Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Where Ya Goin'?

There has been a trend that I find somewhat disturbing. Others of my political and religious persuasion might not find it so, but I insist that it's at least unfortunate. That trend would be the exodus of liberal commenters from visiting my blog. For some, it's enough to be able to publish their opinions and feelings and leave it at that. I expect that some do not even welcome opposing comments of any kind. That has never been the case here. I've said before and maintain that I hope, through my blog, to persuade or be persuaded. That I've failed in the former seems only to bother me. It's the latter that has brought about this exodus.

I am often accused of being stubborn, controlling, intellectually lazy, apathetic (that's a new one---I don't get it) and a host of other adjectives. That's all fine. What isn't is a poor argument for why any of that might be true. Let's look at some examples of scenarios common here at Marshall Art's:

Homosexual marriage and the Bible: In this debate, my position has rested upon one simple fact. The Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful. The counter arguments range from distorted interpretations of original language, to convenient insistence that OT laws no longer apply, arguments from silence, and a wide variety of variations. Nothing has ever been presented that trumps one salient point, which is that it is the act itself that is prohibited with absolutely no Biblical discussion whatsoever regarding the intention, though process, attitude or whatever, behind the commission of the act. In other words, whether the act be murder, theft, lying, having sex with a goat, or merely having sex with someone of the same gender, we are simply told not to do it, and one's mental or emotional state has no bearing. It doesn't matter if I have a loving, monogomous relationship with my neighbor's wife, or if I'm doing her just for the fun of it, the teaching simply says, DON'T. No one's ever presented anything that trumps that fact, yet I'm the one who is being controlling, as if I, and not God, instituted the law.

Abortion: Against a horde that accuses us conservativeChristianrightwingfacists of being anti-science, just the opposite occurs. Science supports the pro-life position without question, but the pro-abortion crowd denies that without support of any kind.

In other areas, I have had thown at me demands for things like peer-reviewed papers to validate the bonafides of someone I use as an expert. Another was whether my source was listed in some kind of reference index (not sure it's called that). In both cases I found that neither provides the support my opponent implied due to rampant politics that play so heavily in both. At the same time, this particular insists on referring to the opinions of a Nobel Prize winner even when the winner is speaking on something not related to his expertise (I guess just being given a Nobel means one is an expert on everything).

Recently, Ron has created a new blog, which I highlighted, but it seems so soon that he has gone off the deep end. He rejects any counter argument before one is even offered. He does exactly what he claims is the reason for his new blog. He hasn't so much thought out of the box, but merely created a new box in which to hide.

My box has been the same all along. My arguments have remained consistent with my core beliefs, beliefs I have always stood ready, willing and eager to defend. My arguments have been clear and logical and it isn't that I'm blowing my own horn, but that despite the lamentations and protestations and accusations, I have been not been given any reason to change my mind. For all the reading done by some of my opponents, like Geoffrey and Feodor, none of it results in a good argument to change my way of thinking.

Let it be known, I've had my paradigms shifted over the course of my life. Certain beliefs have been changed to the point where I can't believe I ever thought differently. So I CAN be persuaded. I remain open to any and all arguments. I even dare others to try. If my opponents have a leg upon which to stand, at some point I should be stumped. At some point I should have no retort. It's pretty clear the opposite has been true and that's why those who have left, uh, left. They were stumped. They ran out of arguments. They had no counter. Were it reversed, they would be demanding that I concede. Were it reversed, I would have.

So their arugments that I am inflexible, unable to fathom the complexities of life, unwilling to show compassion, and all the other accusations hurled my way as the door hit them in their collectives asses, are the weakest arguements of all, for they have failed to convince themselves of their own beliefs. That's why they run.

Well, I never sought to chase them off. I never thought I was that good and still don't. So, for any who believe there's no point, for Geoffrey who delinked (not as painful as it might sound), Hashfanatic (who I think hasn't truly bailed yet), Ron, Dan, Les (who might still be lurking, being that he likes to lurk), and any other who has left in a huff, the welcome mat has never been rolled up. Don't take things so seriously or personally. Come take another shot.

Monday, February 23, 2009

More Racism Stuff

I've come across a couple of articles that align nicely with the one linked to in the post a few down from here. I'll add more here if I should stumble across them.

Here's one. Here's another.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Shut Up And Sing!

