only thing worse than resigning will be to stay on.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Blago and Rolo
Blago and Rolo were buddies,
Tight as two scoundrels can be.
Blago and Rolo were cronies,
In political society.
Rubbed each other’s backs
Scratched each other’s itch.
Blago one day went on E-Bay,
Listed a fine senate seat.
Rolo tried negotiations
To get a deal that couldn’t be beat.
Rolo had a plan
To get to Washington.
Rolo then went to the feds,
They tapped Blago’s telephone,
Blago thought Obama had done it,
To pick a senator of his own.
Rolo was the man;
Blago’s time was short.
So Blago appointed old Rolo,
It gave the Democrats fits,
Harry Reid said he’d never allow it
But now that crafty Rolo sits
On the Senate floor.
Blago’s out on his butt.
Then Blago discovered that Rolo
Wasn’t going to pay what he thought,
So Blago decided a lesson
Really needed to be taught.
And the FBI,
Got new evidence.
The story may not yet be ended,
They’re still making lots of noise.
Don’t ever try to cheat your old buddy,
Especially in Illinois.
There's no honor 'mongst thieves,
Now their time is gone.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Libertarianism and the Usual Political Dichotomy
My opinion on social liberalism has been changing. For instance, many liberals were shocked by the fact that Sarah Palin refused an abortion even after she knew that her fetus was going to be born severely handicapped. Apparently liberals are joining conservatives in denying personal decisions. Both sides seem to prefer that the government handles abortion choices, they just disagree on what form that interference should take. And they are both wrong - though the practice of mandated abortions seems more heinous than that of denied abortions.
Anyway, my mind isn’t totally made up about social liberalism. Liberals may yet see the light of personal freedom, just as conservatives are beginning to question the plethora of counter-effective rules they have imposed on businesses. A small, limited government in support of a mostly free economy is a good thing; each generation just has to decide where the line limiting governmental powers should be drawn. Anarchism and fascism are both bad ideas.
Part of my response to Kelley's argument is that fascism lives at the point on the circle where ultra-liberalism and far right conservatism become one. Isn’t it interesting that President Obama is borrowing money from future generations so he can give it to big business? It's just like Adolph Hitler - who in a rush to merge government and big business, sold Germany's future to fund his power grabs. Obama has every right to think that his ideas should have a bipartisan following in the U.S. government. Democrats like government and Republicans like big business. And hey, that same attitude worked out pretty successfully for several years for George W. Bush.
Yep ... Bush and Obama - the same guy doing the same things.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The Ballad of the Capitol Hillbillies
Let me tell a little story ‘bout a man called O;
A tax-cheat loving senator from south-side Chicago.
Didn’t know the issues, mostly cast his vote “present”,
But America misunderstood, and made him President.
POTUS, that is.
Commander in thief.
The pig kahuna.
Well, the next thing you know, they’ve anointed him “the One”,
His campaign bus drops him off in downtown Washington;
Acorn and the netroots say, “Robin Hood’s who O should be”,
So he steals from our grandkids and goes on a spending spree.
Porkulus, that is.
Bail-outs,
Corruption.
“The Capitol Hillbillies”
(Banjo interlude)
For four years we must suffer through the O and all his kin;
They fooled us once but we won’t e’er be duped by them again.
We’ll work our butts off to make amends for their profligacy;
And next time, vote for someone who won’t ruin the economy.
Turn things aright, that is.
Who is John Galt?
We can heal Congress in 2010, y’hear.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Obama Crosses a Line
When people told me that Obama is a socialist, I thought they were just over-reacting to his being a leftist Democrat. I disagree with the so-called conservatives who say everybody should be allowed to either sink or swim. Indeed, we should take care of people who cannot take care of themselves. This has the stain of socialism, but it doesn’t bother me at all.
Then the whole Congress went kind of soft-core socialist in this bail-out stuff. Though both Obama and McCain supported the bail-out, McCain is the one who should have known better. In McCain's defense, at least he tried to act like there was a real crisis - he kind of shut down his campaign, and did go to some meetings in Washington. Obama said that making some phone calls is what you should do when the whole economic system is crashing down around you. And this executive compensation law is just another indication that Congress isn't taking the economic situation seriously. Now I appreciate that folks get mad when somebody is paid much more than he or she is worth; but that really has nothing to do with the problems our economy is having.
