Swine Flu Outbreak

There are reports of a swine flu outbreak. Obama said not to be alarmed; that he is on top of it, even though the government, before he was president, did not keep up with the rest of the world in research.

The Earth As a Reference Point: A Tribute to Earth Day

Is this shuttle pointing up or down?

The case could be made for either but the argument wouldn't ultimately revolve around the question as much as it would around the choice of reference point. If a person uses himself as a reference point, the answer would depend on how he turned the picture. But if the earth in the back ground is the reference point, no matter how the picture is turned, the answer would have to be "up".

With this in mind, consider the meaning of the word morality, and the fact that, for the most part, there seems to be a willingness for Americans to agree that the country is growing worse morally. A May 2008 poll had this to say:

• A follow-up question asks Americans whether moral values are getting better or getting worse, and yields an equally negative answer. Only 11% of Americans perceive that values are improving, while 81% say things are getting worse.

The problem however is not about morality as much as it is about the reference point from which we measure it. As a nation we have for some time drawn our answers to the questions of right and wrong from the moral capital left to us by previous generations. This capital can most easily be seen in the form of the traditions and institutions that we inherited. But as that capital erodes we find ourselves asking questions about right and wrong that cannot be answered for lack of a reference point. Right for one person is wrong for another. AIG bonuses are right for those who receive them, but wrong for others who at the same time complain of having the morality of others imposed on them. Like the picture above, it all depends on the perspective of the person looking at the morality. We live in a culture of people, and an increasing number of churches, who readily accept this kind of morality, all the while complaining about the state of morality.  How confusing!

Since today is earth day, for an analogy let the earth represent God and let up represent right, and down represent wrong. In the photograph above you can see God (symbolized by the earth) at a distance, but still relatively near in the back ground. With up and down representing right and wrong, moral questions can still be answered, but with increased difficulty, while it becomes easier to make the case that up is down and vice versa.

But what about this picture?

I've rotated the picture so that "the picture" depicts the shuttle pointing down. With the earth still representing God, the closer we get to Him the more difficult it is for us to be fooled and disoriented. Conversely, the further we get from Him the more difficult it is to have any orientation at all. Now imagine the same ship in deep space. Up would become subject to the vessle itself. There could be no agrgument at all about the orientation of the ship for there would be no objecive point of reference .

This is the position left to us by the influential 18th century philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He did not deny the existence of God as much as he simply asserted that we can't "know" empirically about Him or his will for us. Issues of morality were thus to be left to reason and the conscious. In other words we are to judge right and wrong according to our vessel, which is the same way that we would judge up and down in deep space. As the seeds of his words began to bear fruit last century we intuitively realized that things were not well. We began to rely more heavily on social conventions than on truth. At the same time, as we expelled God and prayer from the very institutions that we charged with training up our children, divorce and suicide began to sky-rocket along with children being born out of wed-lock. Family destroying phenomenon like Drugs, promiscuity and pornography became a prominent fixture in our entertainment and personal lives. As the capital of old traditions and institutions was exhausted, homosexual marriage began knocking on the front door as heterosexual marriage was making its way out the back. As polygamy, pedophilia, and who knows what else, looms on the horizon we intuitively know that something is amiss, but we can't seem to collectively put a finger on the problem; or better yet, to point it in a definitive direction. We are disoriented.

Disorientation is a term familiar to pilots. It describes a pilot inside of a cloud, and due to instrument failure, or lack of training, he is unable to distinguish up from down. As he first enters the cloud he is OK. His senses are relying on memory. But the longer he remains without an objective reference point from the earth's horizon, the less he is able to depend on his own senses. In time he exhausts the capital with which he entered the cloud and his demise can only be prevented by regaining his orientation through some objective means of reference before his craft is either destroyed by excessive "g" loading or he impacts the ground.

The folollowing is a recording of a pilot who became disoriented after inadvertently flying into clouds. His airplane had instruments that were telling him what he needed to know, he needed only trust them.  But his "feelings" were stronger causing him not to trust his instruments which were the only access to the reality of up and down beyond the fog.




May God have mercy on us.

Those Pesky Haters

On the second page of the DHS report on right wing extremism is found this statement:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or illegal immigration.

This makes me wonder if talking about how much someone would love to put a bullet into the president's head while making a commencement speech would qualify as rightwing extremism. It would necessarily have to be rightwing since it's obviously hate oriented... right?... that is, I guess, unless you're normally "mild mannered" and apologize afterward, then I'm sure it's just hunky-dory.



