Yesterday I started a list of the attributes of a serious Church. The first two were “Purposeful” and “Holy”. Today “Non-Manipulative” and “Introspective” get added to the list.
Non-Manipulative: Do the leaders of a Church speak the truth without the addition of emotional manipulation? Do the leaders of a Church inform believers or do they control believers?
Occasionally I will take a peak at TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) as a reminder of why so many otherwise rational people reject the Gospel. As I watch, I can visualize silly believers being led around with a hook in their nose. From the health and wealth presentations, to the ridiculous hairdos, to the forced tears, to the use of fear, to the fake compassion; there is very little but manipulation. God have mercy on their souls. Most people, believers and non-believers, can see right through the drama, but the wake of TBN programming has made true Gospel presentations more difficult.
Sadly, while not as obvious as TBN, most Churches have developed and use their own manipulative techniques in an effort to get desirable results. From parking lot attendants pointing people into parking spaces, to roping off sections of pews, to telling people to get up and shake hands with a stranger, to the inappropriate use of the words “always” and “everyone”, most Churches end up as little versions of TBN.
“Bring a Friend” to Church events are manipulation to the second power. Not only are the leaders of the Church manipulating the regulars in order to get the regulars to do something they may not normally do, but the regulars who succumb to this manipulation then have to go out and manipulate others in order to get others to do what they would normally not do.
Manipulation, no matter how innocent or how small, has a negative effect on people who would otherwise be open to the truth of God. Most of the unbelieving people throughout the world are less likely now to listen to the Gospel because of their past experiences of being manipulated by believers. Serious leaders of serious Churches speak the truth and allow the Holy Spirit to work in the lives of listeners without resorting to dishonest manipulative techniques.
Introspective: Does a Church constantly evaluate and reevaluate the effect it is having on its community? Is a Church just as cognizant of the negative effects of ministry as they are of the positive effects of ministry? Is a Church working at becoming holy?
You can’t get where you are going if you stay where you are. Likewise, a Church can’t get where it’s going if it stays where it is. Becoming more holy requires change. Knowing how to change and what to change requires measurements, analysis, and wisdom.
I can’t even count the number of times I have heard a Church leader claim that Churches need to be outwardly focused, not inwardly focused. This statement is often followed by a sermon about how much evil exists in the outside world. These leaders believe the good people in the Church would have a transforming effect on the people outside of the Church if the good people in the Church were more concerned about the people outside of the Church.
Perhaps, a transforming outward focus has been true in the past and will be true again at some point in the future, but presently in 2007, the people in the Church haven’t even been able to transform themselves, so it is very unlikely they will be able to transform the world. In fact, almost 2000 years after the crucifixion, the world is still the world.
Most studies comparing the lives of believers with the lives of unbelievers show very little difference between the two groups. An outward focus makes no sense when the people in the Church are the same as the people outside the Church.
Serious leaders of serious Churches know that the people inside the Church need to change before the world would or even could ever change. The serious leaders of the serious Churches start with changing themselves before changing others.
[Previous][Next]
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Attributes of a Serious Church: Purposeful and Holy
My family has started attending a new Church on Sunday morning. So far, this assembly of believers and their Pastor seem like a good fit for my family. For the first time in a long time, we are hopeful about joining a serious community of committed believers.
As I sat in Church last Sunday, I realized I had been looking for a serious Church. The Church I was sitting in felt serious, but since I have never actually defined and articulated the attributes of a serious Church, I couldn’t be sure. Feeling serious and being serious may not be synonymous. I need a set of benchmarks to know if my feelings are an accurate reflection of a truly serious Church.
Here are the first two items of my initial list of what I consider to be the attributes of a serious Church. I will continue the list in later posts. Perhaps I will add or subtract from the list later after I have had more time to reflect. I always appreciate comments at my site, but I am particularly interested in criticism of this list. Thanks in advance for your comments.
Purposeful: Do the leaders of a Church have clearly defined goals? Do the activities and methods of a Church produce results that achieve the clearly defined goals?
My experience with Church has been that most Churches do what they do because they have always done it that way. The only results that gets measured are the number of people attending Sunday morning services and other activities. Some additions to the service and other new activities get created to increase head count, but it is rare for a Church to eliminate methods or problems that may be keeping people away.
“Bring a Friend” to Church sounds like a good idea to most Church leaders, but do these special Sundays ever increase the number of long term commitments to Christ? Perhaps, but I doubt it. Many believers are frustrated by these special Sundays. I can almost guarantee when I visit a small Church that there is a “Bring a Friend” event planned in the near future. Perhaps these Churches are small because of the way they conduct evangelism. I will have more to say on this topic in some other attributes on my list.
Holy: Does a Church care just as much about driving sin out of the Church as they care about getting new people in the Church?
There will always be sin in the people inside and the people outside of the Church. Imperfect people are tasked by Christ with spreading the Gospel to an unbelieving world. Getting people to hear the good news and assisting those in need are essential to living the Gospel, but increasing the crowd should be a result of a serious Church, not the only or even primary goal of a serious Church.
People who have been reborn with Christ should feel a desire to be more holy and less sinful. Help in becoming more holy comes from the prompting of the Holy Spirit, a Pastor who accurately and faithfully teaches the word of God, and other believers who are also making the effort to drive sin from their lives. Satisfied people are not serious believers. Becoming more holy only happens when a person makes a commitment to battle their own demons and appropriately confront the demons in others.
Iron really does sharpen iron. “Nice” and “friendly” have never sharpened anything. Churches are packed with nice and friendly people who are satisfied living in sin and tolerating sin. These Churches are not serious.
[Next]
As I sat in Church last Sunday, I realized I had been looking for a serious Church. The Church I was sitting in felt serious, but since I have never actually defined and articulated the attributes of a serious Church, I couldn’t be sure. Feeling serious and being serious may not be synonymous. I need a set of benchmarks to know if my feelings are an accurate reflection of a truly serious Church.
Here are the first two items of my initial list of what I consider to be the attributes of a serious Church. I will continue the list in later posts. Perhaps I will add or subtract from the list later after I have had more time to reflect. I always appreciate comments at my site, but I am particularly interested in criticism of this list. Thanks in advance for your comments.
Purposeful: Do the leaders of a Church have clearly defined goals? Do the activities and methods of a Church produce results that achieve the clearly defined goals?
My experience with Church has been that most Churches do what they do because they have always done it that way. The only results that gets measured are the number of people attending Sunday morning services and other activities. Some additions to the service and other new activities get created to increase head count, but it is rare for a Church to eliminate methods or problems that may be keeping people away.
“Bring a Friend” to Church sounds like a good idea to most Church leaders, but do these special Sundays ever increase the number of long term commitments to Christ? Perhaps, but I doubt it. Many believers are frustrated by these special Sundays. I can almost guarantee when I visit a small Church that there is a “Bring a Friend” event planned in the near future. Perhaps these Churches are small because of the way they conduct evangelism. I will have more to say on this topic in some other attributes on my list.
Holy: Does a Church care just as much about driving sin out of the Church as they care about getting new people in the Church?
There will always be sin in the people inside and the people outside of the Church. Imperfect people are tasked by Christ with spreading the Gospel to an unbelieving world. Getting people to hear the good news and assisting those in need are essential to living the Gospel, but increasing the crowd should be a result of a serious Church, not the only or even primary goal of a serious Church.
