Nipping It In The Bud

Just a brief word to address what might escalate without a public service announcement like this: Though I would hate to be inundated, I can be easily contacted via email for anyone who cares to check out my profile. I mention this to allow anyone with concerns regarding other commenters an avenue for expressing those concerns. I would hate to lose any visitors who have, in my opinion, provided good fodder for debate and discussion because I bought an extremely large fodder container and it needs constant refilling. (Next to marriage, my greatest joy is being a fodder.) I don't want to ban anyone. I'll put up with a lot as long as it doesn't get too wacky. Slam somone's opinion if you want to. If that's all you intend to do, go elsewhere. Slamming requires a counter opinion. Without hanging yourself out there, you won't be allowed to trash someone else's opinion. Overall, I'd prefer no one insult a guest of mine. That's my job. Feel free to insult me if you like, I don't mind. A good insult is entertaining. A bad one provides an opening for me. A cruel one gets your sorry ass dismissed, particularly if it's toward a visitor, particularly if it's toward a visitor's picture of him/herself. It's called "civility" and to me, one can be civil and snarky at the same time. It's kind of a talent some are born with, but can be learned. I'll let you know when you haven't learned it yet. Oh yeah, and somebody tracked mud in here and I just had the carpet cleaned.

There She Goes Again!!!

This morning's paper had an AP report on Hillary's health care plan. She said it isn't government run, though the cost to the government would be $110 billion per year, but it is government mandated. The plan requires businesses to provide coverage, and it would require people to purchase insurance, either through their jobs or through a Medicare inspired federal plan. Richardson and Edwards are kinda pissed at the old girl, calling her basically a "copy-cat" for offering a plan similar to theirs. HEY BOYS!!! YOUR PLANS SUCK, TOO!!!

The sad part is that some of the GOP candidates are suggesting versions of their own. My question for all is, where do you get off demanding that anyone offer anything, or that people purchase what they don't want? Using a number of 47 million uninsured, candidates have postured themselves as caring, compassionate leaders. But according to others, like John Stossel for example, that number includes millions who are young, single adults, for whom health care isn't an issue. It includes millions with the bucks to afford health care on their own terms. It includes many who are in a transition period, meaning they don't have coverage at the moment the stats were assemble, but will have soon with the start of a new gig, but were thrown into the overall number of uninsured. It also includes, illegal immigrants who shouldn't be here anyway. Thus, the number is probably halved at least. And of that number, there is probably a good percentage that are completely irresponsible in their lifestyle choices.

So what of the remainder? Perhaps the focus should be on educating them on what it takes to aquire coverage, how to make better lifestyle choices, how to avoid further complicating their situation. Perhaps the caring, compassionate leaders should be seeking ways to allow for the charitable donating of funds on a voluntary basis for those truly in need. I'll bet that John Edwards can probably lift around 100 families with his own wealth. He feels their pain. He should give till it hurts.

So the problem I have is obvious and simple: where do these Democratic buffoons get off thinking that they are caring, compassionate leaders through the forced donations of those with dough? And where do they get off thinking they can mandate the health care choices of the entire population? Aren't they the party of choice? The whole insurance game is a big pain in the ass as it is, but there is a simple dynamic present within it that is being mucked up by the Dems "compassion". That dynamic is that someone, the insurance company, offers for a premium to cover any medical costs incurred by the insured. It's how they make their money. The health care plans suggested by the Dems would force them to insure those who WILL require medical attention. This will raise the cost of insuring everyone.

What we have here is the Dems creating a concern, health care, and setting themselves up as the saviors. No thanks. Keep your hands out of my wallet.

Lest We Forget...

Today will bring memorials and remembrances, recollections and retellings, of that day that will live in infamy, the day when horror and evil struck our nation and felled 3000 of our people. May they rest in peace.

And may their deaths not be forgotten, nor the threat of the enemy we face not be ignored. My sense is that the crafters of the Project for a New American Century were wrong and that even an episode more dastardly than the attack on Pearl Harbor has not been enough to truly wake many in this country, say nothing of the world, to the dangers that loom for all in the form of Islamic radicalism.

September 11, 2001 united this country and it with the world. Twenty minutes later, it was business as usual. Partisan politics, philosophical divisions, and the usual irrational fear and loathing of the United States of America by too many of it's foreign neighbors went into overdrive as President George W. Bush put the stopping of terrorism into it's proper placment on the national priority list. He boldly took steps to quash this evil that has elements worldwide and was and continues to be met with self-serving opposition and timidity. Like a true leader, he procedes despite the obstructive rhetoric of his political opponents within and outside his party.

Now, six years later, and with the current report by Gen. David Patraeus informing us of the reality in Iraq and the progress and prognosis there, we have yet to see half the nation on board with the fact that there is indeed a true threat to us and the world, nor any signs that they have clue one on what to do about it. Instead, it's the same old story of contradicting and obstructing of the administration, as if Bush is the cause of the evil and madness that resulted in the attacks on our nation, and the sole motivation for the anger against the West by religious luntics from the Middle East.

