JESUS IN THE MORNING

This morning was just like every other morning.

The kids have their routine down to a relative science and don’t require a whole lot of intervention.  This allows me to watch the news or peruse the internet or check out what my FBF’s are saying and thinking.  (i really should be more interactive with them at this time and intentional about influencing their spirits for a day in the world, but that’s another post for another day) 

Occasionally - and usually – the normal sounds of business are interrupted by a squeal or howl indicating a dash of chaos has broken the peace.   This morning it was my 8 year old being scratched by my 11 year old.  

Now i’m one of those parents who assumes that no one is innocent.   It’s a philosophy which stems from a Biblical view of human nature that i’ve found serves family dynamics quite well.   What ensued was a conversation – inquisition actually- which involved me asking each daughter alternately, “…and what did you do to cause that?”

At the very end something struck me and i pulled the word “jingoistic”  out of a dark recess of my brain.  (i’m not sure that helped but, after all, it was a teaching moment.)  

My 11 year old has all the power.

i reminded her that “to whom much is given, much is expected”.   It’s her mandate to be responsible for adding to the peace instead of the chaos.   Granted she’s only 11, but that’s the lesson.   The key to obliterating enmity is ”whenever possible, and as much as it depends upon you, live at peace with your neighbor”.  Unfortunately, that requires the party with the power to “consider not only their own affairs, but the affairs of others; and in doing so also consider others better than yourself”.

It’s against our nature.

So i asked her, “why didn’t Jesus just kill all his enemies?”

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

i think there are two types of people, maybe three:

There are those who are certain of what they know and in what they believe, but are careful – sometimes too careful – to hold their opinions close to the vest out of fear. Their highest motivation is survival.

And there are those who harbor great uncertainty and mask their insecurity with boisterous attitudes and bold certitude. They are driven by the angst of humiliation.

Then there are the few who possess confidence in the truths they hold dear and are compelled to teach and to share at great risk from the former.

POWER

You want to see power?

Try this. 

Say the name “Jesus” anytime, anyplace to anyone and see how people react.

Try it with your closest friend.

With a stranger.

In a crowd.

Just speak it aloud when you’re alone.

Can you?

Will you?

What power it has over you.

STICKY BUSINESS

Alright, so we’re currently socialized sufficiently to recognize that racism is a bad thing. Few would argue that.

i’m having a little trouble though trying to discern just what racism is these days. To say nothing of the cottage industry which has sprung up from the Civil Rights movement of the fifties and sixties that’s extorted millions of dollars of protection money from private citizens to protect them from “racist” branding, there’s a rational dialogue and some reasonable questions in which we ought to engage regardless of our fears.

Yesterday and for the next forseeable news cycle a story about a Justice of the Peace in Louisiana refusing to marry an inter-racial couple is going to be the latest fuel to feed the fires of race tensions in America. The man has rightfully been stripped of his postition and title, but i’m wondering a couple of things:

Is believing that a people ought to be more intentional about marrying and having children within their race, culture, and religion a reasonable position to hold?

Do people of other races – other than caucasion – have similar reservations as does this JOP?

Should the government be in the marriage business at all?

UNRESERVED STUPID

i admit: it doesn’t take much for me to get testy.

Mostly it’s closed minded stupidity that gets me riled up. That, and hypocrisy.

i also admit: i LOVE football! But today and for the foreseeable future i’m going to watch my beloved Patriots with a bitter taste in my mouth, and with renewed partisan rivalry for the Colts because of their idiot owner.

If you haven’t heard, the NFL owners and commissioner are blocking a bid by Rush Limbaugh to buy the St. Louis Rams because he’s “divisive”. Evidently they got the memo that stated there are certain unforgivable crimes – real or imagined – that exclude people from participating in the NFL gravy train.

None of those include murder, dog fighting and animal torture, spouse/girlfriend abuse, illegal/illicit drug use, tax fraud, or running a valued franchise into the ground because of incompetence.

Rush’s only crime is calling it like he sees it and being seriously correct in his observations. The fact that people don’t particularly care to have light shed on their foibles has earned him the ire and hatred of Leftist, “altruistic” types who resent having their motives questioned.

A racist he is not.