People who have been reborn with Christ should feel a desire to be more holy and less sinful. Help in becoming more holy comes from the prompting of the Holy Spirit, a Pastor who accurately and faithfully teaches the word of God, and other believers who are also making the effort to drive sin from their lives. Satisfied people are not serious believers. Becoming more holy only happens when a person makes a commitment to battle their own demons and appropriately confront the demons in others.
Iron really does sharpen iron. “Nice” and “friendly” have never sharpened anything. Churches are packed with nice and friendly people who are satisfied living in sin and tolerating sin. These Churches are not serious.
[Next]
Monday, March 26, 2007
Criticism
Critics are often accused of negativity, blamed for a lack of harmony in organizations, and viewed as destructive. Of course, all three perceptions are nonsense. The very best people in the world are the people who are self-critical and the very best organizations in the world are the organizations that allow and even encourage criticism. Criticism is the key component to continuous improvement. It is the feedback that tells people and organizations whether they are hitting or missing the mark.
I often read and hear others who claim that criticism is easy. These people believe it is more difficult to be positive. This too, is nonsense. Anyone can say what others want to hear using positive, yet insincere, affirmations. Positive affirmations are effortless, and without risk or cost. Criticism requires understanding, thought, and effort, as well as the risk of being rejected or misunderstood.
When my daughters were younger, I always knew instantly whether or not I was meeting their needs and expectations. I didn’t have to guess about the affect I was having on them. They told me exactly how they felt and I was then able to decide if I needed to adjust my behavior or provide them with a better explanation and rationale for my behavior. I loved their pure criticism. It made me a better father.
As they have grown, their criticism has started to change. They are not always so direct or honest anymore. Sometimes they want to hide how they really feel. Sometimes they try to be sensitive to my feelings. While other times they are a little manipulative, and less honest, in getting what want. I miss the purity of their criticism when they were younger.
I’m baffled that so few people acknowledge or even understand the virtue of criticism. I guess it’s just another part of living in a fallen world.
I often read and hear others who claim that criticism is easy. These people believe it is more difficult to be positive. This too, is nonsense. Anyone can say what others want to hear using positive, yet insincere, affirmations. Positive affirmations are effortless, and without risk or cost. Criticism requires understanding, thought, and effort, as well as the risk of being rejected or misunderstood.
When my daughters were younger, I always knew instantly whether or not I was meeting their needs and expectations. I didn’t have to guess about the affect I was having on them. They told me exactly how they felt and I was then able to decide if I needed to adjust my behavior or provide them with a better explanation and rationale for my behavior. I loved their pure criticism. It made me a better father.
As they have grown, their criticism has started to change. They are not always so direct or honest anymore. Sometimes they want to hide how they really feel. Sometimes they try to be sensitive to my feelings. While other times they are a little manipulative, and less honest, in getting what want. I miss the purity of their criticism when they were younger.
I’m baffled that so few people acknowledge or even understand the virtue of criticism. I guess it’s just another part of living in a fallen world.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Environmental Optimization
In my last piece, I argued for optimization over preservation, as my preferred goal for environmental stewardship. This goes against the traditional view of environmentalism. Preservation, the traditional goal of environmentalism, is a mostly mindless exercise. Protecting nature achieves the goal, while changing nature violates the goal. Preservation is simple to understand, simple to enforce, and simply wrong for the advancement of humanity.
The traditional view of environmentalism also has a very nasty underbelly. Preservation is achieved by the enforcement of laws enacted to limit the freedom of citizens to own and use land in the most optimal way. Preservation is achieved by imposing the will of some on the will of others. The “some” who impose their will are usually the elite who believe they know better than anyone else how to use and preserve resources.
Optimization, however, is not so simple to define, enforce, achieve, or even understand. Optimization for some farmers may mean higher yields per acre of land, while optimization for other farmers may mean more nutritious or flavorful produce. Some consumers of apples may want less expensive or larger apples, while other consumers of apples may want more flavorful or colorful fruit.
Some voters may want to use a publicly owned piece of land for hiking in a natural environment, while other voters may want to build a football stadium, and still other voters want to build a park or a golf course. For some, optimization is preservation, while for others, optimization is development.
Does every species of rodent, and every species of bird, and every species of plant, and every species of anything need protection from extinction? Perhaps God created every species with unique characteristics for the benefit of the environment, but it is far more likely that many species have characteristics that are harmful, not beneficial. Mosquitoes carry malaria and are extremely irritating. It’s clear to me that optimization means getting rid of both mosquitoes and malaria. Neither need protecting. Fear of what might happen if malaria is eradicated and mosquitoes become extinct makes about as much sense as fear of what might happen if the Yankees lose the World Series.
Fear of what might happen if certain species of rodents become extinct is only slightly less silly than fear of what might happen if malaria is eradicated. However, what is extremely silly to me may not be silly to a rodent lover. Does a rodent lover have a moral right to impose his will on everyone else in order to ensure a rare species of rodent is protected? Does everyone else have a moral right to ignore a rare species of rodent while developing land inhabited by rare rodents?
Since optimization means different things to different people, who gets to decide the definition of optimization? The only fair way to decide who gets to decide the definition of optimization is the same as the only fair way to decide other matters.
The owner of a piece of property is the one most likely to care for his or her land and derive the optimum value out of the land. The owner of a piece of real estate can use free market commerce to determine the optimum value of a piece of land. He or she can preserve the land, develop the land, or sell the land based on the preferences of others willing to part with an appropriate amount of hard earned cash. All other methods for determining the appropriate and optimum use of land are forms of socialism, which is what most environmentalists want anyway.
The traditional view of environmentalism also has a very nasty underbelly. Preservation is achieved by the enforcement of laws enacted to limit the freedom of citizens to own and use land in the most optimal way. Preservation is achieved by imposing the will of some on the will of others. The “some” who impose their will are usually the elite who believe they know better than anyone else how to use and preserve resources.
Optimization, however, is not so simple to define, enforce, achieve, or even understand. Optimization for some farmers may mean higher yields per acre of land, while optimization for other farmers may mean more nutritious or flavorful produce. Some consumers of apples may want less expensive or larger apples, while other consumers of apples may want more flavorful or colorful fruit.
Some voters may want to use a publicly owned piece of land for hiking in a natural environment, while other voters may want to build a football stadium, and still other voters want to build a park or a golf course. For some, optimization is preservation, while for others, optimization is development.
Does every species of rodent, and every species of bird, and every species of plant, and every species of anything need protection from extinction? Perhaps God created every species with unique characteristics for the benefit of the environment, but it is far more likely that many species have characteristics that are harmful, not beneficial. Mosquitoes carry malaria and are extremely irritating. It’s clear to me that optimization means getting rid of both mosquitoes and malaria. Neither need protecting. Fear of what might happen if malaria is eradicated and mosquitoes become extinct makes about as much sense as fear of what might happen if the Yankees lose the World Series.
Fear of what might happen if certain species of rodents become extinct is only slightly less silly than fear of what might happen if malaria is eradicated. However, what is extremely silly to me may not be silly to a rodent lover. Does a rodent lover have a moral right to impose his will on everyone else in order to ensure a rare species of rodent is protected? Does everyone else have a moral right to ignore a rare species of rodent while developing land inhabited by rare rodents?
Since optimization means different things to different people, who gets to decide the definition of optimization? The only fair way to decide who gets to decide the definition of optimization is the same as the only fair way to decide other matters.
The owner of a piece of property is the one most likely to care for his or her land and derive the optimum value out of the land. The owner of a piece of real estate can use free market commerce to determine the optimum value of a piece of land. He or she can preserve the land, develop the land, or sell the land based on the preferences of others willing to part with an appropriate amount of hard earned cash. All other methods for determining the appropriate and optimum use of land are forms of socialism, which is what most environmentalists want anyway.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Two out of Three
Hugh Hewitt links to a story in the Washington Post about Joe Carter.