First off, I didn't see any of the films nominated for an Oscar, nor the films of the Best Actor category. A quick Google scan checking the odds shows most were picking Mickey Rourke for best actor, with Sean Penn the runner up. But I figured that any movie sympathetic to the homosexual cause would not go unrewarded by the Hollywood elite, and sure enough, Penn takes Best Actor. Fine. I think Penn is a really good actor, and I would even call him great. (Kudos to Deniro for his quip about Penn---he said he can't believe he got all those other parts playing straight guys---or words to that effect.) So congrats to Sean Penn.

However, I don't think we needed the lecture during his acceptance speech. Aren't they supposed to avoid such things? He thinks it is to the everlasting shame of folks like myself who oppose homosexual marriage, and that somehow my grandchildren will feel shame for me. Well, I don't have grandchildren yet, but I hope they will have the basic understanding of God's Will to know that there's nothing shameful in standing up for His Will and working to thwart the efforts of some to enable and sanction bad behavior. I certainly don't feel shame for doing so.

I do feel pity and sorrow, though. I feel pity and sorrow for all those people who are so twisted in their thinking and beliefs that their devotion to sexual gratification has provoked in them. The applause generated by Penn's comments would make this post equally apropriate for American Descent in that so many there would so eagerly support such comments. May God grant them the epiphany they so desperately need, by His Will and in Christ I pray. I fear, though, that He has given them over to their lusts. Pity and sorrow.

UPDATE: From this morning's paper on last night's awards show comes this speech from "Milk" director, Dustin Lance Black: "If Harvey had not been taken from us 30 years ago, I think he would want me to say to all the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight who have been told they are less than(sic)by the churches, by the government, by their families, that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value, and that no matter what anyone tells you, God does love you and that very soon, I promise you, you will have equal rights, federally, across this great nation of ours."

Wow. That isn't quite as goofy as the teary Tom Hanks speech for accepting his award several years ago, the one about angels in heaven, but it comes close. Of course God loves the "gay and lesbian" kids. He also loves the gang-bangers and drug dealers. Not sure if all of them will see paradise without first repenting and walking the straight and narrow (pun intended). Black does confused kids no service with his wacky pronouncement, making a promise he isn't equipped to see through, and dishonestly suggesting that they lack equal rights now.

Friday, February 20, 2009

Sort Of A New Addition

American Interests is a blog I had buried amongst my way too crowded favorites list. When I first came upon it, I was keen on adding it and visiting it, but never got around to it. It is actually another Aussie blog, but the gentleman is very pro-American. Unfortunately, he's kinda blogged out and no longer posts new articles. That's too bad because his insights are good and it's nice to hear what foreigners think of our way of doing things. He's not going to delete the blog, but let it stand as is. I'm hoping that with our new administration that he'll be revitalized into posting again. In the meantime, I've added him to the "Right Ones" list just to honor his efforts on our behalf. Give him a read.

A Not So New Addition

Ron has given up his blog and begun a new one. A Conscious Outpost is the name and I've listed it under "Left Ones". For the time being, I will keep his old one up should anyone wish to compare. Give him a read.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Requiem for the Word "Racism"?

In my church, the paper on which we print our weekly bulletins for worship service comes from the UCC with preprinted messages on the back. For the week of Feb. 15, the message was on race. Apparently, last April, the UCC called for a "sacred conversation on race---'a dialogue that is neded in our pews, our homes and the hallways of power across our country.'" Personally, I'm a bit bored with the subject as I don't suffer from racist tendencies and have little patience for those who do, and, I don't understand how a "sacred" conversation would be manifestly any different from the standard conversation.

But I digress.

It goes on to speak of quotes by such famous people as Frederick Douglass and W.E.B. Du Bois (I wonder if his friends called him "Web".) and then some mention of "Racial Justice Sunday", without mentioning which Sunday that would be. Was it the 15th? I have no idea.

Anyway, the whole idea, as I said, bores me. I don't really care about race. I don't know very many people who are truly racist, and I'm fairly certain that no one I consider a close friend is racist, either. Yet, the word still gets thrown around, as it was during the last presidential campaign, mostly by the half-black guy. In any case, it was quite a coincidence to come across this Jack Kerwick article in Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy (

As a side note, I have two small oval "Nobama" stickers on my bumper from the campaign. I had intended on getting a "Vote McCain--He's Less Crappy" sticker to paste inbetween them. But as I came up to an intersection the other day when our Chicago area weather was unseasonably warm, and my car window was down, I heard a woman's voice sing out "OH--BAMA!" as a car pulled up next to me in the left lane. Not being in a great mood, I turned a relatively surly look at the source and the black couple next to me were glaring back. I sensed some racial tension from these two who didn't appear to be anymore cheerful than I was feeling. Had the light not changed and had they not driven off so quickly, I would have liked to enquire as to their reasons for supporting the guy. Oh well. An opportunity for racial harmony lost.