POLITICS OF THE ABSURD

Let’s get something straight: it’s always been a good idea to allow a sitting governor to appoint an interim legislator. Here in MA there’s been a rigorous hullabalou about giving that power and responsibility back to the governor. On the surface it appears as though it’s much ado about nothing. But a closer look offers a rare, clear insight into the machinery of broken political culture.

Five years ago – when MA had a governor of a different Party persuasion – the threat of an empty Senate seat vacated by prospective President Elect John Kerry was considered insufficient cause to warrant an interim successor.  However, it was sufficient motivation for the state legislature to strip the sitting governor of his appointing power and install a Special Election proccess . Or was it?

There wasn’t a person on the planet…strike that, there wasn’t an HONEST person on the planet who would have suggested that supplanting the Power of Appointment Priviledge with a Special Election proccess was anything but a political ploy to preserve the delicate balance of Party influence in the U.S. Senate. It was an insult to the MA electorate to suggest they would be ill-served by the Executive Office representative installed by popular vote. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

Enter today. The law has been changed again, not because the MA legislature has seen the error of its ways, but because they’re confident that the people have made an “appropriate” choice of political representation in the governor’s seat.

Additionally, someone suggested this morning that those who voted for keeping the interim appointment power in place in 2004, who have now voted against it, are the real hypocrits motivated solely by politics. As if trying to hold leaders accountable for their decisions and the rationale behind them is a bad thing. Someone has to at least try to do it even if it’s at the expense of being consistent.

i swear i’m going to tear my hair out!

THE TROUBLE WITH SOCIALISM II

George Bernard Shaw once said this:

“A government that takes from Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul”

i suppose this is true in whatever circumstance. It doesn’t have to be a government. It could be a parent or a teacher, but it must always be a third party with authority over Peter. If you’re like me, you’re probably tempted to empathize or sympathize with either Peter or Paul because you’re driven by some deeply held principle of justice. If we look a little closer at the machinery though, its insideous trap is that the conflict is about neither of these men.

The party with the authority to instigate, facilitate, and perpetuate the conflict between Pete and Paul is the real winner.   Because we’re using names, i think it best to call the third party, Mike.   Mike is uniquely self-interested as long as he’s human and motivated at least by self-preservation.   And think about this: in the senario whereby a third party finds its worth in choosing sides is no arbiter, but an advocate.   In the case of Peter and Paul this third party’s (Mike) goal is to first redress the situation as Peter V. Paul, pick a pugilist, and knock out the opposition.

That’s not much of a fair fight. Especially since Mike (as the government) has a gun.

(We’ll get back to that  reality a little later even though it’s probably the most important point.)

The issue at hand that makes it especially noteworthy that Mike has a gun is that Mike is also Paul.    Let me explain…

The governement is a consumer.    In the best of circumstances it is rarely a good investor and only by accident.    It doesn’t invest in markets but in visions and ideologies, and it does this by spending – other people’s money.   A government has no money to spend save for that which it gleans from it’s people/producers or by minting it.   When it’s acting responsibly and ontologically (according to its nature) it carefully motivates its producers to do what they do by their nature.    A government which excessively interferes with that process will gum up the works and suppress the will and nature of its greatest asset (the people).   This is what we have going on right now.

We can argue in another post about motive, details and specific actions.   The salient point in the present moving toward the future is that OUR government is taking action that will further suppress the producers of this country.   It is doing so by becoming the largest consumer of goods, services,  and commodities to supply the basic needs of its people.   And to make matters worse, it’s doing so by propping up market failures and rewarding cheaters in an effort to cover up its own market tampering.    This tampering has been going on for some time by fomenting an otherwise healthy relationship between Peter and Paul into an artificial conflict.   Most recently with Community Reinvestment, TARP, and the purchase of two auto-makers.  

If healthcare falls into the hands of meddlesome Mike, Peter is going to need life-support.

The gross result of the current trend is that the government will ultimately need to step in and become a – or THE – major producer of the things it is now consuming because of the damage being done to the real producers (Peter).   What we’re marching toward is Socialism.   The frightening consequence is the necessary end game of that march.  

It’s called Communism.