I am extremely fond of two out of the three.
I am extremely fond of two out of the three.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Stewardship
As I read Chaplain Dave’s piece about his views regarding environmental stewardship, I thought this might be a good time to reexamine my own views and write a few of my own pieces on this topic.
I think most people would agree with the sentiment of Chaplain Dave’s piece. Humans are unique among God’s creation in that we were given dominion over nature and we have the ability to affect nature more than any other creature. However, the application of Chaplain Dave’s sentiment is where morals need to be clarified and lines need to be drawn.
The goal of stewardship should be clear in our minds before we decide on the methods for practicing stewardship. Traditionally, conservation and environmentalism have been synonymous with preservation. I don’t have to think very long before I reject the traditional view. For a believer in God to accept the traditional view, the believer in God would have to believe that everything God created except humans was perfect in its original form. Certainly, God created the earth the way HE wanted it created, but this belief that humans are destroying God’s perfect creation doesn’t make sense; why would God give the imperfect dominion over the perfect? Mosquitoes, viruses, severe weather, diseases, predatory animals, and other aspects of nature that are harmful to humans need to be controlled or eradicated, not preserved.
I believe a better goal of stewardship should be optimization of the environment, not preservation of the environment. Sometimes preservation will be a method for achieving optimization, but preservation should never be the primary goal. Why would we want to preserve polio or HIV?
Refrigeration optimizes our environment by allowing foods to remain nutritious for longer periods of time. Pasteurization and irradiation have a similar optimization effect. Food processing may sound unhealthy, but the opposite is true. The processing of food has led to less expensive, more nutritious, and a greater variety of foods than ever before in human history which has led to healthier and longer lives for most people.
As much as I would love to play golf on a traditional seaside course in Scotland, I have no illusion that the golf would be better than a modern course in California where the fairways, bunkers, and greens are practically perfect. God created some very appealing golf venues, but humans have optimized the course for a better golf experience. As much as I would love to sit in Lambeau Field in late December and watch the Green Bay Packers against the Chicago Bears, I have no illusion that the football game would be better than if it was played indoors in Detroit or Indianapolis. Humans have optimized the football environment in order to experience the best football games.
The modern environment humans have created to live our lives is infinitely better than the natural environment we started with. I sometimes get a good chuckle out of serious environmentalists because it seems to me that the ones who are most serious about the environment are the ones with the most expensive and technologically advanced outdoor equipment. The best mountain bikes, the best hiking boots, the best outdoor clothing, etc…, all of which were created by humans wishing to optimize the outdoor experience. Shouldn’t a preservationist at least try to endure without modern equipment?
In my next piece, I will consider the methods of environmental stewardship.
He made it and us of the same "stuff", except we have that vital spark, the imago dei so that, among other things, we can have dominion, stewardship over and tend this, His creation. As such, we are inextricably connected to the Creation. We are to make our living from the earth. God set up a gloriously beautiful and intricate system - even in its fallen state - whereby we can draw life and sustenance from it. …
But with this gifting comes responsibility. I have to believe that His placing Adam in the Garden to cultivate and tend it - have dominion over it, didn't imply allowing his appetites to run amok, thus abusing it.
I think most people would agree with the sentiment of Chaplain Dave’s piece. Humans are unique among God’s creation in that we were given dominion over nature and we have the ability to affect nature more than any other creature. However, the application of Chaplain Dave’s sentiment is where morals need to be clarified and lines need to be drawn.
The goal of stewardship should be clear in our minds before we decide on the methods for practicing stewardship. Traditionally, conservation and environmentalism have been synonymous with preservation. I don’t have to think very long before I reject the traditional view. For a believer in God to accept the traditional view, the believer in God would have to believe that everything God created except humans was perfect in its original form. Certainly, God created the earth the way HE wanted it created, but this belief that humans are destroying God’s perfect creation doesn’t make sense; why would God give the imperfect dominion over the perfect? Mosquitoes, viruses, severe weather, diseases, predatory animals, and other aspects of nature that are harmful to humans need to be controlled or eradicated, not preserved.
I believe a better goal of stewardship should be optimization of the environment, not preservation of the environment. Sometimes preservation will be a method for achieving optimization, but preservation should never be the primary goal. Why would we want to preserve polio or HIV?
Refrigeration optimizes our environment by allowing foods to remain nutritious for longer periods of time. Pasteurization and irradiation have a similar optimization effect. Food processing may sound unhealthy, but the opposite is true. The processing of food has led to less expensive, more nutritious, and a greater variety of foods than ever before in human history which has led to healthier and longer lives for most people.
As much as I would love to play golf on a traditional seaside course in Scotland, I have no illusion that the golf would be better than a modern course in California where the fairways, bunkers, and greens are practically perfect. God created some very appealing golf venues, but humans have optimized the course for a better golf experience. As much as I would love to sit in Lambeau Field in late December and watch the Green Bay Packers against the Chicago Bears, I have no illusion that the football game would be better than if it was played indoors in Detroit or Indianapolis. Humans have optimized the football environment in order to experience the best football games.
The modern environment humans have created to live our lives is infinitely better than the natural environment we started with. I sometimes get a good chuckle out of serious environmentalists because it seems to me that the ones who are most serious about the environment are the ones with the most expensive and technologically advanced outdoor equipment. The best mountain bikes, the best hiking boots, the best outdoor clothing, etc…, all of which were created by humans wishing to optimize the outdoor experience. Shouldn’t a preservationist at least try to endure without modern equipment?
In my next piece, I will consider the methods of environmental stewardship.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Winning the Lottery
According to George Will:
Conceptually, I agree with George Will. No voter is going to get everything they want in a candidate. We always have to accept a candidate who has at least one or two positions we consider frivolous or even wrong.
However, just as the current crop of American Idol contestants are way below the standards set in the Idol contest over the last few years, and none seem to have what it takes to be the next Idol, at this point, none of the current crop of Presidential candidates seem to have what will be needed to follow President Bush as President.
Most of the serious contenders have an attribute that is attractive to large blocks of voters. Barrack Obama is articulate, John McCain is a war hero, Hillary Clinton is a serious woman, Rudy Giuliani is confident, and Mitt Romney is congenial, but which one of these candidates possesses a package of abilities? None if you ask me!
Perhaps as the process unfolds, a strong leader and a good man or woman will emerge, but at this point, the likelihood of that happening seems about the same as me winning the lottery.
Conservatism comes in many flavors. None seems perfect for every conservative's palate; most should be satisfactory to most conservatives.
Conceptually, I agree with George Will. No voter is going to get everything they want in a candidate. We always have to accept a candidate who has at least one or two positions we consider frivolous or even wrong.
However, just as the current crop of American Idol contestants are way below the standards set in the Idol contest over the last few years, and none seem to have what it takes to be the next Idol, at this point, none of the current crop of Presidential candidates seem to have what will be needed to follow President Bush as President.
Most of the serious contenders have an attribute that is attractive to large blocks of voters. Barrack Obama is articulate, John McCain is a war hero, Hillary Clinton is a serious woman, Rudy Giuliani is confident, and Mitt Romney is congenial, but which one of these candidates possesses a package of abilities? None if you ask me!
