Not What We've Been Led to Believe

I came across this article and found it disturbing.  Who were these subjects studied for this research?  Were they only black Republicans?  Because as we're told so often after all, Repubs are the bigots and racists.

Or perhaps, as we saw in the last post, Dan and feo will offer some lame reasoning that suggests these blacks are incapable of seeing whites as anything other than adversaries, and thus are justified for maintaining "the code".

One thing's for sure.  We will never attain true racial harmony.  It's just not possible.  Far too many people are hung up on skin color and ethnicity.  If studies like this one yield this type of understanding, what hope can we have?  I had no idea that black people felt this way about other blacks who are too friendly with white people, especially given how we are told only white people can be racist.

I have to admit, that I did not access the actual study itself.  It required a subscription or cost for the single study, neither of which I feel like purchasing.  And the Examiner indicates two numbers that seem to conflict, regarding how many people were studied.  I'm guessing the bigger number relates to the total amount of subjects, and the lesser number refers to the total number of blacks, or black who have the issue.

As anyone who has visited this blog knows, I don't give much credence to studies with a sampling of so few.  But just the idea that ANYONE would alter their perception of one of their race simply for developing a real relationship with someone of another race demonstrates a real problem in that "anyone".  I know we often see films of white racists acting that way, but that's film and often those films are made by liberals who lack a clue.  And I have always had a real problem believing that the races are so different that we couldn't find examples of any attitude as common in one race as any other.  This study lends validity to that belief, except that it shows an attitude more prevalent among blacks.

It ain't a good attitude for any race.  Especially the human one.

WARNING!!! IRONY ALERT!!!

What kind of person votes for idiots like this?  How info free do people have to be to still believe this is the type of person that would best represent them?  Is it any wonder race relations in this country is so bad?  Is it any wonder why there is such division between the left and right when Dems so easily stoop so low?  How does this buffoon back up such a characterization of his opponents?  Shame on anyone who would cast a vote for this idiot.

Term Limits: Bad Idea

Former US Congressman Joe Walsh talks about it often.  Glenn Beck is a proponent.  Illinois gubernatorial hopeful, Bruce Rauner inundates us with radio commercials with it as its main theme.  Many agree with these men about it.  What is it?  Term limits.

 

It is often brought up that a founding father, Jefferson I believe, though it doesn’t really matter, expressed a vision of citizen politicians going to serve in the Congress for a term and then go home to live under the laws they helped craft.  This little bit of trivia is spoken of as if term limits was an intent of the founders.  I don’t know.  I don’t think so, as there is nothing mentioning being forced out of office, while the desire to serve, and the public’s desire to see a politician’s service continue, might exist.

And that’s all that really matters, isn’t it?  That is, the public’s right to choose its representatives is exactly what it means, under our form of government, to be self-governed.

I found http://restartcongress.org/revolution/arguments-for-term-limits/">a site

that seeks to justify the call for term limits.  It begins with several points put forth to argue for term limits, and follows up with objections to term limits, each with reasons the objections supposedly don’t work.

Right from the start, we can see that the arguments in favor do not ring true.  That is to say, that the problems term limits are thought to correct are not truly corrected.  Look at the first:

”With term limits in place, Congress will be more responsible toward their constituents because they will soon be constituents themselves. They will have to live under the laws they have created while in office.”

There is no one in Congress who isn’t already supposed to be living under the laws they have created.  If they are not doing so now, how will term limits change that?  I’m not certain, but aren’t they still citizens while also legislators?  Are they somehow exempt while they are legislators from the laws they create?  If so, I have to admit that I was totally unaware that politicians are above the law.  If not, then we, as voters, should be paying attention and voting out those who think they are.  Let’s look at another:

”Members of Congress will have less time in office to develop financially beneficial commitments to lobbyists and other special interest groups, thereby undermining the threat of lobbyists being a primary influence on legislation.”

