I came across this article from the Washington Post that I found interesting. Not surprising, just interesting. All those sad haters must be experiencing the vapors. That Rush Limbaugh would survive the controversy surrounding his comments regarding Sandra Fluke, and weather the subsequent cries for his dismissal and boycotts of his sponsors should have been foreseen even by the goofy left wing. The hopes being dashed that the incident would result in his downfall is difficult to regard without some amusement as I imagine their great disappointment. Some fun snippets:
"Limbaugh’s advertising losses may have been less than media accounts suggested. While more than 100 advertisers told Premiere that they didn’t want to be associated with “controversial” radio programs of any kind in the wake of the flap, some of these companies weren’t regular Limbaugh sponsors in the first place."
Of course that didn't prevent some from rejoicing from the false belief that he indeed lost what he didn't have in the first place.
"“Contrary to the wishful thinking of the professional special interest groups, reports of sponsors fleeing the ‘Rush Limbaugh Show’ are grossly exaggerated. In fact, the program retains virtually of all its long-term sponsors who continue to have great success” with the show, saidRachel Nelson, spokeswoman for Premiere."
Wise business people see Rush as a good investment of their advertising dollars because he is still the main man on radio who still draws a massive audience. That audience, as well as the advertisers, are rational people who find Rush's overall good to far outweigh the occasional and incredibly minor bad represented by the comments about Fluke. (For the goofy lefties that visit here, I'm referring to the incident being minor, not the words he used, though they are still far from worthy of the false outrage they sought to present as real.) That's just good business sense. What's more, to pretend that his "crime" was so bad as to be worthy of the level of vitriol it provoked from the loonies on the left is just another example of their selective ideas of tolerance and free speech.
Yes, it did my heart good to read this piece.
Friday, April 06, 2012
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
One for my buddy, Ed, and another just because it's cool
Sunday, April 01, 2012
Let's All Just Take A Breath!
I guess that one who is on the internet almost every day shouldn't complain about media overload. But this Trayvon Martin case is impossible to avoid. I wasn't really all that interested in it. People are killed every day. Stories of little kids taking fire from scumbag gang-bangers should be generating a far greater outcry than what we have going on in Florida. By comparison, Martin's demise is insignificant against the lives of small children sitting on stoops eating ice-cream while bullets rip through their tiny bodies. Yet you don't hear idiotic race-baiters trying to assert that our little ones are being targeted by teens, which is far truer than white people targeting blacks. Indeed, the lamentations over the deaths of black youths are too often attributed by these hustlers to whites than to their more common threats---other black youths.
This case has stirred up all sorts of nastiness on the parts of people who have no clue as to the events that led to the shooting and killing (note: I have no evidence that "murder" is the appropriate term, so I don't make the assumption) of Martin. The latest "outrage" of which I am aware is the recent protest for "justice" for Martin, as if it is a settled fact that he is deserving of any. Don't get me wrong. He may indeed be so deserving. But like these idiots, I simply don't have that information. The only info that any of us have at this point is the absolute and uncompromising innocence of Zimmerman, the assumption of which he is absolutely and uncompromisingly entitled to until he can be proven otherwise.
There is far too much that is unknown here. Some of which I've heard conflicts with other things I've heard. How can anyone dare presume anything at this point? But this is what we have in vast amounts. Presumptions, and few of innocence on the part of Zimmerman.
Take for example, our own Geoffrey Kruse-Safford. He is absolutely convinced that the word "tragedy" does not apply here. How can this be? Geoffrey wasn't there. He doesn't live in Florida. He lives in northern Illinois, a distance far too great for most people to see, but apparently not for one who sees what he wants to see. Geoffrey wants to see racism so he can pontificate, I guess, on white oppression of blacks, or some such crap. To Geoffrey, "What happened that February day can be described as a cold-blooded killing, a hate crime, yet another contemporary lynching of a young black man for the singular perceived crime of walking where a white person felt he had no business walking." I suppose it can be. By the same token, Geoff's statement can be described as by one who is intent on taking it upon one's self to apologize for the white race as if so appointed for the task. But I've seen reports that state three things of note:
1) This took place is a gated community.
2) Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer for that community victimized by thefts.
3) Zimmerman is half-Hispanic.
What this means is that a Hispanic who belongs in the community knows who doesn't belong and was concerned about this stranger being there.
I have a friend who lived in a gated community. The guards at the gate are white. I'm white. If I strolled in from the side and was seen walking about by one of those guards, they would have approached me for the "crime" of walking where I had no business being.
Now, maybe Zimmerman overstepped his "authority" as a volunteer watchman. Maybe Martin overreacted to Zimmerman's scrutiny. Who knows? But certainly, if we concede the narrative of those playing the race card, like Geoffie is, then the result was certainly a tragedy for Martin as far as I'm concerned.
Then there is Al Sharpton. That this guy even gets the time of day is a wonder to me. He's out there, with fellow race-baiter, Jesse "Will There Be Cameras?" Jackson, decrying the injustice done to this obviously innocent victim of another evil white guy who isn't totally Anglo. Now, he's insisting there will be civil disobedience if Zimmerman isn't crucified for what Al knows is satanic murder of an angelic black boy. Oh, and sanctions, too!
We can't forget Spike Lee, who tried to give out Zimmerman's address and got the wrong Zimmerman, forcing a family totally unrelated to leave their home in fear. This asshole should be arrested on some charge for endangering the wrong Zimmerman and trying to endanger the "right" Zimmerman.
The New Black Panthers have offered a bounty on Zimmerman. Arrest them, too. How is that different than a contract killing?
All of this, and not one of these jackwagons knows what the hell even happened!