Perhaps as the process unfolds, a strong leader and a good man or woman will emerge, but at this point, the likelihood of that happening seems about the same as me winning the lottery.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Dragons and Gnats
One of the principles of the modern conservative movement, as well as a differentiator from modern liberalism, is a desire by conservatives to support and enact effective public policy changes. Most politicians, whether conservative or liberal, are concerned with looking good, but those of us who are not political, have had different priorities. In general, those on the left have been more concerned with equality of outcome, regardless of effort. The left wants to feel good about the policies they support. In general, those on the right are more concerned with equality of opportunity, regardless of results. The right wants the policies they support to be fair and effective, without concern for feelings.
Modern conservatism found a home in the Republican Party when Ronald Reagan became president. Modern liberalism has never produced a president, but as conservatives gravitated towards the Republican Party, liberals gravitated towards the Democratic Party.
For the last two decades, conservatives have accused liberals of being more concerned with symbolism than substance. For instance, a raise in the minimum wage does not help the poor, but support for a raise in the minimum wage makes politicians look like they care about the poor. Minimum wage is an ineffective, but symbolic, policy. Reducing CO2 from automobile exhaust will have a very minimal effect on human produced CO2, but support for reduced CO2 from automobiles makes politicians look like they care about global warming.
The focus on appearance by liberals led to political correctness. Looking good to large groups meant thinking like a group and talking like a group. Precise thoughts and precise words became less important as group orthodoxy become more important. President Clinton was a pragmatist, not a modern liberal, but he was the master of political correctness as President. He managed to appeal to large groups of people without ever saying anything specific.
For most of the time since Reagan, unelected conservatives have been able to resist political correctness. William F. Buckley spoke for William F. Buckley only. George Will spoke for George Will only. Both were considered conservatives, but other conservative never felt the need to associate or disassociate with either man. Conservatives accepted their differences. Conservatives didn’t need to appeal to a group or be accepted by a group. Ideas and beliefs, right or wrong, stood on their own. Advocates of beliefs and ideas, right or wrong, stood on their own.
When Senator Edwards hired two far left religious bigots to blog about his campaign last month, pundits on the right were unanimous in condemning him for hiring them. Shortly thereafter, both bloggers (ahem) resigned from their position in Senator Edwards campaign. Pundits on the right then patted themselves on the back for a job well done.
When Ann Coulter used a bigoted word to describe a thought she believed about Senator Edwards, pundits on the right jumped at the chance to demonstrate the difference in civility between the left and the right by unanimously condemning her. Pundits on the right did exactly what Ann Coulter said they would do if she used the word she wasn’t going to use because of the response it would illicit. How ironic, by trying so hard to prove and demonstrate the difference in civility between the left and the right, pundits on the right have become just like the left in practicing group think and enforcing group orthodoxy.
Like the rest of the mob, I believe the word Coulter used was offensive. She deserves to be criticized. Many on the right, including one of my favorite bloggers, Joe Carter, have been critical of her long before her CPAC remark. Gnats occasionally need a good swatting.
However, political correctness, group think, and enforced orthodoxy, is much more than an insignificant gnat. Political correctness is a cancer that has devoured the Democratic Party, and now with the internet and blogging, it is aggressively chewing at the heart of conservatism. It is a dragon that needs more than an occasional swat. Ann Coulter speaks for Ann Coulter only. When conservatives feel the need to dissociate from a lone agent, the war for freedom is over; the left has won.
As Buz intimated in his recent comment, 1984 is a little late in coming, but it is here.
Modern conservatism found a home in the Republican Party when Ronald Reagan became president. Modern liberalism has never produced a president, but as conservatives gravitated towards the Republican Party, liberals gravitated towards the Democratic Party.
For the last two decades, conservatives have accused liberals of being more concerned with symbolism than substance. For instance, a raise in the minimum wage does not help the poor, but support for a raise in the minimum wage makes politicians look like they care about the poor. Minimum wage is an ineffective, but symbolic, policy. Reducing CO2 from automobile exhaust will have a very minimal effect on human produced CO2, but support for reduced CO2 from automobiles makes politicians look like they care about global warming.
The focus on appearance by liberals led to political correctness. Looking good to large groups meant thinking like a group and talking like a group. Precise thoughts and precise words became less important as group orthodoxy become more important. President Clinton was a pragmatist, not a modern liberal, but he was the master of political correctness as President. He managed to appeal to large groups of people without ever saying anything specific.
For most of the time since Reagan, unelected conservatives have been able to resist political correctness. William F. Buckley spoke for William F. Buckley only. George Will spoke for George Will only. Both were considered conservatives, but other conservative never felt the need to associate or disassociate with either man. Conservatives accepted their differences. Conservatives didn’t need to appeal to a group or be accepted by a group. Ideas and beliefs, right or wrong, stood on their own. Advocates of beliefs and ideas, right or wrong, stood on their own.
When Senator Edwards hired two far left religious bigots to blog about his campaign last month, pundits on the right were unanimous in condemning him for hiring them. Shortly thereafter, both bloggers (ahem) resigned from their position in Senator Edwards campaign. Pundits on the right then patted themselves on the back for a job well done.
When Ann Coulter used a bigoted word to describe a thought she believed about Senator Edwards, pundits on the right jumped at the chance to demonstrate the difference in civility between the left and the right by unanimously condemning her. Pundits on the right did exactly what Ann Coulter said they would do if she used the word she wasn’t going to use because of the response it would illicit. How ironic, by trying so hard to prove and demonstrate the difference in civility between the left and the right, pundits on the right have become just like the left in practicing group think and enforcing group orthodoxy.
Like the rest of the mob, I believe the word Coulter used was offensive. She deserves to be criticized. Many on the right, including one of my favorite bloggers, Joe Carter, have been critical of her long before her CPAC remark. Gnats occasionally need a good swatting.
However, political correctness, group think, and enforced orthodoxy, is much more than an insignificant gnat. Political correctness is a cancer that has devoured the Democratic Party, and now with the internet and blogging, it is aggressively chewing at the heart of conservatism. It is a dragon that needs more than an occasional swat. Ann Coulter speaks for Ann Coulter only. When conservatives feel the need to dissociate from a lone agent, the war for freedom is over; the left has won.
As Buz intimated in his recent comment, 1984 is a little late in coming, but it is here.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Words and Sheep
Conservatives and pundits are tripping all over themselves to condemn one remark made by Ann Coulter at the CPAC convention last week. My Goodness! Sheep on the left meet sheep on the right.
The words we use and the way we string words together are the best and most effective way to convey our thoughts and our beliefs. Political correctness is a cancer to good communication. When speakers and writers are limited to using inoffensive words, readers and listeners are left with more difficulty in understanding what is really being communicated. An evil heart can remain hidden behind nice words when words are considered more important than thoughts during communication.
I would much rather know that an acquaintance is a racist than have an acquaintance who is a racist and not know because my acquaintance was pressured to hide his racism by never using racist words. I would much rather know all of the weakness and bigotries of my neighbors than not know because I never hear them using offensive words.
There is no traditional American right to never be offended. Hopefully, there never will be. There is, however, an imperfect American tradition of tolerating behavior we consider offensive, but not criminal. Hopefully, there always will be.
I don’t like the word Ms. Coulter used in communicating her thought, but I do agree with her thought about the use of words. I wish she would have used a nicer word, but I understand how her thought would have been muted if she had used a nicer word.
Civility in politics should be the default standard, with an occasional variance for a particularly bad person or bad idea. Most Americans on all sides of politics are good people who do not deserve hatred or condemnation. However, former Senator Edwards is offensive to me for reasons that have nothing to do with effeminate mannerisms. Offensive people need offensive descriptions. The word “hypocrite” just falls a little short in describing Senator Edwards.