MISCUES

The Holocaust Museum in D.C. was the scene of another assault on American values.   A lone gunman waltzed in to the crowded tourist spot and started shooting – with a rifle.   A security guard was killed and the gunman was critically injured.    We should pray for both their families.

Evidently the gunman was some kind of American Nazi.   i know there’s plenty of them out there, but this one is kind of strange and more disturbing than usual.   He was a WWII veteran.   i don’t know where he did his service, but one would think that a guy like that might have access to other veterans who had seen the carnage of the Third Reich.   How does one come to deny the Holocaust?

Watching the news last night i was just a little taken aback by the early editorializing about gun control.   That sort of talk usually takes 24 hours to start gaining momentum after an incident like this.   But none-the-less, it’s always out there opportunistically waiting for the next abuse of liberty.   Yes, this crazed gunman abused his liberty.   That gun he owned and chose to aim and shoot at civilians was intended by the Framers to be a deterrent to abusive and oppressive tyranny.  

Ironically, the discussion of gun-control or abolishing the 2nd Amendment arising from this incident at this place is 180 degrees out of phase.   The Holocaust Museum is intended to remember those who died at the hands of an abusive, oppressive tyrant.   It ought to be a sober reminder of just what happens when too much power is centralized into the hands of so few.   Human nature being what it is will always erode the conditions of civility if left unchecked.

As i scanned the images of the names on the monuments at the museum i was reminded of the fact that though 6 million Jews were exterminated, many times more people were slaughtered at the hands of Communists in the 20th century.   But  the M.O. is always the same:  power corrupts.

Is this true?   Or do the corrupt seek power?

HATCHET MAN II

i remember when Mitt Romney came to town.   The first time he came to MA to make his mark, he ran against the Kennedy legacy.   He tried, unsuccessfully, to unseat the Prince of the Bay State who through no fault of his own is the sole heir to the immediate family legacy of his rock-star brothers.   After losing to Teddy, he successfully became governor of the state against all odds and a one-party legislature.

Mitt’s public record isn’t the focus today.   i’m more interested in the irony of the campaign against him.   At the time it was a very real assault on the man’s character that he had amassed his fortune as a Hatchet Man.   For those of you who don’t know what that is; see pretty woman.   The essence of what a Hatchet Man does is saving or liquidating failing businesses by breaking them up and selling assets and/or making the smaller parts more productive and salvageable.   By all accounts he was quite good at it.

Of course, being good at that sort of thing requires an obligatory ideological and ad hominim attack from the left.   Mitt was portrayed as an enemy of the ’regular guy’ and of the ‘middle class’ and of unions because of the residual effect restructuring has on labor contracts.   Say what you want about that.   You might be inclined to agree or disagree – it doesn’t matter.

What does matter is that if you are opposed to people like Mitt because they ”side” with business owners at the expense of their workers (not customers) you must be deeply troubled – or at least conflicted.

No doubt you voted for and are in deep support of President Obama.   Notice something though if you haven’t already: 

he is the new Hatchet Man.

HERE WE GO

So, our reckless government just officially took over feckless GM.   In case you’re wondering what that means; it means that the President’s critics – you remember the ones who received savage ad hominim attacks because of their “tired rhetorical”, “partisan”, “mean-spirited”, “premature” criticism of Mr. Obama’s policies – were right. 

If you’re wise you’ll pay attention to the rest of their warnings.   Government Motors (formerly General Motors, but still conveniently GM) is a harbinger of things to come.   GM is largely in the tank because no one is buying new cars and if they do they definitely aren’t going to throw their hard earned money at a losing investment when there are much better values on the market.   Now that the government is running the show and ostensibly making cars, you can bet the product isn’t going to improve much.   Nothing is going to change for the better at GM.

i wonder if AIG would let me take out a policy on GM still sucking?   That sounds like a good bet.

What i really want to know is why you and i, Joe-taxpayer, have all vicariously thrown in and bought a car and won’t be receiving one.   Heck, i’d take a “free” GM auto.   Can i put in an order for a Sierra Super-Crew with a long bed?   Somebody should take the time to figure out how many new cars you can buy with 50 billion dollars.

If anyone doubts that this move is about saving union jobs -ergo Democrat constituents- you must live in a yurt in the Canadian woods.

(Sorry Canada)