I mentioned it earlier and it has been mentioned by others reporting and commenting on this case, that most blacks in this country who are murdered are murdered by blacks. I've also read that whites are murdered by blacks much more than the other way around. Yet, the Sharptons, Jacksons, Lees, and Panthers do or say nothing about such things (unless they are doing so to say that whitey is somehow the root cause).
Oh. And how could I have overlooked the smartest man in the room, Barry Obama? He has once again stuck his nose into a case without knowledge of the facts, commenting in a manner inappropriate. The only appropriate comment he should have made, since he insists on saying something, is that he doesn't know the facts so he can't speak on it at all.
So now we must wonder what will happen if Zimmerman is not charged with a crime? It will be Rodney King East. And the Sharptons, Jacksons, Lees, Panthers AND Obama will have to take responsibility for stoking the anger, when they all should have been calling for calm, keeping in mind that Zimmerman is entitled to the presumption of innocence, especially since nobody knows exactly what the hell happened that night.
This case has stirred up all sorts of nastiness on the parts of people who have no clue as to the events that led to the shooting and killing (note: I have no evidence that "murder" is the appropriate term, so I don't make the assumption) of Martin. The latest "outrage" of which I am aware is the recent protest for "justice" for Martin, as if it is a settled fact that he is deserving of any. Don't get me wrong. He may indeed be so deserving. But like these idiots, I simply don't have that information. The only info that any of us have at this point is the absolute and uncompromising innocence of Zimmerman, the assumption of which he is absolutely and uncompromisingly entitled to until he can be proven otherwise.
There is far too much that is unknown here. Some of which I've heard conflicts with other things I've heard. How can anyone dare presume anything at this point? But this is what we have in vast amounts. Presumptions, and few of innocence on the part of Zimmerman.
Take for example, our own Geoffrey Kruse-Safford. He is absolutely convinced that the word "tragedy" does not apply here. How can this be? Geoffrey wasn't there. He doesn't live in Florida. He lives in northern Illinois, a distance far too great for most people to see, but apparently not for one who sees what he wants to see. Geoffrey wants to see racism so he can pontificate, I guess, on white oppression of blacks, or some such crap. To Geoffrey, "What happened that February day can be described as a cold-blooded killing, a hate crime, yet another contemporary lynching of a young black man for the singular perceived crime of walking where a white person felt he had no business walking." I suppose it can be. By the same token, Geoff's statement can be described as by one who is intent on taking it upon one's self to apologize for the white race as if so appointed for the task. But I've seen reports that state three things of note:
1) This took place is a gated community.
2) Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer for that community victimized by thefts.
3) Zimmerman is half-Hispanic.
What this means is that a Hispanic who belongs in the community knows who doesn't belong and was concerned about this stranger being there.
I have a friend who lived in a gated community. The guards at the gate are white. I'm white. If I strolled in from the side and was seen walking about by one of those guards, they would have approached me for the "crime" of walking where I had no business being.
Now, maybe Zimmerman overstepped his "authority" as a volunteer watchman. Maybe Martin overreacted to Zimmerman's scrutiny. Who knows? But certainly, if we concede the narrative of those playing the race card, like Geoffie is, then the result was certainly a tragedy for Martin as far as I'm concerned.
Then there is Al Sharpton. That this guy even gets the time of day is a wonder to me. He's out there, with fellow race-baiter, Jesse "Will There Be Cameras?" Jackson, decrying the injustice done to this obviously innocent victim of another evil white guy who isn't totally Anglo. Now, he's insisting there will be civil disobedience if Zimmerman isn't crucified for what Al knows is satanic murder of an angelic black boy. Oh, and sanctions, too!
We can't forget Spike Lee, who tried to give out Zimmerman's address and got the wrong Zimmerman, forcing a family totally unrelated to leave their home in fear. This asshole should be arrested on some charge for endangering the wrong Zimmerman and trying to endanger the "right" Zimmerman.
The New Black Panthers have offered a bounty on Zimmerman. Arrest them, too. How is that different than a contract killing?
All of this, and not one of these jackwagons knows what the hell even happened!
I mentioned it earlier and it has been mentioned by others reporting and commenting on this case, that most blacks in this country who are murdered are murdered by blacks. I've also read that whites are murdered by blacks much more than the other way around. Yet, the Sharptons, Jacksons, Lees, and Panthers do or say nothing about such things (unless they are doing so to say that whitey is somehow the root cause).
Oh. And how could I have overlooked the smartest man in the room, Barry Obama? He has once again stuck his nose into a case without knowledge of the facts, commenting in a manner inappropriate. The only appropriate comment he should have made, since he insists on saying something, is that he doesn't know the facts so he can't speak on it at all.
So now we must wonder what will happen if Zimmerman is not charged with a crime? It will be Rodney King East. And the Sharptons, Jacksons, Lees, Panthers AND Obama will have to take responsibility for stoking the anger, when they all should have been calling for calm, keeping in mind that Zimmerman is entitled to the presumption of innocence, especially since nobody knows exactly what the hell happened that night.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Smartest President Ever?
I have long hoped to be presented with evidence that shows the brilliance of our current president. He has been touted as one helluva smart dude. "Smartest guy in the room" and such. I guess that depends who is with him in the room. If it's Joe Biden...
This Mark Steyn piece provides some insights. He speaks of a recent speech the Einstein-in-Chief gave and the side-splitters he issued to mock his opponents. What also isn't funny, however, is that I hadn't heard of these "gaffs" before reading Steyn's column. Why is that, do you think?