I hope I didn’t offend any sheep with this piece.
The words we use and the way we string words together are the best and most effective way to convey our thoughts and our beliefs. Political correctness is a cancer to good communication. When speakers and writers are limited to using inoffensive words, readers and listeners are left with more difficulty in understanding what is really being communicated. An evil heart can remain hidden behind nice words when words are considered more important than thoughts during communication.
I would much rather know that an acquaintance is a racist than have an acquaintance who is a racist and not know because my acquaintance was pressured to hide his racism by never using racist words. I would much rather know all of the weakness and bigotries of my neighbors than not know because I never hear them using offensive words.
There is no traditional American right to never be offended. Hopefully, there never will be. There is, however, an imperfect American tradition of tolerating behavior we consider offensive, but not criminal. Hopefully, there always will be.
I don’t like the word Ms. Coulter used in communicating her thought, but I do agree with her thought about the use of words. I wish she would have used a nicer word, but I understand how her thought would have been muted if she had used a nicer word.
Civility in politics should be the default standard, with an occasional variance for a particularly bad person or bad idea. Most Americans on all sides of politics are good people who do not deserve hatred or condemnation. However, former Senator Edwards is offensive to me for reasons that have nothing to do with effeminate mannerisms. Offensive people need offensive descriptions. The word “hypocrite” just falls a little short in describing Senator Edwards.
I hope I didn’t offend any sheep with this piece.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Health Care Anecdote
My snoring and my wife proved incompatible very early on in our marriage. I don’t know how some women have the fortitude to endure the pain of childbirth, yet be unable to sleep with a few rustic sound effects. If I could endure her kicks, elbows, and complaints, why couldn’t she endure the gentle sounds of a loose flapping soft pallet?
I held out hope for as long as possible that my wife would eventually adapt to her new sleeping companion, but when my couch starting looking like the shroud of Turin, I figured it was time to consult with my doctor about possible solutions. My doctor recommended a sleep study which confirmed a diagnosis of Sleep Apnea.
Since then, I have been connected to a CPAP machine while I sleep. CPAP stands for Continuous Positive Airway Pressure. CPAP therapy provides a constant airflow which holds the airway open so that uninterrupted breathing is maintained during sleep.
Initially, my Blue Shield medical insurance plan covered most the cost of the machine, the mask, and the head gear. I still have the original machine, but over the years I have had to have the mask and head gear replaced as it wears out. Last year I ordered a new face mask and head gear where I had to split the cost with Blue Shield. We both paid about $80.
Several nights ago, the mask that I only used for a few months broke when I accidentally dropped it on the floor. The medical supply company told me I would need to pay another $80 dollars co-pay to get it replaced. Searching the internet CPAP suppliers, I found the same mask for $60 without the co-pay.
I’m thankful I can get a lower price, but it seems that health care is broken when using insurance cost more than not using insurance. Perhaps my situation is not normal, but I’m wondering if Insurance, in its present form, needs to go away, and allow individuals more control over their own health care.
I held out hope for as long as possible that my wife would eventually adapt to her new sleeping companion, but when my couch starting looking like the shroud of Turin, I figured it was time to consult with my doctor about possible solutions. My doctor recommended a sleep study which confirmed a diagnosis of Sleep Apnea.
Since then, I have been connected to a CPAP machine while I sleep. CPAP stands for Continuous Positive Airway Pressure. CPAP therapy provides a constant airflow which holds the airway open so that uninterrupted breathing is maintained during sleep.
Initially, my Blue Shield medical insurance plan covered most the cost of the machine, the mask, and the head gear. I still have the original machine, but over the years I have had to have the mask and head gear replaced as it wears out. Last year I ordered a new face mask and head gear where I had to split the cost with Blue Shield. We both paid about $80.
Several nights ago, the mask that I only used for a few months broke when I accidentally dropped it on the floor. The medical supply company told me I would need to pay another $80 dollars co-pay to get it replaced. Searching the internet CPAP suppliers, I found the same mask for $60 without the co-pay.
I’m thankful I can get a lower price, but it seems that health care is broken when using insurance cost more than not using insurance. Perhaps my situation is not normal, but I’m wondering if Insurance, in its present form, needs to go away, and allow individuals more control over their own health care.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Preaching and Practicing
Big families need big referees. The Walton’s make for nice family television, but in real life, lots of siblings means lots of fights. Asking my dad to resolve a fight meant needing a good answer when he asked us if we practiced what we preached. He didn’t have sympathy for any of us who were complaining about something we had previously done to a brother or sister or if we expected a sibling to do something we wouldn’t to do ourselves. My dad wanted the actions of his children to be consistent with the words of his children. He wanted us to learn and practice integrity.
Another question that was common when I was growing up was, “Do you put your money where your mouth is?”. People who sold Chevy’s were expected to drive Chevy’s. People who talked about Church were expected to support Church financially. Tough guys with big stories and no witnesses were expected to accept a bet they couldn’t repeat their claimed accomplishment and then pay the bet if they didn’t repeat it.
Putting your money where your mouth is and practicing what you preach are two ways of saying the same thing. Are your actions consistent with your words? Do you have integrity? Do you really believe the claim you are making?
Does Al Gore really believe CO2 is destroying the earth when his own house uses 20 times the energy of the average American house? Does Bono of U2 really believe tax money from the free world should be used to stop poverty in Africa when he pays a team of lawyers to practice tax avoidance strategies with his own money? Do Diane Feinstein and Arnold Schwarzenegger not know their private jets are spewing CO2 all over our atmosphere? Did Rush Limbaugh think organized crime only sold herbs? Does Cingular Wireless really believe their customers are receiving quality service by waiting on hold for thirty minutes to talk to a customer service representative?
Integrity is mostly a matter of character and morality, but it also has another interesting attribute. Integrity increases effectiveness. People who “practice what they preach” and organizations that “put their money where their mouth is” are much more likely to be successful. Integrity attracts like minds and produces a full commitment from others. Hypocrisy, however, repels everyone except blind followers.
CO2 haters took a hit this week. I always love a happy ending.
Another question that was common when I was growing up was, “Do you put your money where your mouth is?”. People who sold Chevy’s were expected to drive Chevy’s. People who talked about Church were expected to support Church financially. Tough guys with big stories and no witnesses were expected to accept a bet they couldn’t repeat their claimed accomplishment and then pay the bet if they didn’t repeat it.
Putting your money where your mouth is and practicing what you preach are two ways of saying the same thing. Are your actions consistent with your words? Do you have integrity? Do you really believe the claim you are making?
Does Al Gore really believe CO2 is destroying the earth when his own house uses 20 times the energy of the average American house? Does Bono of U2 really believe tax money from the free world should be used to stop poverty in Africa when he pays a team of lawyers to practice tax avoidance strategies with his own money? Do Diane Feinstein and Arnold Schwarzenegger not know their private jets are spewing CO2 all over our atmosphere? Did Rush Limbaugh think organized crime only sold herbs? Does Cingular Wireless really believe their customers are receiving quality service by waiting on hold for thirty minutes to talk to a customer service representative?
Integrity is mostly a matter of character and morality, but it also has another interesting attribute. Integrity increases effectiveness. People who “practice what they preach” and organizations that “put their money where their mouth is” are much more likely to be successful. Integrity attracts like minds and produces a full commitment from others. Hypocrisy, however, repels everyone except blind followers.