But when Obama says he wants to take from one group of people and redistribute the money to another group, that’s when I say he has crossed the line into hard-core socialism.
McCain finally said the right thing. He said that we should work to improve the whole economy and make everybody better off. And I say that when we redistribute wealth, we take away incentives for people to work; the poor get a temporary boost, but then everybody gets poorer because fewer people want to work. When we improve the economy, anybody willing to work is raised to a higher level. I really don’t care if rich people become even richer; it wouldn’t make me any happier to be rich.
It’s not too late for Obama to apologize and repent from socialism. But he’s going to have to convince me that he really believes that America is a land of opportunity and not just a socialist wannabe. But I suspect that the newspapers and other media outlets are going to spend a lot of effort in saying that Obama was fooled into speaking outside his script by a Republican shill. Maybe he was set up. Just don’t go whining to me, newsguys; especially after the bogus news-wonk questions that Palin was asked. Entrapment is no defense in politics.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Holy Communion for People Learning about Christianity
We call this ritual the Eucharist or Holy Communion. The word Eucharist relates to the gratitude we feel toward God for the gift of Jesus. The word Communion refers to how celebrating the Last Supper brings us into the presence of God and other Christians. These words are pretty much interchangeable, and I’ll use Communion to mean either one. There is much more in celebrating the Last Supper that unites than divides Christians. But the two words hint at the rifts Christians sometimes have.
Most of us don’t think that differences in church communion practices have any deep theological meanings. But we do follow Jesus’ teachings in many ways. Some churches only allow their own members to take communion; others open it to anybody who believes in God. Some churches think that bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus; others think that bread and wine are symbols of God. Many churches serve little thin bread tablets (sometimes called “fish food” because they often have a picture of a fish on them) and some tear off chunks of baked bread. Some people drink wine while others drink unfermented grape juice. Most churches feel that a specially trained priest is the only person who can lead the ceremony, but a few think that everybody is empowered to celebrate this act of worship. But it’s all pretty much the same thing, no matter what rules you use.
There are two different stories of the Last Supper in the Holy Bible. These stories can be found * in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and in the first letter of Saint Paul to the church in Corinth. According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus describes how his body is made up of the bread and wine of earth. Jesus commanded that his followers remember him when we eat and drink of the goodness of God’s creation.
Luke and St. Paul wrote that Jesus said certain blessed bread and wine are the same as his body and blood. That may be a bit of a stretch from the actual words, but that’s what many Christians read the words to mean. Other Christians soften this a bit by saying Jesus was using bread as a symbol of his flesh and wine as a metaphor for his life. Either way, it gives a preview to the horror of Jesus’ impending death; breaking bread is the same as the broken body of Jesus on the cross and wine is the same as Jesus’ life blood poured out. According to this interpretation of the scriptures, anyone who believes that Jesus was human is getting Jesus’ invitation to cannibalism.
There is a wonderful science fiction short story about radiation-poisoned survivors of a nuclear war who flee to an untouched island. The natives treat the survivors as gods because they arrive in gleaming metal boxes from the sky. Their awe is doubled that night when they see an aura of nuclear glow around the survivors. The natives want the power to travel across the sky and to glow in the dark, so they butcher and eat the survivors. They gain no flying powers, but soon they do begin to emit a faint glow.
This story is a rough analogy of the Communion story in Luke and Corinthians. Some of us so much want to have the powers of God that we believe God wants us to eat him.
Sympathetic magic runs rampant through the heart of ancient and modern societies. A long time ago, names were considered to be store-houses of power. You could gain power over your enemy by learning his name. Many Jews consider it as hubris (attempting to take the power of God) to speak the name of God or even to write it on paper. Many Christians believe that we gain power by saying the name of Jesus; we sing songs about
• take the name of Jesus with you,
• there’s something about that name, and
• all hail the power of Jesus’ name.
It’s not hard to see why there’s a little belief in the sympathetic magic of cannibalism left in the world today.
I’ve heard explanations that God is trying to shock Christians with cannibalism – we won’t take Holy Communion lightly if we are a little horrified at what we are doing. I’m not so sure about this. At the time of the Last Supper, Jesus was less than a day away from dieing miserably from asphyxiation and torture. The meeting with the followers was the last good time they would spend with Jesus, and Jesus was trying hard not to spoil the meal with too many premonitions of his impending death.