Anyway, the subject of Obama's brain, such as it is, has been on my mind of late due to the price at the pump lately. Around my neck of the woods, its been between about $4.19-4.29 per gallon for regular unleaded. And what's President Solyndra been doing about it? Pretty much anything he can to drive that price up higher while favoring failing alternative energy companies that aren't employing anyone.
I recall an interview I heard not too many years ago wherein the man being interviewed spoke of supposedly dry oil wells having oil once more. I've mentioned this in past discussions regarding the subject of limited resources. Apparently there is a theory that is in opposition to the fossil fuel theory. This was first presented by the Russians from research begun during Stalin's time. The attendant link, from another poorly written article at American Thinker (where, as we know, among the hundred plus contributors, there's not a decent writer in the bunch) includes links of its own to sources that flesh out this theory for those so inclined as to read them.
The link also includes a video of a collection of clips of Obama repeating a mantra that there is no "silver bullet" answer to dealing with our energy problems and dependence on foreign oil. Is this stupidity from the smartest prez ever, or a calculated lie? The link that carries said video presents a refutation of Barry's claim that we possess only 2% of the world's oil supply (down from 3% according to previous speeches). Whatever the case, it is not very smart to fail to understand what is at stake here.
Regardless of whether or not one believes we have enough oil for the next 200 years, or the next fifty, there is no doubt that lifting moratoriums and prohibitions on drilling and production will lower the price at the pump. It's simple supply and demand where if the supply is perceived to be about to increase, the price will drop to reflect that increase. The positive effect on the economy should be obvious. If the cost to transport goods goes down, profits from the sale of those goods goes up.
This is so basic. I thought this guy wants to be re-elected? I'm guessing he has some plan to make some of this happen before we get too close to November. Then the question will be how smart the voters are.
This Mark Steyn piece provides some insights. He speaks of a recent speech the Einstein-in-Chief gave and the side-splitters he issued to mock his opponents. What also isn't funny, however, is that I hadn't heard of these "gaffs" before reading Steyn's column. Why is that, do you think?
Anyway, the subject of Obama's brain, such as it is, has been on my mind of late due to the price at the pump lately. Around my neck of the woods, its been between about $4.19-4.29 per gallon for regular unleaded. And what's President Solyndra been doing about it? Pretty much anything he can to drive that price up higher while favoring failing alternative energy companies that aren't employing anyone.
I recall an interview I heard not too many years ago wherein the man being interviewed spoke of supposedly dry oil wells having oil once more. I've mentioned this in past discussions regarding the subject of limited resources. Apparently there is a theory that is in opposition to the fossil fuel theory. This was first presented by the Russians from research begun during Stalin's time. The attendant link, from another poorly written article at American Thinker (where, as we know, among the hundred plus contributors, there's not a decent writer in the bunch) includes links of its own to sources that flesh out this theory for those so inclined as to read them.
The link also includes a video of a collection of clips of Obama repeating a mantra that there is no "silver bullet" answer to dealing with our energy problems and dependence on foreign oil. Is this stupidity from the smartest prez ever, or a calculated lie? The link that carries said video presents a refutation of Barry's claim that we possess only 2% of the world's oil supply (down from 3% according to previous speeches). Whatever the case, it is not very smart to fail to understand what is at stake here.
Regardless of whether or not one believes we have enough oil for the next 200 years, or the next fifty, there is no doubt that lifting moratoriums and prohibitions on drilling and production will lower the price at the pump. It's simple supply and demand where if the supply is perceived to be about to increase, the price will drop to reflect that increase. The positive effect on the economy should be obvious. If the cost to transport goods goes down, profits from the sale of those goods goes up.
This is so basic. I thought this guy wants to be re-elected? I'm guessing he has some plan to make some of this happen before we get too close to November. Then the question will be how smart the voters are.
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Rush Is Just SO Mean!
My current job leaves me little time to remain abreast of all that is going on in the world. Just this past week I put in a bit over an hour shy of 70 hours. Add almost seven hours of total commute time, and sleep is about all I do during the week and too much of the weekend when not working. I skim the newspaper, check emails, read a few blogs leaving an occasional comment and curse my inability to watch every Bulls game.
So this Rush Limbaugh controversy was unknown to me. As I typically start my shift at 7PM, I don't ever hear his show these days, since it's long over when I wake up. But Parkie was kind enough to draw my attention to it.
Now, it should be known that I was already aware of Sandra Fluke's testimony, as I had read of it Wintery Knight's fine blog, which also gave a bit more background regarding Fluke.
I must admit, that after reading WK's piece, and watching the attendant video, that I had similar thoughts regarding her and students like her. That is to say, I was not impressed with their character. It's not so much that they are promiscuous, and yes, unmarried sexual behavior is sexual promiscuity, but that they now wish for their shamefulness to be subsidized.
Frankly, there are so many problems with this controversy and the arguments put up by Fluke that it is hard to know where to begin. So I'll dive in in no particular order.
1. Why are students having sex? The purpose of a university education does not include providing opportunity to indulge in that which one is not prepared to handle. And at such an institution as Georgetown, it seems most out of line. Fluke tried to make a lame point regarding the obvious fact that one attending a faith based institution should know of the expectations of that institution. She made some noise about such a place living its own creed by thinking of the student's entire well being, which I guess to her includes their possible indulgence in bad behavior. She apparently feels students, due to their legal ages, have a right to sex. This is not true.
2. Fluke makes the point regarding married students burdened by the cost of contraception. Boo-hoo. What is important here? Having sex or getting the sheepskin? Sacrificing to gain success in any endeavor is not a matter of picking and choosing what should be sacrificed, and then, deciding what one won't sacrifice, gain subsidies to cover the costs involved. It should be noted that there are cost efficient means of contraception, such as denying one's self for the purpose of not interfering with the achievement of the goals sought, as well as lowering the chances of pregnancy by employment of the rhythm method. I don't know what it costs to stock up on rubbers, but to have some on hand for those married couples who can only hold out so long can't be that much.