CO2 haters took a hit this week. I always love a happy ending.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Recent Comments
With the new Blogger, I have started using a Blogger feed for recent comments. However, there is a bug in their feed that prevents it from working correctly. Someone figured out that if we start the feed with the second most recent comment it will show all but the most recent comment. So until it gets fixed, the most recent comment left here will have to wait to appear until someone else comments. Sorry.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Kruse on Science
Michael Kruse makes some very interesting observations and some very valid points in his piece on the current relationship between politics, science, and money, in America.
Selected excerpts:
Selected excerpts:
Centuries ago Renee Decartes wrote, “A man is incapable of comprehending any argument that interferes with his revenue.” Thus the lobbyist we will have with us. Almost any public policy change has financial consequences for multiple parties. Some stand to benefit directly, while others will lose. Some will see competitor’s fortunes aided, while some will see competitor’s fortunes reversed. Competing interests are going to pursue courses that maximize their positions.
Within the climate change debate, frequent mention is made of Exxon’s efforts to “muddy the waters” on climate change science as they seek to limit regulation on their industry. Whenever a scientist or policy wonk publicly questions climate change, bloggers and media sources are quick to identify that the contrarian receives grants from firms and institutions that would stand to benefit from a muddied climate change science. These are legitimate issues to investigate insofar as they go but it only answers part of the “follow the money” question. To answer the other part we need to look into the very human enterprise of science.
The problem is that the determination of what is a “problem” becomes less a scientific question than a political one. If you want to get funding you better study what the funders see as “the problem.“ The late 1970s were a time of focused efforts in studying and developing energy alternatives. It was during the 1970s that Energy Secretary James Schlesinger became interested in the possible impacts of fossil fuels on global climate change; or as it was known then, “global cooling.” The global temperature had been declining from the 1940s to the 1970s and it was feared that emissions were blocking the suns heating capabilities, thus putting us into an ice age.
James Hansen of NASA indicated in congressional testimony in 1988, that we could expect the temperature to increase nearly 3 degrees C (well over 5 degrees F) in the next fifty years. It was an exaggeration by about a multiple of four. He later justified his extreme scenario because he needed to get the attention of policy-makers who were largely unaware of the “problem” of global warming.
Scientists advance in their fields by publishing in peer reviewed journals. The reviewers are people who have established a track record of publication and are believed to be experts in their fields. They are also people who have been competing for federal funding dollars with everybody else. They review your article that challenges the conventional wisdom about global warming and reject the article as flawed or in some way “unscientific.” The scientific community is a relatively tight knit community and suddenly you find you can’t get any of your research published. No publication eventually means no job; or at least no advancement.
MIT scientist Richard Lindzen wrote:
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air.
Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.
So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear.
….
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers. (Richard Lindzen, “A Climate of Fear,” Wall Street Journal, April, 2006)
In the meantime, politicians benefit by being able to build themselves as protectors of the people against malevolent forces. The sensationalist media benefits financially by being able to feed a steady diet of news stories and “investigative” studies that create anxiety and increase the number of viewers. The UN, the parent institution of the IPCC that periodically publishes the climate science reports, stands to benefit much in terms of prestige and power by becoming a global manager of economies. Some large corporations would benefit from seeing their competitors saddled with heavy regulations.
The bottom line is that the adage of “follow the money” is an important one but it alone can’t answer the question of legitimacy. Science has become such a big industry that almost all research, not just climate change, is funded by someone and these “someones” all have their own interests. In the end, the attempt to discredit opponents by identifying funding sources ends up being a game of mutually assured destruction.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Experiment Hints Alarmists are Wrong on Climate Change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged.
Selected Excerpts:
When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.
Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.
Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.
Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.
“Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming.
That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity.
Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.
Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.
The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report. Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.
The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.
In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.
Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.
The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.
Selected Excerpts:
When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.
Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.
Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.
Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.
“Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming.
That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity.
Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.
Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.
The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report. Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.
The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.
In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.
Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.
The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
No Longer Biased
In the Los Angeles area, all of the three major broadcast networks air their national News segment from 6:30 until 7:00 PM nightly. Occasionally, I will watch the national News by toggling between the three networks. For years I have marveled (ahem) at how all three networks seem to tell the same stories in about the same order in about the same way.
For years I have also observed national News broadcasts that don’t fairly represent my point of view. As someone who is right of center, I can’t get too upset about any news organization making a profit by appealing to viewers with different opinions than my own. After all, I believe companies should take care of their customers. People with my point of view probably wouldn’t make up much of a customer base anyway for a network News show.
Lately, however, I’ve noticed a subtle change in how the News is reported by the major Networks. Reporting the news from a left leaning perspective does not seem to me to be the modus operandi anymore. The major Networks seem to have gone from having a bias to actively promoting an anti-war, anti-capitalism point of view. The Networks have actually become propagandists for socialism.
Last night, the story about the gender discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart did not get reported as a legal decision by a judge, it got reported as a guilty company trying to mitigate the damages caused by the lawsuit. The story about the deaths from friendly fire in Iraq did not get reported as an accident during a time of war, it got reported as two guilty pilots who were lucky enough to not be charged with killing a fellow soldier.
I guess the irresponsible use of freedom is sometimes an offshoot of freedom. Thankfully, there are other, more reasonable, voices besides NBCABCCBS in America.
For years I have also observed national News broadcasts that don’t fairly represent my point of view. As someone who is right of center, I can’t get too upset about any news organization making a profit by appealing to viewers with different opinions than my own. After all, I believe companies should take care of their customers. People with my point of view probably wouldn’t make up much of a customer base anyway for a network News show.
Lately, however, I’ve noticed a subtle change in how the News is reported by the major Networks. Reporting the news from a left leaning perspective does not seem to me to be the modus operandi anymore. The major Networks seem to have gone from having a bias to actively promoting an anti-war, anti-capitalism point of view. The Networks have actually become propagandists for socialism.
Last night, the story about the gender discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart did not get reported as a legal decision by a judge, it got reported as a guilty company trying to mitigate the damages caused by the lawsuit. The story about the deaths from friendly fire in Iraq did not get reported as an accident during a time of war, it got reported as two guilty pilots who were lucky enough to not be charged with killing a fellow soldier.
I guess the irresponsible use of freedom is sometimes an offshoot of freedom. Thankfully, there are other, more reasonable, voices besides NBCABCCBS in America.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Counter Protest
It really is great to live in a country where the citizens of our country can organize and protest the actions of our government without fear of retribution.
It really is ironic to live in a country where some of our citizens use this freedom to oppose government actions as a tool to oppose acts of freedom.
It really is shameful to live in a country that shed the blood of patriots paying for this freedom to protest where some citizens use their right to protest to denounce acts of patriotism in another country.
It really is sad to see so many protestors claim that America did not learn the lessons of Viet Nam when it is the protestors themselves who did not learn the right lessons of Viet Nam.
It really is comical to see so many protestors patting themselves on the back for bravery when their protest message represents the majority view in our country.
It really is pathetic to have so many mainstream news organizations report on the Iraq anti-war protests this weekend without any hint of appropriate criticism.
Most American soldiers serving in Iraq want to be in Iraq fighting so the Iraqi people can have the same freedom we are blessed with in America. Nobody wants to die a premature death, especially a soldier who is more valuable to the military alive than dead. However, soldiers in the American military have all chosen to risk their lives in order to fight for freedom in Iraq. Protesters are not representing or speaking for soldiers when they claim Iraq is not worth the loss of American lives. Soldiers represent and speak for soldiers. The soldiers believe, and have made it clear, that Iraq is worth the risk to their lives.