No member of Congress should be beholden to anyone but their constituents, the people they were sent to Congress to represent.  No lobbyist should have undue influence on our representatives and cannot have that influence without the representative granting that power to the lobbyist.  If a member of Congress is acting based upon lobbyist influence, it should only be on the merits of the lobbyist’s proposals, assuming the proposals are in the best interests of the people the Congressman represents.  The point above assumes lobbyist influence is always a negative for the people a Congressman represents.  But not all lobbyists are crooked or nefarious.  A lobbyist merely represents a group with shared interests and sometimes those interests are of benefit to all the Congressman represents.  The question is whether or not the lobbyist represents an interest of general benefit to the people on the one side, and that the Congressman will not act without his constituency being properly served by the proposal of the lobbyist.  Should a Congressman be found to legislate in a manner that serves the lobbyist (and the people he represents) at the cost of the Congressman’s constituents, the people should vote him out, if not have him prosecuted.  Term limits will not prevent self-serving Congressman from allowing themselves to be unduly influenced by lobbyists who do not have the people’s best interest in mind. 

In every case of the arguments in favor of term limits, the better remedy is a concerned electorate.  Term limits will not stop any of the concerns it hopes to mitigate from happening. 

At this point, I want to look at how this site deals with objections to term limits by using one example.  First the objection:

”Term limits are not necessary because members of Congress must be regularly re-elected. If they are not doing a good job in office, we can simply vote for someone else.”

The response to this objection suggests that money is the key reason incumbents win re-election.  It is not.  The problem is still the voters.  If an incumbent is not performing and still wins re-election, as did Barack Obama, it is because of an electorate that will not stay informed about how a politician is doing his job.  Voter ignorance and apathy is the most important reason why all the ills term limits are meant to address exist in the first place.  Very little will change by merely limiting the number of terms anyone can serve in a given office.  When a bum is termed out, the same ignorant group of people will vote for the next bum the party puts forth to replace him.  That is to say, if the majority of voters vote Democrat, for example, they won’t necessarily vote for the Republican next time around no matter how crooked the first guy was found to be.  They’ll just assume the next Democrat will not be that crooked and vote Democrat again.  Term limits solve nothing.  Only an engaged and informed electorate can do that. 

Agenda Lies 8: A Dialogue---Such As It Is

The dialogue in this Dan Trabue thread is not so much an example of an Agenda Lie as it is a defense of it.  It begins with his New Year's Resolution for his blog pertaining to how he intends to act in discussions where opinion and fact might be confused.  He claims too many of his opponents don't know the difference and often put forth opinion as if it were fact.  My initial response is that he has claimed for himself the ultimate authority to decide what is fact and what is opinion and in a very subjective and self-serving way.

From there, he tries to insist that I present my definitions for both, and I respond that I am certain we both know the difference well enough, but that I don't have any confidence that he will rule according to those definitions.  I felt it more appropriate that he simply get down to arguing why what was stated as a fact in not in fact...a fact.  Otherwise, without doing so, what he is really doing is merely stating his opinion about what is a fact or an opinion.  You can see where the trouble is.

Anyhow, as he uses an example in his post that refers to religious argument, I decide to use this opportunity to once again explore Lev 18:22 to hopefully force him to face certain realities, or to provide, finally after all these years, an actual argument based on Scriptural evidence (primarily) and then perhaps scholarly interpretations that haven't been refuted or contradicted by other scholars.  One would expect that at some point, each argument runs into a barrier of logic and fact against which the other side cannot return volley.  I believe it is clear that has already happened in this debate, and that the only reason it rages on (where proponents of the Agenda That Doesn't Exist do not bolt the debate for lack of legitimate argument) is due to the unwillingness of people like Dan to truly respond to the points raised about the Scriptural prohibition.

If you've a mind to do so, check it out and see what you think.  I know some of you have no desire to spend/waste your time at Dan's blog, so you can post comments here if you feel so moved.  But I think you'll see a clear example of Dan's fancy two-stepping as I try to get him to answer a few simple questions.  Kinda humorous, really.

So Good I Had To Steal & Repost Here

from an email received today:

During the 3-1/2 years of World War 2 that started with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and ended with the Surrender of Germany and Japan in 1945, the U.S. produced 22 aircraft carriers, 8 battleships, 48 cruisers, 349 destroyers, 420 destroyer escorts, 203 submarines, 34 million tons of merchant ships, 100,000 fighter aircraft, 98,000 bombers, 24,000 transport aircraft, 58,000 training aircraft, 93,000 tanks, 257,000 artillery pieces, 105,000 mortars, 3,000,000 machine guns, and 2,500,000 military trucks.

We put 16.1 million men in uniform in the various armed services, invaded Africa, invaded Sicily and Italy, won the battle for the Atlantic, planned and executed D-Day, marched across the Pacific and Europe, developed the atomic bomb and ultimately conquered Japan and Germany.