3. Ovarian cysts. The pill is not the only means of preventing and treating ovarian cysts. Fluke tried this argument as well, and while there is likely ways to have this dealt with on the side, such as possibly a rider on one's policy (just guessing here as I am not an insurance expert) that can be funded by the student or her family and not the institution, it is really just another case of using the rare exception to provide for all the more selfish, self-gratifying goals of achieving the goal of forcing the institution to cover this totally elective behavior. (That is, it is much like the argument for abortion by constantly referring to the few cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother, and then demanding that it be allowed for any reason whatsoever.) Proper nutrition and exercise can go a long way toward preventing this totally preventable situation.
And really, the case she cited is an incredibly cheap one. If the girl in question is a lesbian as Fluke says, then why go on with the whining about having a child? This goes further into the issue of forcing an institution to fund something that totally conflicts with its ideology and religious beliefs. First, the lesbianism, and then, a lesbian getting pregnant to provide a child for her and a grandchild for her parents. Sorry, but this is totally forcing a religious institution to act against its beliefs and is not constitutional.
4. Contraception as health care. Huh? How so? The purpose of health insurance, at least when it was invented, was to provide a means of pooling funds of a large population of premium payers so that the smaller percentage of that population that experiences a catastrophic illness or injury won't be wiped out financially. It is not meant to handle the expense of hangnail level injuries, common cold level of illness and definitely not the consequences of morally questionable lifestyles.
Talk about moral decline! First we have people preaching free love and now it is considered so necessary to sustain life that we must subsidize it by covering contraception?
5. Regardless of Fluke's attempts to muddy the waters with tales of married students' financial burdens and lesbians with cysts (I know. It's ain't just lesbians. Don't waste my time.), Rush's comments aren't inaccurate even if a bit crude. Unmarried women who engage in sex ARE sluts (I know. So are men. Don't waste my time.) Though the word has slightly alternative meanings, it has come to be commonly known as a woman who is promiscuous and that term fits any who have sex outside of marriage.
So as I said, there is so much wrong here. I could go even further and speak of sponsors who have left Rush's show or are considering it. From what I've been able to read in this short time, these sponsors left more out of pressure than a personal belief that Rush went too far. I'm not about to investigate each one, but I do feel compelled to apply opposite pressure with letters of my own. I would threaten to never patronize their business, and encourage others to ignore them as well, for their cowardice of caving to the wailings of morally corrupt people. This flies in the face of Parkie insisting that no one takes Rush seriously anymore. Apparently they do if they would allow a few sluts to threaten them if they continue to advertize during Rush's show.
Parkie often accuses me of "crying" about things posted here and there. THIS is "crying". A bunch of liberal jackwagons (H/T R. Lee Ermey) crying over Rush calling a loose woman a slut. To the Parkster, it is far worse to be called by the word attached to a behavior than to engage in the behavior known by the word used to describe it.
UPDATE...ALREADY!!!
It seems that Rush has apologized. Notice that he didn't say "if I offended anyone". He acknowledges the offense of his words and just straightforwardly apologizes. Libs take note how it's done.
So this Rush Limbaugh controversy was unknown to me. As I typically start my shift at 7PM, I don't ever hear his show these days, since it's long over when I wake up. But Parkie was kind enough to draw my attention to it.
Now, it should be known that I was already aware of Sandra Fluke's testimony, as I had read of it Wintery Knight's fine blog, which also gave a bit more background regarding Fluke.
I must admit, that after reading WK's piece, and watching the attendant video, that I had similar thoughts regarding her and students like her. That is to say, I was not impressed with their character. It's not so much that they are promiscuous, and yes, unmarried sexual behavior is sexual promiscuity, but that they now wish for their shamefulness to be subsidized.
Frankly, there are so many problems with this controversy and the arguments put up by Fluke that it is hard to know where to begin. So I'll dive in in no particular order.
1. Why are students having sex? The purpose of a university education does not include providing opportunity to indulge in that which one is not prepared to handle. And at such an institution as Georgetown, it seems most out of line. Fluke tried to make a lame point regarding the obvious fact that one attending a faith based institution should know of the expectations of that institution. She made some noise about such a place living its own creed by thinking of the student's entire well being, which I guess to her includes their possible indulgence in bad behavior. She apparently feels students, due to their legal ages, have a right to sex. This is not true.
2. Fluke makes the point regarding married students burdened by the cost of contraception. Boo-hoo. What is important here? Having sex or getting the sheepskin? Sacrificing to gain success in any endeavor is not a matter of picking and choosing what should be sacrificed, and then, deciding what one won't sacrifice, gain subsidies to cover the costs involved. It should be noted that there are cost efficient means of contraception, such as denying one's self for the purpose of not interfering with the achievement of the goals sought, as well as lowering the chances of pregnancy by employment of the rhythm method. I don't know what it costs to stock up on rubbers, but to have some on hand for those married couples who can only hold out so long can't be that much.
3. Ovarian cysts. The pill is not the only means of preventing and treating ovarian cysts. Fluke tried this argument as well, and while there is likely ways to have this dealt with on the side, such as possibly a rider on one's policy (just guessing here as I am not an insurance expert) that can be funded by the student or her family and not the institution, it is really just another case of using the rare exception to provide for all the more selfish, self-gratifying goals of achieving the goal of forcing the institution to cover this totally elective behavior. (That is, it is much like the argument for abortion by constantly referring to the few cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother, and then demanding that it be allowed for any reason whatsoever.) Proper nutrition and exercise can go a long way toward preventing this totally preventable situation.