I suppose we also have nothing to fear from the people who laugh about shooting presidents as long as they're nice left-wingers. I do think however, just to be fair, they should have given a disclaimer to any pro-life, pro-constitution, or religious students that might have been graduating that day: "Kids, don't' try this at home"

As a foot-note, Hevesi was in the midst of a campaign against John Faso for the office of NY State Comptroller-and Bush was in the midst of a campaign against real terrorist-when these words were spoken. The voters disagreed with Faso's assessment that he was not fit for office and gave Hevesi another term to begin the first day of the following year. Hevesi resigned after pleading guilty to felony charges days before his new term was to begin.

Terrorist At Home and... Afoot?

While the Obama administration no longer sees fit to call real terrorist abroad terrorist, it would appear that it still reserves the right to use it in reference to it's political enemies at home. One need look no further than the first paragraph in a recent Homeland Security Report to find the word in reference to so called right wing extremists groups. This poses quite the wonder. At what level of disagreement with this administration does one have to reach to deserve being tagged with a label too horrible even for those who indiscriminately blow up women and children? It also provides some scary insights into the mind of an administration that, it would seem, sees a threat against it's own political success at home as worse than the barbaric practice of terrorism abroad.

This, my friends, is chilling.

Same report link here

Happy Tea Party Day

"No taxation without representation" was the slogan I learned way back in.... what was it... the second grade? It had to be way back because I don't think they teach that anymore... but I wouldn't know.

Since everything else has been turned on its head in the last two score years why not that old slogan as well. I think today we should shout "NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION". I say this because representation without taxation is one of the problems with our current system of taxation. Many are being represented without being taxed. The end result of being represented without being taxed is the same as being taxed without being represented for those who do pay taxes. My reasoning is that if people who are not being taxed are being represented, it only follows that the representation of those who are being taxed is necessarily diluted. Let me explain.

Bob earns a wage that puts him into a bracket where he actually has to pay taxes. He is represented by Bernard. John on the other hand does not earn enough money to have to pay taxes . He is represented by Jim . Now, since John does not pay taxes he's all about tax hikes so that Bob's funds can be redistributed to the more deserved, such as say..... himself; this of course after Bernard and Jim take their share. Bob on the other hand doesn't like that idea at all. So Rep. Bernard and Rep. Jim have it out on the floor of the House. There's one problem though. By design there are a lot more Jims than Bernards. So who's actually getting represented; the taxed one-Bob ,or the untaxed one-John?

So what's the solution? The answer: no representation without taxation; or we could just do a fair tax . But we all kinda know how that's gonna go , as well as any other fix. because those in the middle are out numbered by those who either don't pay, or who are rich enough that it really doesn't matter... and oh yea, or those like Obama's cabinet members who just shirk paying.

The Wrath of a Good God.

During this time of Easter we celebrate the mock trial, the brutal torturing and murder of Jesus Christ just as much as we do his resurrection from the grave. It is in his resurrection that we have hope of eternal life, something indeed worth celebrating. But what about his brutal death? This is the ugly side-or so it would seem-of Christian doctrine because ultimately this was perpetrated by a "good God".

I listened to a young woman on a bus a few years ago complaining about being judged. She said that God would be her judge and that no person had a right to judge her. She was right on both counts but I thought her reasoning was flawed. Personally I would prefer to be judged by another fallen and sinful human being than to be judged by a Holy and Righteous God. His judgements would be good and true and I would be left with no recourse or appeal under the weight of them. Furthermore, His judgements would only serve to reveal and remind me of the sins I am unaware of or have forgotten. The sins I have committed that do not fall into those categories are already sufficient to make me aware of my condemned condition.

I think this woman's mindset is indicative of our society as a whole. Though polls consistently show that ninety or so percent of us believe in God, we no longer see Him as a God of wrath, which is why the cross is such an affront to the modern mindset. We can't reconcile the Crucifixion of Christ Jesus with a good and loving God. Paradoxically, we live in a time of extreme judgementalism. The AIG bonuses, the saying that homosexuality is a sin, the war mongering and lying George W Bush, are but a few examples of judgements that seem to demand some sort of retribution. But how could a good and loving God administer ultimate justice if he is good and loving?

The answer of course is the cross. It reconciles the wrath of God with His love and mercy. For if God is truly good, His judgements must be good and true. And if His judgements are good and true, we are all condemned no less than the evil AIG executives, homophobes and Bush; that is unless someone else takes our place. This would be an act of extreme mercy, especially when the One who takes our place is without sin. And it would by necessity be an act only God himself could accomplish, which he did! This is why we Christians celebrate the death, with all its ugliness, as well as the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is because He is indeed our Savior from the just wrath of a good and loving God.