Let’s return to the Last Supper accounts as recorded in Matthew and Mark. Remember that in a way these stories are almost the opposite of Luke and Paul, who claim that the bread and wine is Jesus. Matthew and Mark state that Jesus’ body is like bread and his blood is like wine. As with us, Jesus was the product of the things he ate and drank; he was totally human and really from earth. So when he says to eat the bread, he commands us to be like him. God never intended for people to eat the actual flesh of Jesus. But Jesus did say that his sacrificed blood is the source of a new covenant that God forms with mankind. Through Jesus’ sacrifice, God breaks through to us.
Matthew and Mark contain the Bible stories that make most sense to me. As I think about the meaning of Communion with God and with all Christians, it seems that eating God is an act of extreme hubris, yet eating the same foods that Jesus ate is an act of humility. I won’t try to say that Luke and Paul were wrong, because there is such a subtle shade of difference between all these stories. It’s probably we Christians who read wrong things into Luke and Paul; maybe these writers only want to point out that bread and wine become Jesus because Jesus ate and digested them. Anyway, with Matthew and Mark there is less room for interpretation – to me these scriptures succinctly explain the love of God.
There’s one other thing. Some Christians believe that Jesus was telling us to remember him every time we eat and drink. This makes a certain amount of sense because every bite reminds us that Jesus was much like us. Many Christians therefore pray to God at every meal time. But we reserve an extra special time of Holy Communion to remember that God uses Jesus’ humanity to show us that God is like the spiritual side of Jesus.
To summarize Matthew and Mark:
• Jesus says that he eats the same food as all humans,
• Therefore Jesus is human (as far as we can tell),
• God uses the brokenness of Jesus’ body to rescue humans from sin,
• We celebrate God’s gift through Holy Communion,
• Holy Communion helps us draw close to God and to other Christians.
_______________________________________________
* Matthew chapter 26, verses 26 through 29
Mark chapter 14, verses 22 through 25
Luke chapter 22, verses 19 and 20
First Corinthians chapter 11, verses 23 through 27
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Is God Playing Favorites?
First, the party line argument. God chooses everybody. He chose people who had a Pauline conversion experience and people who felt their heart strangely warmed. He chooses the people who claim to know him and he chooses those who seem to work against him. God even chooses the people who we good Christians think couldn't possibly know him. And God is waiting for us to get the word out to everybody else. God got first choice, and he chose all of us.
It doesn't matter whether you accept that argument or not. Blind adherence to dogma is a way to avoid thinking. Dogma simply means that someone has already thought through the ramifications of a particular position. The risk in dogma is that you may be encountering a situation that doesn't apply.
As for choosing to follow God, evangelism suffers when you ignore any person because you think God is ignoring him or her. Even the die-hard predestination (preordination) people admit that it is foolishness to second guess God - you can't pretend to know who God has elected for his grace. You've got to evangelize everyone.
A lot of us read "many are called" to mean that all are called; and "few are chosen" to mean that only some people will ultimately accept God's grace. If people are led to believe that God isn't choosing them, their eventual acceptance of God's grace is unlikely. That's it. Let's not mess them up by pretending they don't matter to God.
How about the apostle Paul? Was he so important to God that God was willing to go around the normal evangelism channels and directly recruit Paul? I'm sure that Paul didn't intend this, but he makes me feel like a second class Christian. Surely if God loved me as much as Paul, wouldn't he have blinded me on the road to Branson?
Some think their conversion experience to be more valid than mine. They want to put into practice the elitism that Paul hinted at. Don't go there, people. Paul was just a man; an extremely hard working, dedicated and influential man, but only a man. God invites us into his fellowship in different ways; each way is an affirmation and not a rejection. Let's think through our beliefs and try to find the ones that harmonize with God's lead.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Religious Conservatism
The pastor somewhat straightened me out by saying he totally accepts the Bible. I still didn’t really understand how that makes someone conservative. Then he went on to say that evangelicalism is a conservative approach to life.
So just what is conservative? The word often means a belief in proven tenets. Or the desire to conserve those tenets. I accept that evangelicalism is conservative because it seems very close to the attitudes of the first followers of Jesus. It conserves the spirit of reaching out to all people.