And really, the case she cited is an incredibly cheap one. If the girl in question is a lesbian as Fluke says, then why go on with the whining about having a child? This goes further into the issue of forcing an institution to fund something that totally conflicts with its ideology and religious beliefs. First, the lesbianism, and then, a lesbian getting pregnant to provide a child for her and a grandchild for her parents. Sorry, but this is totally forcing a religious institution to act against its beliefs and is not constitutional.
4. Contraception as health care. Huh? How so? The purpose of health insurance, at least when it was invented, was to provide a means of pooling funds of a large population of premium payers so that the smaller percentage of that population that experiences a catastrophic illness or injury won't be wiped out financially. It is not meant to handle the expense of hangnail level injuries, common cold level of illness and definitely not the consequences of morally questionable lifestyles.
Talk about moral decline! First we have people preaching free love and now it is considered so necessary to sustain life that we must subsidize it by covering contraception?
5. Regardless of Fluke's attempts to muddy the waters with tales of married students' financial burdens and lesbians with cysts (I know. It's ain't just lesbians. Don't waste my time.), Rush's comments aren't inaccurate even if a bit crude. Unmarried women who engage in sex ARE sluts (I know. So are men. Don't waste my time.) Though the word has slightly alternative meanings, it has come to be commonly known as a woman who is promiscuous and that term fits any who have sex outside of marriage.
So as I said, there is so much wrong here. I could go even further and speak of sponsors who have left Rush's show or are considering it. From what I've been able to read in this short time, these sponsors left more out of pressure than a personal belief that Rush went too far. I'm not about to investigate each one, but I do feel compelled to apply opposite pressure with letters of my own. I would threaten to never patronize their business, and encourage others to ignore them as well, for their cowardice of caving to the wailings of morally corrupt people. This flies in the face of Parkie insisting that no one takes Rush seriously anymore. Apparently they do if they would allow a few sluts to threaten them if they continue to advertize during Rush's show.
Parkie often accuses me of "crying" about things posted here and there. THIS is "crying". A bunch of liberal jackwagons (H/T R. Lee Ermey) crying over Rush calling a loose woman a slut. To the Parkster, it is far worse to be called by the word attached to a behavior than to engage in the behavior known by the word used to describe it.
UPDATE...ALREADY!!!
It seems that Rush has apologized. Notice that he didn't say "if I offended anyone". He acknowledges the offense of his words and just straightforwardly apologizes. Libs take note how it's done.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Citing AT
It is not news to say that one of my favorite stops is AmericanThinker.com. I find it to be a wonderful source of conservative thought. My purpose in linking to an AT article, when I do, is generally two-fold.
First, the article articulates a point I wish to make, and why, I ask myself, should I go through the trouble of finding the words to say what is already well said by someone else? Then, all I have to do is add a bit more to further focus the point of offering it at all. After all, time is limited. The downside of doing this is that some of my liberal visitors seem to think it means that I have no thoughts of my own but rather allow AT to tell me what to think. This is the same as when such idiots say "Ditto heads" wait for marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. Pretty stupid.
Secondly, and more often than not, when I do choose to offer a link to an AT article, it is because the author cites other sources, usually gov't sources, to support the point he is trying to make. Unfortunately, most of the lib visitors don't understand how to use reality to form an opinion, so the value of doing this is lost on them.
I recently visited Geoff's blog and one of his extremely intelligent *cough* visitors made a typical condescending remark about AT (and World Net Daily) and AT readers. He and Geoffie had a big laugh because they just crack each other up like crazy. Oh! how silly we conservatives are!
AT isn't the only right-wing trove of treasures I follow. There is Townhall.com, HumanEvents.com, IntellectualConservative.com and many others, not to mention my subscription to National Review. Some of the writers appear in several of these mags and sites. In addition, I also listen to conservative talk radio on occasion, though not as much as I used to due to my job. Great minds think alike.
I don't have any regular lib sites or stations that I visit. As my time is limited, it is far too precious to waste on nonsense, though I read almost all of the links my liberal blog visitors and hosts provide, and I get my laughs that way. I guess the lefties think the way their lefty pundits tell them to think, right? More likely, weak minds think alike as well.
But the point of all this is that condescension I mentioned. I don't quite get it. I mean, I get that they don't like what they hear from the right wing, where truth and facts and logic reside, but to pretend as if it doesn't exist there is so incredibly common place. And that itself wouldn't be so bad if it could be argued in some manner.
Instead, all we get is the derision presented in a manner that suggests the reason for it should be plain to see. In other words, the right-wing pundit is wrong simply because a lefty blogger or blog visitor assumes it. No reason is given. If we on the right are the buffoons they wish we were, one would think such elevated personages would like to prove it somehow. But they don't.
One of the strangest bits is the mere mocking of AT as if it is simply the site of one or two dudes. I don't think any of the lefties realize just how many people contribute to that site. A look at the list of authors in the archive area reveals literally hundreds of contributors. Sure, not all of the contribute with great regularity. Some have their stuff presented quite often. But the hosts draw on the thoughts of many people.
But still, such things don't matter. The lefties will cite pundits of their own and expect that we be swayed as if their pundits have won the day merely by printing their opinions. "See? Glenn Greenwald says...!" and that's all we need to know. So I'll read what they've offered of Greenwald and then check further to see if Greenwald knows what the hell he's talking about.
But it seems the lefties don't have it in them to really discuss the other side like they say they do. One or more might say they once were conservative. Others will say they never were. But none of them will give a conservative opinion piece the time of day. Open-mindedness is only something about which they give lip service. True open-mindedness can't help but offer a counter opinion if an opinion in agreement isn't possible. It's no secret these lefties don't much care for conservative/right-wing opinion. It's a waste to say nothing more than how little they think about it. It's a given. How about some of that deep thinking and nuance we hear so much about instead?