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Stating The Obvious

Liberalism. It is called by some a mental disease or disorder. To the rational, it seems so very obvious. This probably poorly written and I'll bet somehow racist piece describes how liberalism always breaks an important law.

In this equally fine piece, that I'm sure can't possibly be well written or lacking in racial undertones, the disease is further illustrated. In addition, it presents a book looking at liberalism from a psychological perspective. I've read exerpts of the book at Amazon and it is now on my suggested reading list, likely to be moved to the top.

But one has no great need for expert analysis to see what objectivity can present so easily. Liberalism, particularly as it is known and expressed today, will never result in anything good for our country, its people and their children, or the world.

Sunday, February 08, 2009

Been There, Done That

I linked to this fine piece in comments of a thread at American Descent. It's so good I felt it deserved a post of its own. None of the case histories listed are news to anyone paying attention. That is, to read them and be surprised isn't likely amongst conservatives. The positive effect of cutting taxes on the economy, to say nothing of the increase in federal revenues, is well understood on the right. We also understand that reducing government spending, particularly on the type of pork in this "stimulus" package, is also essential if we ever hope to reduce the national debt. It would've been nice if Bush knew that.

A View From Outside

I won't go so far as to say that she's in any way typical of British sentiment, but Melanie Phillips seems to echo what most people not blinded by the light of the One are saying. Then again, perhaps this perception is more widespread than originally believed. No matter. It's just nice to hear it said by a foreigner.

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Please Explain

This AOL article troubles me greatly. I have questions revolving around this issue for which I have yet heard answers. Perhaps someone can flesh out the details of this for me, or perhaps offer a link that gives more details. But here's where I stand based on my limited knowledge of this story:

First of all, I don't like the idea of bailouts anyway. It's bad enough that, first Bush, and now Obama is doing it in the first place. This is an artificial impediment to the natural course of a free market economy and as such, the results are equally artificial and misleading in judging the effectiveness of either a free market economy, or the policy of bailouts themselves.

As far as daring to impose restrictions on the compensation policies of private enterprises, my first question would be: Are the bonuses or salaries a result of the bailout? In other words, were the execs getting bonuses anyway?

A corporation is an entity unto itself. Though not a person in reality, it is like a person legally in the sense that even the person(s)who founded the corporation is/are empoyees of the corporation as opposed to being self employed. The distinction is a legal one but for reasons of taxation and liability is a great one. Compensation for executives of the corporation is determined by the corps board of directors and shareholders. Generally a contract is approved that spells out the terms of the employment of the exec. Bonuses are generally a result of having met certain pre-determined criteria.

If bailouts are being granted to failing companies, it is the entity known as the corporation that is legally making the request. Or, the execs who petition for the bailout are doing so on behalf of the corporation, and doing so in order to handle its debtload. Salaries and compensations are a part of a corp's debtload. If an incredibly generous bonus is the result of a contracturally spelled out set of criteria that was met by a given exec, an accomplishment that benefits the corp whether it is failing or not, it seems to me that the bonus is a legitimate debt for which the bailout money can be used to satisfy. The compensation package agreed upon at the start of the exec's employment, if a legal contract, is an obligation the corp is required to meet. Just because Barack Obama and hordes of covetous and envious liberals don't like it, doesn't mean they have the right to impose such restrictions if they are supposedly offering a bailout to help the "little guy".

Unless there's something missing in this equation, or unless I've got the whole picture horribly wrong, it seems to me that this type of interference is without question, an action without justification. If the bonuses are given BECAUSE of the bailout, that is, "hey we're gettin' some dough---here's some extra for you!", such restrictions are understandable. But again, the bailout is for the corporate entity, not the employees, including those who run the show.

Can anyone shed more light?

Monday, February 02, 2009

Hey, Wait A Minute...

...didn't the moonbats of the left have their panties all in a bunch over Bush disregarding the wisdom of generals like Zinni? Well, then Barry had better watch out when they get wind of this.

UPDATE: Just another story highlighting the president ingnoring the advice of his generals, which, as we all know, is unconscionable. Right libs?