The Caricaturization of American Morality

Caricatures affect how we see and react to the world around us. It's nothing new, the caricature. It has been used in politics by way of the political cartoon  for perhaps centuries. But the cartoon was only a type and shadow of the real influence that would arrive with motion media. The Church's overall image has suffered seriously with the advent of moving image caricatures. Caricatures paint an unrealistic picture of the Church and her people by accentuating negative aspects, both perceived and real while down playing or ignoring positive aspects.
This has in two ways built a wall between the Church and the culture it serves. The first, and by far the worst way is by distorting how Christians see themselves. One example of this can be found in the book "UN Christian", by David Kinnaman. (1) Kinnaman tells of A church in the Los Angeles area that did a five-week series of talks called "Confessions of a Sinful Church". To promote this event a team passed out postcards at local college campuses with a list of five apologies by the Church:

1. We're Sorry for Our self-Righteousness and Hypocrisy.


2. We're Sorry for Our Endorsement of Slavery


3. We're Sorry for Our Mistreatment of Homosexuals


4. We're Sorry for the Medieval Crusades


5. We're Sorry for Saying the Earth Is Flat

Kinnaman doesn't elaborate on the content of these talks but the questions themselves seem to apologize for a portrait of the Church painted through the use of caricatures by men whom Jesus prophesied would hate and persecute her. (2) As a result these apologies appear pathetic. They center around a distorted view that the Church sees of herself when she buys into the assertions of a caricature that is at best a misunderstanding, and at worst hate filled and intentionally twisted. Perhaps it would be better if the Church apologized for seeing herself through the eyes of her accuser rather than the eyes of her Groom.
Secondly is the wall that exists because of the caricaturized picture that the culture has adopted of the Church. This is more understandable because the Church is supposed to be a light to the culture it serves and as Jesus said, men love the darkness rather than the light. (3) As a recovering heathen myself I personally garnered great comfort in pointing my finger at the failings and presuppositions I had of the Church and it's people. This of course allowed me to ignore my own failings rather than seek redemption.

(1) Un Christian by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, Baker Books. Page 55-56
(2) John 15:18-20
(3) John 3:19

She called 911, So

Latreasa Goodman is in trouble with the Ft Pierce police because she called 911 three times on March 4th because McDonald's was out of Chicken McNuggets. At first glance this would seem outrageous, but this is one time I'm agreeing with the perp.

There's a couple of things to consider here. It is the policy of the McDonalds in question that all sales are final. Goodman ordered her McNuggets, and as is the custom, paid before receiving her order. I suppose in the yellow McWorld of Ronald McDonald that constituted a sale but there's one problem; the restaurant didn't have any McNuggets to sell that day. The store was happy however to give Goodman something else on the menu but refused to return her money.

Granted, this is no reason to call 911 but consider her circumstances. She was probably educated in a government school where it was drilled into her head for six hours a day for practically her entire life that the government was the solution to all her problems. Furthermore she was likely not taught anything about how government works and what to do when a huge gigantic worldwide chain store basically steals her four dollars and ninety eight cents.

In addition to this, I'm sure she has cable TV and has seen this on the evening news. Perhaps, given Ft Myers' proximity to Ft Pierce, she was actually there when the video below was taken:





It no doubt is a new day and change has come. There is a man in the White House who obviously cares about the plight of people like Goodman, so perhaps he will personally step in and solve all her problems.

McDonalds on the other hand is trying to turn this notoriety into free commercial time for their tasty McNuggets. They have agreed with her that they had done wrong and offered to refund her money, plus a free meal. I'm not one to side with trial lawyers normally but with this is one I wouldn't mind seeing one take a nice little bite out of McDonald's year end financial statement.

An Addition to TNWOA Dictionary

Moderate-Always a Republican and best described as thus: Consider if money were principles. Someone tries to steal a hundred bucks. When caught the thief says "OK I'll only take fifty and we both will be winners; you won't look greedy and I still get something out of the deal." A moderate thinks this is a good idea.

A Conservative's Perspective

So Bob wakes up in the morning after a night with a prostitute. He goes down town, walks into a bank and robs it. In the process he murders four women after a hostage crises develops. Incredibly, he manages to get away with millions and on the way home stops by a Circle K to pick up a couple of copies of his favorite porn magazines. While there he notices a kid in the store slipping a piece of bubble gum into his pocket. He meets the kid outside and tells him that stealing is wrong.

Question: Given the circumstances surrounding the kid's accuser, was stealing wrong for that kid?

In the world of present day politics, maybe not. We can expect to hear in the coming days an "everybody does it" defense for broken campaign promises. This will serve only to muddy the waters because even though this might be true to some extent, read my lips when I say this, it always seems worse when a certain Party is guilty of it. The idea that breaking campaign promises is bad for America is thus averted.