First, the article articulates a point I wish to make, and why, I ask myself, should I go through the trouble of finding the words to say what is already well said by someone else? Then, all I have to do is add a bit more to further focus the point of offering it at all. After all, time is limited. The downside of doing this is that some of my liberal visitors seem to think it means that I have no thoughts of my own but rather allow AT to tell me what to think. This is the same as when such idiots say "Ditto heads" wait for marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. Pretty stupid.
Secondly, and more often than not, when I do choose to offer a link to an AT article, it is because the author cites other sources, usually gov't sources, to support the point he is trying to make. Unfortunately, most of the lib visitors don't understand how to use reality to form an opinion, so the value of doing this is lost on them.
I recently visited Geoff's blog and one of his extremely intelligent *cough* visitors made a typical condescending remark about AT (and World Net Daily) and AT readers. He and Geoffie had a big laugh because they just crack each other up like crazy. Oh! how silly we conservatives are!
AT isn't the only right-wing trove of treasures I follow. There is Townhall.com, HumanEvents.com, IntellectualConservative.com and many others, not to mention my subscription to National Review. Some of the writers appear in several of these mags and sites. In addition, I also listen to conservative talk radio on occasion, though not as much as I used to due to my job. Great minds think alike.
I don't have any regular lib sites or stations that I visit. As my time is limited, it is far too precious to waste on nonsense, though I read almost all of the links my liberal blog visitors and hosts provide, and I get my laughs that way. I guess the lefties think the way their lefty pundits tell them to think, right? More likely, weak minds think alike as well.
But the point of all this is that condescension I mentioned. I don't quite get it. I mean, I get that they don't like what they hear from the right wing, where truth and facts and logic reside, but to pretend as if it doesn't exist there is so incredibly common place. And that itself wouldn't be so bad if it could be argued in some manner.
Instead, all we get is the derision presented in a manner that suggests the reason for it should be plain to see. In other words, the right-wing pundit is wrong simply because a lefty blogger or blog visitor assumes it. No reason is given. If we on the right are the buffoons they wish we were, one would think such elevated personages would like to prove it somehow. But they don't.
One of the strangest bits is the mere mocking of AT as if it is simply the site of one or two dudes. I don't think any of the lefties realize just how many people contribute to that site. A look at the list of authors in the archive area reveals literally hundreds of contributors. Sure, not all of the contribute with great regularity. Some have their stuff presented quite often. But the hosts draw on the thoughts of many people.
But still, such things don't matter. The lefties will cite pundits of their own and expect that we be swayed as if their pundits have won the day merely by printing their opinions. "See? Glenn Greenwald says...!" and that's all we need to know. So I'll read what they've offered of Greenwald and then check further to see if Greenwald knows what the hell he's talking about.
But it seems the lefties don't have it in them to really discuss the other side like they say they do. One or more might say they once were conservative. Others will say they never were. But none of them will give a conservative opinion piece the time of day. Open-mindedness is only something about which they give lip service. True open-mindedness can't help but offer a counter opinion if an opinion in agreement isn't possible. It's no secret these lefties don't much care for conservative/right-wing opinion. It's a waste to say nothing more than how little they think about it. It's a given. How about some of that deep thinking and nuance we hear so much about instead?
Sunday, February 12, 2012
It's So Hard To Be Humble...
...when I'm perfect in every way.
I like to show off. I like to take the risk of failing to complete the tricky play, to make the instantaneous grab of hot shot screaming between 2nd and 3rd, to carry a difficult split when the money's on the table. I like to sing lead and be the guy in the middle of the stage. I like to wear the nice threads while walking with my beautiful wife. And you know why? Because it's damn funny.
Yeah. Funny. It cracks me up to pretend that I am that pro-athlete doing what so many pro-athletes do routinely as if so many others aren't equally capable, if not more so. It's funny to think that I have just made someone look stupid by doing what he obviously thought I was not able to do, and what even I wasn't sure I could do. Loads of fun. Showing off is a gas.
Does this imply incredible pride and conceit to you? Does this smack of some vile lack of humility? Who cares? All those grand stages of pick-up sports and bar bands are so incredibly insignificant diversions. Part of the fun is the IN YOUR FACE/DIG ME aspect of doing it.
But guess what. I have fun when I fail to impress. Just participating is what it's all about for me. I've sung where it seemed absolutely no one in the crowd gave a flyin' rat's ass that there was a live band even present. But I still got to sing. I've played a variety of sports where I've not made the big play, not logged that turkey in the final frame to win the game, and even taken shots from a fighter who was clearly superior and making ME look stupid. I've enjoyed every minute. It's just a gas.
That's been the bottom line. Just having a good time regardless of the outcome and being prepared to be shown up.
I was on a bowling team one year that was amongst my most enjoyable years bowling. Everyone on the team was capable of doing damage and we competed more against each other than we did as a team against others. We didn't even think of the other team as our money was wagered against each other and it was the most fun taking each others' money over taking the money in the league pots (though that was indeed a serious goal). And when you took the other dude's money, you mocked him mercilessly. We had a blast and if we didn't win it all that year (I don't think we did), we were definitely in contention.
Humble wasn't a factor. Didn't need to be. Our averages were posted and it was clear who the best was.
Humble. Humility.
The subject of humility comes up a lot around here and was the subject of a blog post not too long ago. It is apparently considered by some to be lacking in humility to be confident in what one knows about Scripture. The line is that we are fallible and capable of being wrong on anything. While this is true, we being imperfect beings and all, it simply does not mean that we can't be totally right on specific things, especially if those things are directly revealed.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."