The question becomes – which tenets are worth conserving? I think the Bible was written to show us the processes that other people have gone through in searching for God; not as a guidebook to the streets of heaven. This position conserves the spirit of Jesus’ teachings (IMO). But others would say it is liberal because it pays heed to some parts of the Bible more than others. I’m still confused. So forget that nonsense. Conservative is just a label. I feel like a conservative; but if the tenets I try to preserve warrant it, then please do consider me a fellow liberal. I’ll be proud to wear either label.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
My First Democratic Party Email
A friend suggested I would learn lots of good stuff about Barack Obama if I would go to his web site. Well, I went. But before I could get any information, it demanded my email address. Enough of that nonsense, thought I, as the mouse clicked the Back button – Obama’s price for campaign hucksterism is too high.
Now I'm getting email from the Democrats in Missouri. I dutifully read their stuff before consigning it to the virtual round file cabinet. Bad move - not for yours truly but for the Democrats. Why would they want to send a good independent voter like me such a bunch of trash talking ennui? Sure, I’m disgusted at President Bush for being a social luddite and an economic big-spender; but the constant harping and name calling of the emails gives me sympathy for the poor guy. Lessening the Bush irritation factor is bad news for every Democrat on the ballot.
I have been supporting the Democratic candidate for governor (Jay Nixon) over the Republican (Kenny Hulshoff), mostly because I detest ear-marks. Hulshoff is the Missouri king of ear-marks. My support for Nixon might be strengthened if the Democrats tell me what the candidate does right. It is diminished by blaming Hulshoff for things beyond his control. Really now, surely he did something wrong in the eyes of the Democrats. Blaming him for automotive job losses is grasping at straws. All I can figure is that they think Hushoff’s ear-marks were inadequate to save the automotive jobs. If there is something different, I wish they would mention it.
So, Democrats, send your vitriol at your own risk. Republicans, too. The party that irritates me least will get my vote.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
John McCain's Veep Pick – Political Wife or Daughter?
Nurturing daughters in the ways of the business world started several years ago. The “take our daughters to work” day was one of the first visible signs. Though the feminist establishment may have intended that mothers take their girls to work, it really succeeded with men. A lot of guys brought them to the office. Men seemed to want to pass on a legacy of work outside the home to our maturing daughters.
We soccer dads feel the same way. Our daughters deserve top notch support from schools, government and families. We coach their teams, cheer at their games and lobby government at all levels for strong emphasis on women’s sports.
Now comes John McCain and Sarah Palin. He's a generation (or two) older. He's the candidate for president – the person who will take on the responsibilities of the highest office in America and lead the strongest military on the face of the earth. He’s the one who walks onto stage first and speaks last. The one with gravitas. But he steps to the side and listens carefully when Palin speaks. And he positively beams when she succeeds in making telling points. This isn’t the action of a husband; just watch Bill Clinton in the background of one of his wife’s speeches, mugging for the camera and trying to compete with her for attention. It’s more like Donald Trump inviting Ivanka Trump onto his television show. McCain looks for all the world like the proud father of a political prodigy.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Antidisenstablishmentlibertarianism
I think it’s time for some examination of the word libertarian. There are ever so many political dichotomies: Republican/Democrat; liberal/conservative; free market/socialism; and collectivist/individualist. (Geezer alert: my saw is that there are two kinds of people, those who think there are two kinds of people and them what don’t.) A libertarian is a person who comes down way on the side of individualist. Individualist means that each person should totally provide for themselves and leave other people the hell alone. We haven’t really seen true individualists since the days of the mountain (ahem) man. Even then, the mountain man needed the fellowship and economic support of other people. Today we are a totally enmeshed society. We can’t even use a word like niggardly without looking over our shoulders to see who is being offended. A pure individualist is extremely unlikely, and anyone who claims libertarianism looks mostly like a pure kook.
So then, how can a person communicate that she favors personal responsibility? And how can we tell the government to keep out of our pants? Like most folks, we use the term libertarian without bothering to distinguish our libertarian goals from the ideals of the extremist libertarian moonbats. I’d like an alternate term. Social-libertarian would explain that we have libertarian longings while still wanting to coexist with other people; but the word social may be too easily confused with socialism. I used to like Republican-libertarian, but the Republican party for the past ten years has been competing with the Democrats to see who can least support individualism. So too the word conservative used to mean that you are in favor of balanced budgets and less spending, but now it means that you want the government to regulate your reproductive organs; thus conservative-libertarian is a total oxymoron.