It's worth noting, that during the almost exact amount of time, the Obama administration couldn't build a functioning web site.

Exploiting Tragedy

With the anniversary of the Sandy Hook tragedy having just passed, there have been various commemorations.  And of course, there have been various other mentions that have been designed to exploit the tragedy in one way or another.  In a recent monologue on his local radio show, former Congressman Joe Walsh railed against the exploitation of the event by leftists, who wish to remind everyone of the event in order to compel them to support more gun control legislation.   He found it to be wholly inappropriate to do so and suggested that gun rights advocates would not only be lambasted by the left for exploiting Sandy Hook in the opposite manner, but would be equally wrong-headed for exploiting the situation regardless of leftist outrage, which is usually for show anyway.

I have to disagree with Walsh.  Exploiting events in order to promote legislation is not only appropriate, but is sound strategy for getting legislation supported and passed.  I mean, how else can it be done?  I don't believe it is possible.  Can anyone support any legislation without considering the consequences of not passing it?  What will happen if we don't?  What could happen if we do?  In these considerations, how can the discussion not call to mind such things?  More to the point, as regards a Sandy Hook tragedy, how can we not think of those kids and their teachers when debates regarding gun-control rage?

I say we cannot, and do not.  Why pass gun laws?  Proponents rightly (in their minds) wish to prevent another Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc.  Why else?  Just for grins?  As ridiculous a notion as it is that more laws prevent such things, they claim a firm belief that such laws lead to more safety.  Thus, to recall such tragedies makes sense.  The word "exploit" provokes a negative vibe, but exploitation of one consequence in order to garner support for that which is believed will prevent a recurrence is absolutely justified.  Walsh would remind us of Rahm Emanuel's infamous line, "Never let a crisis go to waste."  While Emanuel would not waste any opportunity to push bad policy, in reality he does what any politician would do.

Thus, we on the rational side of the gun debate see the events of the above listed tragedies as reasons for gun possession.  We exploit these situations, and should, to demonstrate the tragic consequences of an unarmed populace.  These incidents are manifestations of the downside for ignoring the intent of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.  We need to remind our fellow Americans that these possibilities exist more strongly wherever the law abiding are prohibited from possessing weapons for protection.

What's more, we have the advantage of having numerous examples of how these events could have been prevented.  John Barron refers to the latest example here.  Not long ago I linked to an Ann Coulter article that listed half a dozen more.  These, too, need to be exploited and exploited often.  The possibility of returned fire always has a profound deterrent effect on the intentions of any who would bring violence down upon the unsuspecting.

We need to remember these events so as to stimulate effective policies for the prevention of future events.  We need to remember the sorrow and horror to compel us to act in the most appropriate manner.  Joe Walsh is wrong to focus on the exploitation of a tragedy like Sandy Hook.  The real focus should be on the intention of the exploitation.  Exploiting Sandy Hook in order to pass more laws that make another Sandy Hook possible is what should have provoked Joe's outrage.  Exploiting Sandy Hook in order to eliminate such laws, thereby preventing more Sandy Hooks is a good thing.

Sweet "OR" Sour?

Ford is currently running a series of commercials for one of their new automobiles.  I don’t recall which one, but I believe it’s one of those newfangled hybrid cars.  They all revolve around this concept of “and” is better than “or”.  For example, they have a couple driving one of the cars discussing the car providing, I believe, power AND fuel economy.  One says to the other, “That’s better than power OR fuel economy.”  From that point, each version of the commercial imagines an example of “OR”, such as “sweet OR sour pork”, “bed OR breakfast”, “nuts OR bolts”, etc.  The conclusion is that “I like ‘AND’ better.”

In the book “Wyatt Earp: The Life Behind The Legend”, author Casey Tefertiller brings up this “choice” in relating the story of Earp after the murder of his brother Morgan. 

 

The book, which I stumbled upon whilst looking for something else at the local Barnes and Noble, paints Earp and his brothers as flawed, but generally noble men of honor, justice and character.  The author researched everything he could find regarding Earp, pouring over newspaper articles, interviews with people who knew him and court records from trials in order to determine what was and wasn’t true about the legend of this man. 