Perhaps it's not a matter of anyone forgetting 9/11. Perhaps it's simply that too many refuse to see it for what it was, is and will continue to be even after they will no longer have George W. Bush to kick around anymore.

What A Coincidence!!!

It has happened in the course of other discussions, the concern that God might endorse "genocide", as in the destruction of cities like Sodom and others, either through his awsome power directly, or through the use of the Hebrew armies. And then today, as I listened to Hank Hanegraaff, the Bible Answer Man, a caller asked about that very topic of Hank's guest, R. C. Sproul. During the discussions of which I took part, the problem that was raised was one of reconciling such an action with a God who then, in the form of Jesus Christ, preached peace, kindness to enemies, not returning evil with evil, etc., etc., etc. R. C.'s response included justice, which is a point I tried to make, as the people of the town were so worthy of destruction. He also spoke of the children of the town being sinful creatures, since we are all sinful creatures worthy of destruction. He also spoke of how there were definitely others worthy of destruction whom He chose to spare, that being the Hebrews themselves. This is to say that His sparing one group shows how merciful He can be, by contrasting how He deals in retribution for those who do not accept Him and prove it by their behavior.

Then, RC spoke of those who are happy to accept all the goodness and mercy and "nice" things that God so readily bestows upon us, the salvation He offers, but reject the other side of God's nature that is where justice lies. Yet He is indeed a jealous and wrathful God though many don't think that's very "God-like". In an interview on the Dennis Prager radio show, "Bishop" Spong said that very thing regarding the vengeful and destructive aspects of God's nature as demonstrated in those Old Testament stories. Prager replied, "No. You just think it isn't "Spong-like"." The meaning, of course, is that so many simply accept the "nice" God attributes so as to feel good about to whom they give their praise and glory. Regarding my rather fundamental views, I had a blogger say to me, "I want no part of YOUR God!" as if I made Him up out of my own desires. Well, if it were that simple, why would I make up such a "hard ass" to worship, and not the squeezably soft, snuggle-puppy god so much in vogue with the progressive liberal post-modern Christian?

As RC said in a sermon on his radio show this week as well, this is a God who created a being, Adam, gave him the world, literally, with only one restriction, don't eat the fruit of THIS tree, which he then proceeded to do. Since then, mankind has been in rebellion. It is in our sinful natures to be in rebellion. He has every right to take this creation of His and trash it for our impudence, has shown that He can do it anytime He likes, and instead, gave us the Perfect Sacrifice, His only begotten Son, sinless, to carry on HIS back the collective sins of mankind, and then sacrificed Himself for our sakes. If He didn't have it in Him to be so destructive, He would not be a truly just God, but by being so, it shows the true extent of His Love for us that when we deserve as much, He offers us Salvation. Amen.

R.I.P.

Yesterday marked the passing of Dr. Dennis James Kennedy (76) of complications from the heart attack he suffered last December. He was pastor of Coral Ridge Ministries in Florida, which grew from an initial 45 or so members to a mega-church with a radio and TV ministry as well. He was a staunch and unapologetic defender of the faith with a strong concern for the state of America and her culture. He will be greatly missed, but I've little doubt that Christ will open his arms to D. James saying, "Well done, good and faithful servant."

Random Thought(s)

1) With all due respect for Les, a lefty and Bucks fan who shows class and good humor in his reasoned and rational comments (not that others don't, mind you), a point he made on an earlier post kinda nagged at me. He said words to the effect that when he looks at a zygote, he just doesn't see a person. That may be so, and indeed, it doesn't look like what we think of when we hear the word, "person". But that doesn't mean what he sees isn't a person. A guy in a Hollywood level gorilla costume doesn't look like a person, either. The point is that looks alone don't tell the tale here. It is a person by virtue of the manner in which it came to exist, together with it's human DNA. I almost typed "and what it is destined to become". That would leave open the possiblility of someone saying that it is destined to become human but isn't yet, when in fact it is, but is destined to become an octegenarian awaiting double bypass surgery. It's simply a case of looks being deceiving, or, judging this tiny book by it's cover.

2) I've been taking heat at Geoffrey's blog, and elsewhere for comments regarding "honor" and how it relates to certain actions in wartime and other things. It seems it's hard for some to distinguish between when a particular action taken by two different factions might be acceptable and when it might not. It's an "ends justifying the means" debate that my opponents can't seem to resolve in their minds without putting their own at risk, or without accusing our own leaders of very nasty character. I will soon discuss this trait and it's relationship to such specific actions soon.

3) A recent post at Carol Liebau's blog presented a Newsweek Int'l article detailing the changing attitudes toward America from our Euorpean neighbors. This change has been a positive one with the elections of France and Germany's new leaders. Great Britain's new PM leans our way as well it seems, but is trying to avoid being seen as a Blair clone. In any case, the article spoke of many in Europe having a proble with our "unilateral coalition" in Iraq. Can a coalition be "unilateral"? It's an interesting article posted a day or so ago. Check it out.