Pretty clear that. Can I not be confident and convicted in the knowledge that adultery is always sinful and not to be practiced? Is there any way in which I might be understanding this commandment improperly? I can't think of any, can you? So, knowing what the term "adultery" means, and knowing that it is clearly prohibited, am I acting in a manner lacking in humility to insist the behavior is sinful? Am I speaking for God?
Well, as a bit of a sidebar, any expression of what Scripture teaches us to another is to be speaking for God. So what? It is suggested by some (or one in particular) that to insist that one is confident in what Scripture teaches is to somehow speak as if one IS God, or equal to Him to the extent that one's "understanding" is equal to His Will. Again. So what? Are we not supposed to reflect His Teachings and His Will in the manner in which we live our lives?
The pitch is that what one person believes to be the Will of God might be different than the understanding of another person. Still once more, so what? This only means that one of the two is wrong or at least that one of the two is further from the truth than the other. But if both believe and are convicted in his belief, is it prideful to state the case as such? Does one lack humility in preaching what one believes to be the truth?
No. Not that I don't think so, but that my answer is "NO" in no uncertain terms. Stating that 2+2=4 and refusing to accept any alternative possibility is NOT a sign that one lacks humility. To state at the same time that the other guy who believes it isn't always the case is more than just wrong is also not a sign that one lacks humility. What it does show is two possibilities:
1. The one stating the fact cares enough about the wrong person to encourage a change of opinion.
2. The one stating the fact cares enough about anyone in the sphere of the wrong person's influence to continue to speak out against the fallacy the wrong person insists on preaching.
(There's also a third, that the one stating the fact thinks the other guy is a complete idiot or liar or both.)
Neither (and even the third) indicate a lack of humility on the part of the person defending the fact. Not in the least.
Indeed, to submit to God's authority and His mandates as clearly revealed in Scripture is a sign of humility of the type Jesus modeled for us. He was totally subservient to His Will. He was not acting pridefully when He cast out the money changers. He was not acting pridefully when he accused the Pharisees of being hypocrites and vipers. He was not being false or prideful when He taught that we be humble, like He is. In that sense, defending God's Will is not lacking in humility at all, but being humble in the manner that Jesus modeled in that we are exposing ourselves to heat from those who disagree with us for His sake. Our "suffering" at taking that heat is to put God before our own comfort.
"Agree to disagree" is not humility. It is milquetoast. I do not dismiss the possibility that I might have some notions of Biblical understanding wrong. Of course I can be wrong. But only when I am so proven to be. To "agree to disagree" gives tacit permission for the other person to carry on as if that person was not wrong. Why would any sane person agree to that? "Oh yeah. Let's agree to disagree. You go ahead and believe setting yourself on fire won't hurt." Am I serving that person to agree to allow such a destructive belief to go unchallenged? Is that humility, or cowardice?
Another person in the same discussion brought up this weird crap about learning new things that open him up to a better understanding of God. This after a post that mentions 1 Cor 13:12, as if a perfect understanding of God Himself is the point. I am already quite humble before the Lord. I could not be more unworthy of His Love. How much more need I know to make this more true? How much would it make a difference to know exactly how unworthy I am? He is Everything. I am nothing. There's not a whole lot more one needs to know.
Yet though His exact nature is unknowable to a living person, though His exact ways and thoughts are beyond us, He did not leave us with no clear understanding of how we are to live on this earth. He did not leave us without any "clues" as to what constitutes righteous behavior and what is sinful. What we need to know is crystal.
In that discussion, to get to a more clear explanation of a convoluted point being made, I offered this: "I saw a chair today and realized how little I understand God." It was an attempt to get this dude to explain his earlier comments that were no clearer than this. He went on to talk about how just seeing the chair from one angle doesn't tell us all we can know about the chair. Seeing it from the other side tells us something different, but then we cannot see the first view anymore, and, we cannot tell how comfortable it might be or if it can support our weight. He is humbled by such lack of knowledge apparently. I would simply sit in the damned chair. Even without doing so, I still know that it is indeed a chair and it is made for sitting.
In any case, that part of the discussion did not provide anything useful except to allow him to wax poetic (he hates when I say this) about that which did not enlighten in the least. I sought the connection between his "examples" and how they humble him more than merely acknowledging the vast chasm between who we are and who He is. But it has something very much in common with the poster and his thoughts on "humility". Both serve to dismiss what is clearly revealed for whatever reasons they wish to preserve and before which they insist on humbling themselves.
I like to show off. I like to take the risk of failing to complete the tricky play, to make the instantaneous grab of hot shot screaming between 2nd and 3rd, to carry a difficult split when the money's on the table. I like to sing lead and be the guy in the middle of the stage. I like to wear the nice threads while walking with my beautiful wife. And you know why? Because it's damn funny.
Yeah. Funny. It cracks me up to pretend that I am that pro-athlete doing what so many pro-athletes do routinely as if so many others aren't equally capable, if not more so. It's funny to think that I have just made someone look stupid by doing what he obviously thought I was not able to do, and what even I wasn't sure I could do. Loads of fun. Showing off is a gas.
Does this imply incredible pride and conceit to you? Does this smack of some vile lack of humility? Who cares? All those grand stages of pick-up sports and bar bands are so incredibly insignificant diversions. Part of the fun is the IN YOUR FACE/DIG ME aspect of doing it.