Two million people are estimated to have been murdered in Cambodia and Viet Name after the Untied States turned Viet Nam over to the communists. The lesson of Viet Nam is that a commitment of military personnel and resources to another country is a sacred obligation. There really are bad guys in the world who do not hesitate to murder anyone and everyone who is a challenge to their authority. Iraq is not yet ready to withstand the authority of the leaders of Iran.
What is best for Iraq and what is best for America are legitimate concerns, but there is only one question that needs to be answered regarding the continued American presence in Iraq: What is best for the future of freedom in the world? The anti-war protesters are unable to answer this question.
I suspect organized protests nowadays don’t have the same impact as in the past. Political polling is a more accurate, although still flawed, reflection of public sentiment and diversified sources of news and information insures that minority views get represented now.
Here is one minority view: We should learn the right lesson from history and we should listen to the soldiers, not the wet-finger-in-the-air Senators and certainly not the stuck-in-time protestors.
It really is ironic to live in a country where some of our citizens use this freedom to oppose government actions as a tool to oppose acts of freedom.
It really is shameful to live in a country that shed the blood of patriots paying for this freedom to protest where some citizens use their right to protest to denounce acts of patriotism in another country.
It really is sad to see so many protestors claim that America did not learn the lessons of Viet Nam when it is the protestors themselves who did not learn the right lessons of Viet Nam.
It really is comical to see so many protestors patting themselves on the back for bravery when their protest message represents the majority view in our country.
It really is pathetic to have so many mainstream news organizations report on the Iraq anti-war protests this weekend without any hint of appropriate criticism.
Most American soldiers serving in Iraq want to be in Iraq fighting so the Iraqi people can have the same freedom we are blessed with in America. Nobody wants to die a premature death, especially a soldier who is more valuable to the military alive than dead. However, soldiers in the American military have all chosen to risk their lives in order to fight for freedom in Iraq. Protesters are not representing or speaking for soldiers when they claim Iraq is not worth the loss of American lives. Soldiers represent and speak for soldiers. The soldiers believe, and have made it clear, that Iraq is worth the risk to their lives.
Two million people are estimated to have been murdered in Cambodia and Viet Name after the Untied States turned Viet Nam over to the communists. The lesson of Viet Nam is that a commitment of military personnel and resources to another country is a sacred obligation. There really are bad guys in the world who do not hesitate to murder anyone and everyone who is a challenge to their authority. Iraq is not yet ready to withstand the authority of the leaders of Iran.
What is best for Iraq and what is best for America are legitimate concerns, but there is only one question that needs to be answered regarding the continued American presence in Iraq: What is best for the future of freedom in the world? The anti-war protesters are unable to answer this question.
I suspect organized protests nowadays don’t have the same impact as in the past. Political polling is a more accurate, although still flawed, reflection of public sentiment and diversified sources of news and information insures that minority views get represented now.
Here is one minority view: We should learn the right lesson from history and we should listen to the soldiers, not the wet-finger-in-the-air Senators and certainly not the stuck-in-time protestors.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
State of the President
There are very few people in the public eye who I consider worthy of my admiration. My admiration is limited to public figures who can understand and articulate competing moral positions and points of view. I make every effort to be fair when evaluating the character of public figures, but I am usually disappointed because most public figures only represent one side of an issue. Most Politician’s, Pastor’s, and Pundit’s become so obsessed with selling their own point of view, they inevitably discount all other points of view.
As I watched and listened to the State of the Union address by President Bush Tuesday night, I was amazed at how fair he was to competing points of view. He said he wanted to resolve illegal immigration without animosity and without amnesty. This one powerful sentence represented the entire tone and substance of his speech.
President Bush believes government has an important role in helping improve the lives of people throughout the world. I disagree with him. I believe government has a small role, but mostly should be limited so free people making their own decisions can improve their own lives. However, as the speech progressed, I realized I mostly agreed with everything President Bush stated even as I also realized his ideas involve much more government than I would like. I suspect the Democrat’s who are fair in their assessment of President Bush's speech would agree with most of what he said while also wishing for more government involvement.
In his State of the Union speech, President Bush was extremely fair to both sides on most issues. My admiration for the character of George W. Bush continues to grow.
I found this analysis regarding public policy towards the poor by Nathan Smith to be very thoughtful:
Poor Arguments: Bush, Webb and Poverty
Selected excerpts:
Last night, President Bush's State of the Union address and Senator James Webb's Democratic response provided a useful juxtaposition of views. Among other things, it showed how the parties' positions on poverty have changed.
President Bush seeks to inspire altruism by encouraging Americans to compare themselves with those who have less:
Sen. Webb, by contrast, encourages Americans to compare themselves to those who have more, and feel envy. Although Sen. Webb borrows John Edwards' "two nations" theme ("it's almost like we were living in two different countries"), unlike Edwards, Webb makes no mention of helping the poor. Sen. Webb's message is that "the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table."
As I watched and listened to the State of the Union address by President Bush Tuesday night, I was amazed at how fair he was to competing points of view. He said he wanted to resolve illegal immigration without animosity and without amnesty. This one powerful sentence represented the entire tone and substance of his speech.
President Bush believes government has an important role in helping improve the lives of people throughout the world. I disagree with him. I believe government has a small role, but mostly should be limited so free people making their own decisions can improve their own lives. However, as the speech progressed, I realized I mostly agreed with everything President Bush stated even as I also realized his ideas involve much more government than I would like. I suspect the Democrat’s who are fair in their assessment of President Bush's speech would agree with most of what he said while also wishing for more government involvement.
In his State of the Union speech, President Bush was extremely fair to both sides on most issues. My admiration for the character of George W. Bush continues to grow.
I found this analysis regarding public policy towards the poor by Nathan Smith to be very thoughtful:
Poor Arguments: Bush, Webb and Poverty
Selected excerpts:
Last night, President Bush's State of the Union address and Senator James Webb's Democratic response provided a useful juxtaposition of views. Among other things, it showed how the parties' positions on poverty have changed.
President Bush seeks to inspire altruism by encouraging Americans to compare themselves with those who have less:
"American foreign policy is more than a matter of war and diplomacy. Our work in the world is also based on a timeless truth: To whom much is given, much is required. We hear the call to take on the challenges of hunger and poverty and disease."
Sen. Webb, by contrast, encourages Americans to compare themselves to those who have more, and feel envy. Although Sen. Webb borrows John Edwards' "two nations" theme ("it's almost like we were living in two different countries"), unlike Edwards, Webb makes no mention of helping the poor. Sen. Webb's message is that "the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table."
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Line in the Sand
Throughout our lives, we are establishing, maintaining, and enforcing boundaries. Some boundaries are permanent walls and some boundaries are lines in the sand. Walls for some people are lines in the sand for others and vice versa. My marriage is a wall that limits my intimate affection to one person only, my wife. My property line is a wall that limits the benefits and responsibility for my property to me, my family, and our guests. My lunch menu decision is a line in the sand with very little long term consequences.
Throughout our lives, we also reevaluate our boundaries. Some walls become fences with gates, some fences become lines in the sand, some lines in the sand become fences and some fences become walls. Some alliances and friendships grow while other alliances and friendships weaken. My marriage is a permanent wall that will never change, but my property line will almost surely change when it no longer meets the needs of my family.
When President Bush, and the American people through our elected officials, made a decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power as the ruler of Iraq, we established a boundary. Mission accomplished; the primary objective was accomplished when Saddam Hussein took his last breath.