Certain Christians make great examples of the problems of trying to explain stuff using terms. If you ask them, they are totally in favor of providing for themselves and not taking government charity. Yet at the same time, they are generous to a fault of making others dependent on their generosity. I know of no term that can adequately describe this.
A true libertarian could never seek to persuade others of the rightness of her beliefs. Therefore, my treasured daughter cannot be a true libertarian, QED. (I'm merely being droll, esteemed logicians.)
Anyway, my point is that claiming to be a libertarian twenty-something may conceal more than reveal. Sometimes we throw around the word libertarian so the demolicans and republicrats will leave us alone. That advantage aside, maybe we should simply use the word independent.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Great Fence of China
According to the International Herald Tribune (aka, New York Times), red tide is befouling the yellow sea. Olympic yachting events will be hard pressed to race through the muck left by the algal bloom. So true to a great tradition of fixing symptoms and ignoring problems, the Chinese are scooping out the existing algae and working to prevent any more from getting in.
I've got another great idea. A giant gas mask over Beijing would keep out air pollution.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Terror of the Confluence Catfish
This is a fairly true story. My grandpa told it to me when he was an old man. That was fifty years ago. People in those days told nothing but the truth (especially grandpas), so the basis of this story has got to be true. If any lies have worked themselves into my account, it’s only because I had to tone down the story a ways to make it more believable.
- One time the skeleton of a half-ton steer came flying out of the water and landed right-side-up amongst the herd that had come to drink from the river.
- During the drought of 1954, many crops in the field were drying up and blowing away. One of the neighbors had the idea to put some pepper into the water. I’m telling you, that old fish sneezed so hard that his body came completely out of the river. When he landed back in the water, it was like a kid doing his best cannonball dive. The fish gave his tail a mighty flap, and the water was scattered up and down the river valley for miles. Several different farmers were able to survive the draught due to the irrigation provided by that one fish. Unfortunately, the ensuing waves drowned several families of beavers when their dam was destroyed.
- The Butterfield stage used to run from
- During the Civil War, the Confederacy and the Union never met in battle in southern
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Thomas the Doubter
According to the Holy Bible, the Apostle Thomas (of Doubtful fame) had to experience the presence of the physical Jesus in order to believe the impossible – that Jesus had returned from the dead. We Christians are taught to be surprised at Thomas’ lack of faith. Even Jesus seems to rebuke Thomas’ desire for proof. But would any of us really have believed without questioning? This story has a lot more depth to it than the professional clergy and Bible experts lead us to think.
Society is forever on the cusp between the old and the new. Currently we call the old “modernity” and the new “post-modernity”. The place we put our faith is the main distinction between the two: modern people have faith in rules, post-moderns have faith in processes. Rules are static but can be clearly defined. Processes are dynamic but are open to interpretation. The modern trust in technology is a type of faith in rules – so long as we use our knowledge of physical laws to create new things, we believe they must be good and that we will forever solve every problem we face. The post-modern confidence in relationships indicates our faith in process – we tend to believe that there are no absolute truths and even a destructive relationship has positive benefits (and that we will forever solve every problem we face.)
Let’s put the dichotomy between laws and processes in more gracious terms:
- Modernity states that God is revealed through the rules of creation. Our understanding of God is limited to what we can make, though we can still appreciate that God will not be fully revealed to us until we have perfect knowledge of all creation. The Holy Bible is a set of written rules in which God can be found.
- Post-modernity tells us that the important things for us are the relations between God and people. God relations seem to follow certain patterns of change; even though these patterns may be too complex for us to comprehend. The Holy Bible is an account of people searching for God, and God revealing himself through the search process.
Jesus tells Thomas that those who believe without seeing are blessed. This is not so much a criticism of Thomas as it is a lesson to the disciples. In the future Thomas and the others would need to witness to people with doubts, but who don’t have the opportunity to see Jesus’ physical body. If Thomas can convince them, they will indeed be blessed. I’m grateful that Thomas was ready to look for truth; his actions set us free to believe what he already found to be true. And that surely is blessing enough for Thomas and for all other doubters.
Thanks to Pastor Mark Mildren for bringing up this topic. He and I agree nine times out of ten, leaving the other ten percent for me to enjoy writing about.