But guess what. I have fun when I fail to impress. Just participating is what it's all about for me. I've sung where it seemed absolutely no one in the crowd gave a flyin' rat's ass that there was a live band even present. But I still got to sing. I've played a variety of sports where I've not made the big play, not logged that turkey in the final frame to win the game, and even taken shots from a fighter who was clearly superior and making ME look stupid. I've enjoyed every minute. It's just a gas.
That's been the bottom line. Just having a good time regardless of the outcome and being prepared to be shown up.
I was on a bowling team one year that was amongst my most enjoyable years bowling. Everyone on the team was capable of doing damage and we competed more against each other than we did as a team against others. We didn't even think of the other team as our money was wagered against each other and it was the most fun taking each others' money over taking the money in the league pots (though that was indeed a serious goal). And when you took the other dude's money, you mocked him mercilessly. We had a blast and if we didn't win it all that year (I don't think we did), we were definitely in contention.
Humble wasn't a factor. Didn't need to be. Our averages were posted and it was clear who the best was.
Humble. Humility.
The subject of humility comes up a lot around here and was the subject of a blog post not too long ago. It is apparently considered by some to be lacking in humility to be confident in what one knows about Scripture. The line is that we are fallible and capable of being wrong on anything. While this is true, we being imperfect beings and all, it simply does not mean that we can't be totally right on specific things, especially if those things are directly revealed.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."
Pretty clear that. Can I not be confident and convicted in the knowledge that adultery is always sinful and not to be practiced? Is there any way in which I might be understanding this commandment improperly? I can't think of any, can you? So, knowing what the term "adultery" means, and knowing that it is clearly prohibited, am I acting in a manner lacking in humility to insist the behavior is sinful? Am I speaking for God?
Well, as a bit of a sidebar, any expression of what Scripture teaches us to another is to be speaking for God. So what? It is suggested by some (or one in particular) that to insist that one is confident in what Scripture teaches is to somehow speak as if one IS God, or equal to Him to the extent that one's "understanding" is equal to His Will. Again. So what? Are we not supposed to reflect His Teachings and His Will in the manner in which we live our lives?
The pitch is that what one person believes to be the Will of God might be different than the understanding of another person. Still once more, so what? This only means that one of the two is wrong or at least that one of the two is further from the truth than the other. But if both believe and are convicted in his belief, is it prideful to state the case as such? Does one lack humility in preaching what one believes to be the truth?
No. Not that I don't think so, but that my answer is "NO" in no uncertain terms. Stating that 2+2=4 and refusing to accept any alternative possibility is NOT a sign that one lacks humility. To state at the same time that the other guy who believes it isn't always the case is more than just wrong is also not a sign that one lacks humility. What it does show is two possibilities:
1. The one stating the fact cares enough about the wrong person to encourage a change of opinion.
2. The one stating the fact cares enough about anyone in the sphere of the wrong person's influence to continue to speak out against the fallacy the wrong person insists on preaching.
(There's also a third, that the one stating the fact thinks the other guy is a complete idiot or liar or both.)
Neither (and even the third) indicate a lack of humility on the part of the person defending the fact. Not in the least.
Indeed, to submit to God's authority and His mandates as clearly revealed in Scripture is a sign of humility of the type Jesus modeled for us. He was totally subservient to His Will. He was not acting pridefully when He cast out the money changers. He was not acting pridefully when he accused the Pharisees of being hypocrites and vipers. He was not being false or prideful when He taught that we be humble, like He is. In that sense, defending God's Will is not lacking in humility at all, but being humble in the manner that Jesus modeled in that we are exposing ourselves to heat from those who disagree with us for His sake. Our "suffering" at taking that heat is to put God before our own comfort.
"Agree to disagree" is not humility. It is milquetoast. I do not dismiss the possibility that I might have some notions of Biblical understanding wrong. Of course I can be wrong. But only when I am so proven to be. To "agree to disagree" gives tacit permission for the other person to carry on as if that person was not wrong. Why would any sane person agree to that? "Oh yeah. Let's agree to disagree. You go ahead and believe setting yourself on fire won't hurt." Am I serving that person to agree to allow such a destructive belief to go unchallenged? Is that humility, or cowardice?
Another person in the same discussion brought up this weird crap about learning new things that open him up to a better understanding of God. This after a post that mentions 1 Cor 13:12, as if a perfect understanding of God Himself is the point. I am already quite humble before the Lord. I could not be more unworthy of His Love. How much more need I know to make this more true? How much would it make a difference to know exactly how unworthy I am? He is Everything. I am nothing. There's not a whole lot more one needs to know.
Yet though His exact nature is unknowable to a living person, though His exact ways and thoughts are beyond us, He did not leave us with no clear understanding of how we are to live on this earth. He did not leave us without any "clues" as to what constitutes righteous behavior and what is sinful. What we need to know is crystal.
In that discussion, to get to a more clear explanation of a convoluted point being made, I offered this: "I saw a chair today and realized how little I understand God." It was an attempt to get this dude to explain his earlier comments that were no clearer than this. He went on to talk about how just seeing the chair from one angle doesn't tell us all we can know about the chair. Seeing it from the other side tells us something different, but then we cannot see the first view anymore, and, we cannot tell how comfortable it might be or if it can support our weight. He is humbled by such lack of knowledge apparently. I would simply sit in the damned chair. Even without doing so, I still know that it is indeed a chair and it is made for sitting.
In any case, that part of the discussion did not provide anything useful except to allow him to wax poetic (he hates when I say this) about that which did not enlighten in the least. I sought the connection between his "examples" and how they humble him more than merely acknowledging the vast chasm between who we are and who He is. But it has something very much in common with the poster and his thoughts on "humility". Both serve to dismiss what is clearly revealed for whatever reasons they wish to preserve and before which they insist on humbling themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)