 

Overall, he seemed like a great guy and despite the fact that I’ve always found the Doc Holiday character far more entertaining and interesting in all the various films of that period, in reality I believe I would much prefer to have developed a friendship with Wyatt Earp.  In the early days of Hollywood, studios were keen on depicting “the Old West” and would invite people who lived those times to consult and act as extras.  Wyatt, who by this time was living in California, would visit sets to chat up some of the people he knew from those days as well as sometimes consult himself.  These men would sit around and reminisce about the old days and actors and crewmen would often listen in.  (Imagine that!)  Amongst those actors was a young John Wayne who was mightily impressed with Earp and the stories the others would tell about him.  He based almost all of his western characters on what he learned about Earp.  Wayne told Hugh O’Brien, who played Earp on TV, that he was playing Earp in each of those westerns he made, trying to capture and present the man’s highly regarded character, and that O'Brien, too, was capturing the essence of the man in his own depiction.

Most of the mining towns, Tombstone included, were wild but trying to grow into legitimate communities, with businessmen of all sorts hoping to find success.  They often were policed by various levels of law enforcement, each with their own jurisdictional duties, but often overlapping.  They also had issues with “cowboys”, a term not necessarily respected at the time, as they were not necessarily of the Roy Rogers quality.  The cowboys had their value as militia type persons who would gather to fight off Indian attacks, but were also mostly rustlers, robbers and all around troublemakers who made the towns’ business people both money and worried.  They made the towns too wild for new investors to risk their money. 

 

These towns also had newspapers and politics.  “Fair and balanced” was not common amongst the newspapers.  They swung one way or the other with some clearly being Republican papers and the others Democrat supporters.  At the time in Tombstone, the Democrat papers leaned toward the cowboys and the cattlemen who profited by their rustling.  Other businesses, such as saloons, casinos and whorehouses also tended to support the cowboys since they blew their pay in their establishments. 

The Republican leaning papers supported people like the Earps, who proved themselves regularly to be fair in their duties as lawmen and got the job done, far more often than not without the use of their guns. (Indeed, Earp wasn’t known for shooting people in order to be an effective lawman and was praised and greatly respected for this by many.)

Now here is where we got to the “And/Or” conundrum.  Due to the profit potential of having rustled cattle provided by the cowboys, it did not help to have any of these guys jailed instead of “working” (many cowboys were in the direct employ of some ranchers—but I was speaking of their less than legal means of income acquisition).  These people would use the letter of the law to keep these guys out of jail, and one pretty much had to be caught red-handed to be convicted.

On the other side, the businesses and people working for growth in the community were heavily invested in order.  To maintain a reputation as a wild and lawless town was not conducive to growth.  Wyatt Earp came to realize, particularly after the shooting of brother Virgil and the murder of brother Morgan, that justice was not easily had while law AND order were not absolutely tied together.  It was only after these crimes that Earp took the law into his own hands and began dispensing “frontier justice”, tracking down those he knew were responsible for the shootings, and making any further possibility of crime at the hands of the perpetrators a moot issue.  It became an issue of either law OR order.  Order was seen by Earp and others as paramount for not only growth of the community, but its safety as well.  Law would take a back seat.  For the cowboys and their supporters, it was reversed (assuming they cared about the law at all beyond how they could abuse it).

So Wyatt went about with his vendetta and found the justice, and vengeance, he sought.  The result was the bad guys acting far more covertly if they acted at all in a criminal manner. Justice AND order were had.

While reading of this story and the distance between law and order, I could not help but think of problems we face in the here and now.  We have our cowboys today.  They are called “gangbangers”, “bikers” and other forms of organized crime.  The worst of these groups, as well as many of the underlings, are known well to law enforcement groups of every level.  The law often works against the desire for justice and order.  People live in fear in their own homes and communities while the lawless move about without fear of prosecution unless they are caught with the smoking gun in their hands.  It makes me wish for a man like Earp, honorable and courageous, but fed up with the ramifications of laws that do more to protect the guilty rather than the innocent.  Some would object saying it isn’t how a Christian nation of laws should work.  Some would say we’d be using evil to fight evil.  Nonsense.  If the worst of the worst are done away with, fewer would have the courage to fill the void.  More people would be willing to do their parts as citizens to report crime and testify against criminals.  It would embolden the law-abiding and discourage the law-breakers.  Until then, we must live out a law OR order existence.