In the process of getting Hussein, Americans established other boundaries. Americans took responsibility for rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure and Americans took responsibility for establishing and maintaining security for the Iraq people until the Iraqi people are able to maintain their own security.
Some Iraqis have their own boundaries, as do the Syrians and the Iranians. Many Iraqis have built walls to prevent forgiveness of the harms caused by other Iraqis, and many of the Iraqis, Syrians and Iranians have built walls to prevent freedom.
If the American boundary in Iraq is a line in the sand, the American boundary in Iraq will be decimated by all of the historic walls in the Middle East that have been built and maintained for centuries. However, if the American boundary in Iraq is a wall that is stronger than the existing walls in Iraq, then freedom and peace do have a chance.
20,000 more troops and a short term commitment in Iraq isn’t even a decent line in the sand. It’s better than withdrawing troops, and it’s better than no commitment, but it doesn’t give much hope to all of the soldiers and Iraqis who have already made tremendous sacrifices to bring freedom to Iraq. Shouldn’t the American commitment to Iraq be a permanent wall and not an insignificant line in the sand?
Throughout our lives, we also reevaluate our boundaries. Some walls become fences with gates, some fences become lines in the sand, some lines in the sand become fences and some fences become walls. Some alliances and friendships grow while other alliances and friendships weaken. My marriage is a permanent wall that will never change, but my property line will almost surely change when it no longer meets the needs of my family.
When President Bush, and the American people through our elected officials, made a decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power as the ruler of Iraq, we established a boundary. Mission accomplished; the primary objective was accomplished when Saddam Hussein took his last breath.
In the process of getting Hussein, Americans established other boundaries. Americans took responsibility for rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure and Americans took responsibility for establishing and maintaining security for the Iraq people until the Iraqi people are able to maintain their own security.
Some Iraqis have their own boundaries, as do the Syrians and the Iranians. Many Iraqis have built walls to prevent forgiveness of the harms caused by other Iraqis, and many of the Iraqis, Syrians and Iranians have built walls to prevent freedom.
If the American boundary in Iraq is a line in the sand, the American boundary in Iraq will be decimated by all of the historic walls in the Middle East that have been built and maintained for centuries. However, if the American boundary in Iraq is a wall that is stronger than the existing walls in Iraq, then freedom and peace do have a chance.
20,000 more troops and a short term commitment in Iraq isn’t even a decent line in the sand. It’s better than withdrawing troops, and it’s better than no commitment, but it doesn’t give much hope to all of the soldiers and Iraqis who have already made tremendous sacrifices to bring freedom to Iraq. Shouldn’t the American commitment to Iraq be a permanent wall and not an insignificant line in the sand?
Friday, January 05, 2007
Two Blogs
Buz and I have been participating in on-line discussion for a long time. I am glad to see he has FINALLY started his own blog at One Man's Point of View. I think he is off to a fantastic start.
Michael Kruse at Kruse Kronicle is one of the hardest working bloggers I’ve wandered into. He makes a lot of sense too.
Michael Kruse at Kruse Kronicle is one of the hardest working bloggers I’ve wandered into. He makes a lot of sense too.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Tribes
Tribal behavior puzzles me.
As I watch the college football bowl games, I see fans who spend hundreds of dollars on team merchandize, fans who cover themselves in paint, fans who travel across country to see a football game, and fans who behave in ways that would never be tolerated anywhere except at a sporting event.
As I read about the conflict in Iraq, I read about Iraqi’s who all belong to one of three historic ethnic groups, Iraqi’s who kill for honor, and Iraqi’s who consider ethnic conflict an inheritance from a previous generation that should be passed on to the next generation.
As I watch my daughters grow, I see girls who want to be part of a group and I see girls who want to limit membership in a group. Most of their mothers behave the same way.
As I read blogs, I notice a clustering of like minds. Agreement with a blogger usually results in a warm reception while disagreement usually results in an insult and condemnation as the regulars pile on; not always, but most of the time.
Church behavior also puzzles me.
Almost every Church leans over backwards to make visitors feel welcome. As a Church member, I’ve been a part of this effort. But I’ve noticed through the years that visitors, who don’t identify with the Church culture, don’t often return. I’ve also noticed an informal enforcement of Church culture in most Churches. Church regulars want new members to think and act the same as the other regulars.
In many ways, Churches are tribal, just like football fans, ethnic Iraqi’s, young girls, mothers of young girls, and bloggers, are all tribal.
I’m a little different.
I don’t remember a time in my life when I wanted to be known as a member of a group. I never considered my identity to be linked with the schools I attended, the teams I was on, or the activities I enjoyed, so I didn’t want others to consider my groups part of my identity either
In High School, I loved sports, but I didn’t want to be a jock; I made good grades, but I didn’t want to be known as a scholar; I would occasionally spend a major portion of the night partying, but I surely didn’t want to be known as a partier. Most of my friends, though, did consider themselves to be a member of one of these three main groups in High School. In some ways, not being a member of a group, limited my friendships.
I’m very proud now that I served four years of active duty in the Marine Corps, but when I was on active duty, I counted the days until I would no longer be known as a Marine. The term “Marine” didn’t come close to fitting who I am or describing who I was.
If I am ever going to be able to be an active member of a Church again, which I truly believe is the will of God, somehow I have to get comfortable with the idea of being a member of a group, and somehow I have to be able to convince other Christians of the need for Churches to be less tribal.
As I watch the college football bowl games, I see fans who spend hundreds of dollars on team merchandize, fans who cover themselves in paint, fans who travel across country to see a football game, and fans who behave in ways that would never be tolerated anywhere except at a sporting event.
As I read about the conflict in Iraq, I read about Iraqi’s who all belong to one of three historic ethnic groups, Iraqi’s who kill for honor, and Iraqi’s who consider ethnic conflict an inheritance from a previous generation that should be passed on to the next generation.
As I watch my daughters grow, I see girls who want to be part of a group and I see girls who want to limit membership in a group. Most of their mothers behave the same way.
As I read blogs, I notice a clustering of like minds. Agreement with a blogger usually results in a warm reception while disagreement usually results in an insult and condemnation as the regulars pile on; not always, but most of the time.
Church behavior also puzzles me.
Almost every Church leans over backwards to make visitors feel welcome. As a Church member, I’ve been a part of this effort. But I’ve noticed through the years that visitors, who don’t identify with the Church culture, don’t often return. I’ve also noticed an informal enforcement of Church culture in most Churches. Church regulars want new members to think and act the same as the other regulars.
In many ways, Churches are tribal, just like football fans, ethnic Iraqi’s, young girls, mothers of young girls, and bloggers, are all tribal.
I’m a little different.
I don’t remember a time in my life when I wanted to be known as a member of a group. I never considered my identity to be linked with the schools I attended, the teams I was on, or the activities I enjoyed, so I didn’t want others to consider my groups part of my identity either
In High School, I loved sports, but I didn’t want to be a jock; I made good grades, but I didn’t want to be known as a scholar; I would occasionally spend a major portion of the night partying, but I surely didn’t want to be known as a partier. Most of my friends, though, did consider themselves to be a member of one of these three main groups in High School. In some ways, not being a member of a group, limited my friendships.
I’m very proud now that I served four years of active duty in the Marine Corps, but when I was on active duty, I counted the days until I would no longer be known as a Marine. The term “Marine” didn’t come close to fitting who I am or describing who I was.
If I am ever going to be able to be an active member of a Church again, which I truly believe is the will of God, somehow I have to get comfortable with the idea of being a member of a group, and somehow I have to be able to convince other Christians of the need for Churches to be less tribal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
