This should come as no surprise. Reeling from the announcement of Sarah Palin, a certified Obama-killer, as McCain's VP nominee, The Media are in closet-snooping mode. Some of the juiciest morsels (with the first two having been self-disclosed by the Palins) are listed below:
To use Obama's words, Palin's daughter has made a mistake, and is now being punished with a baby. If Bristol were Obama's daughter, she would have the choice of terminating her pregnancy at any time in the next 10 months or so. Tough bounce, Bristol.
More than two decades ago, a 22 year old Todd Palin spent a night in jail after being pulled over for driving under the influence with a few friends in his truck. For a dash of perspective, Top Gun and Ferris Bueller's Day Off were in theaters in 1986.
John Washburn has addressed this issue in detail over at When Evil Prospers. Walter Monegan, former Public Safety Commissioner, was fired for not filling vacant positions, and for usurping the Governor's authority by going directly to the State Legislature to request funding that would directly violate the Governor's budget guidelines. Monegan says he was fired because Palin pressured him to fire her sister's ex-husband, State Trooper Mike Wooten, and he refused. According to Wooten's file from the Alaska State Trooper's office, Wooten was "suspended for threatening to kill Palin's father, for tasering (yes, he tasered) his 11 year old stepson, for drinking beer in his squad car and for violating wild game laws. The suspension was for 10 days and was later reduced to 5 days after a union protest." One of Alaska's finest, to be sure. Why would anyone, including the Governor, think he should be fired?
—
By the way, wasn't it The Media who reminded us over and over again in the Nineties that a politician's personal life shouldn't matter at all, as long as they do a good job while "in office"? Either way, an objective media (I wonder what would that look like) would have a tough time focusing on a pregnant daughter when our dear Obamessiah voted against a law that would prevent infanticide on three separate occasions, and that he served on a committee with (and even launched his political career from the home of) a domestic terrorist that bombed the Pentagon.
Look for more objective, hard-hitting journalism over the next two months.
From Red Planet Cartoons:
Quoting Robert Robb: Democrat Platform is for Whiners.
The Democrats have titled their party platform, "Renewing America’s Promise."
A more honest and accurate title would be, "We’ll Give You More."
I would also add that for the socially-conscious Obama supporter, concerned about helping the poor and the oppressed, it might also be titled "We'll Do It For You." Ahh, nobody outsources compassion like a concerned Democrat.
It's obvious (even to Obamaniacs who happen to be Christians) that Barrack cares very little for the littlest "least of these", considering his impeccable pro-choice record. But, they tell us, Obama's their guy because he really, really, really cares about the poor. I mean, really.
And that John McCain guy? Ha! If he's president, we'll probably end up drilling through homeless shelters so we can find more precious oil. Right?
Not when you look at the facts (another problem for many Obamaniacs, I know.). If you haven't yet, you need to compare tax returns from the two candidates (Obama, McCain)1.
In all but the two most recent years reported, the Obamas gave around 1% or less of their income to charity. Their contributions increased in 2005 and 2006 to 4.7% and 6.1% respectively, but still are far short of those of McCain who gave 28.6% in 2006 and 27.3% in 2007.
This is, of course, consistent with the general trend of conservatives out-giving liberals. According to Arthur C. Brooks' book Who Really Cares (cited by George Will),
- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George W. Bush.
- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
Or, to paraphrase in Pyromaniacs style,
If your idea of charity is raising taxes so the government can care for the poor so you don't have to, then Barry's your guy. It's just that I don't think that's what Jesus had in mind in Matthew 25.
From Fox News: Report: Elizabeth Edwards Was in Anguish Over Husband's Affair
Really? Finding out her husband was unfaithful while she was fighting incurable cancer caused her anguish? Now *that* is some fine journalism.
There's quite a furor over on Gary's recently resurrected blog about whether or not a "serious Christian" can, in good conscience, vote for Barack Obama. I've asked this question myself, and even if I hadn't you could probably guess how I would answer it. That's not ground I wish to cover again today.
What is interesting to me is the way that this debate seems to get framed among "serious Christians" who are rightly concerned with having a consistent ethic of human life, as it is often called. God certainly cares about the unborn child, but doesn't he also care about the poor, the destitute, the oppressed? Well, folks, you can't read through Matthew 25 without concluding that yes, God most certainly cares about the oppressed, and he will judge his people for how they care for them. Let's all agree that a passage that includes a "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire…" statement should be central to how we understand God's universe. I, personally, am ashamed of how little regard I have for the well being of the poor in my own city, not to mention those around the world. We, as Christians in the U.S., need to do a better job of this. No argument there.
Here's where I start to disagree. Can anybody really argue that the issues of abortion and neglecting the poor are on the same plane? We should take Jesus seriously when he says that when he was hungry, we gave him nothing to eat because "as you did not do it to one of the least of these…". That much is clear. But, is it much of a leap to also assume that when a doctor jams a pair of surgical scissors into the head of a child, there are some "least of these" issues involved as well? I've heard the argument for choosing the lesser of two evils, but it's hard for me to think of a list on which government-sponsored infanticide is not quite as bad as X. Jesus cares about hungry folks, but he also cares quite a bit about babies.
Secondly, this argument assumes that a vote for a Democratic president is a vote for fighting poverty. I don't think I'm quite ready to concede this point. We've had decades of the government-sponsored "War on Poverty," and things don't seem to be turning around. To use familiar terms, we're in a quagmire with no exit strategy. We have thrown billions upon billions of dollars at social programs of all shapes and sizes, and for what? Have they worked? No. Not even close. So, is the answer that we need *more* of these types of programs? Probably not.
So, before I'm going to buy the "McCain cares about babies, but Obama cares about the poor" argument, I'm going to need some proof that Barack really is the best choice if we want a leader who cares "for the least of these" as we ought to. At this point, I'm not seeing it.
Want to lower your house payment? Want to save hundreds of dollars each month? Well, the Rescuer in Chief has a deal you can't afford to pass up. In order to qualify, you have to meet the following criteria:
- Have little or no equity in your house. Note: you can accomplish this either by not making a down payment or by getting a second mortgage to "leverage" your equity.
- Take a three-month break from sending in a house payment.
- Make a really pouty-looking face while saying "My lender tricked me!" one hundred times as you stomp around in a circle.
You'd better hurry up if you want to take advantage of this special offer because only the first 400,000 home owners who apply will be accepted.
Please note, if you have been making your house payment on time each month you are not eligible for this incredible opportunity.
—
Also, from the Department of Homeland Irony, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that in light of the newly signed legislation, "the Federal Housing Administration would begin right away to implement new policies 'intended to keep more deserving American families in their homes.'" As it turns out, banks have already found a way to determine which American families deserve to stay in their homes. It's the ones who send them a check each month.
Hosanna, hey Sanna Sanna Sanna Ho, Sanna hey Sanna Ho Sanna.
It's one thing to say you care about helping people, another thing to actually do something to help people, and yet another thing to do something that actually does help people in the long run. We should all rebuke the man who says he cares for the poor, but never offers them a loaf of bread. He's a hypocrite. But, don't forget that we should also rebuke the man who says he cares for the poor and then invents programs that will guarantee that they will always be so. This man is also a hypocrite, perhaps even more so because he likes to remind us all of how cold and calloused we are for not jumping on his programs-for-the-poor bandwagon.
Borrowing heavily from Doug Wilson's thoughts, we need to not only care about the needs of the poor, but we need to care enough to offer solutions that will actually help them. It's one thing to have good intentions, but what if the measures we take to "help the poor" actually make things worse? In such a case, everyone would be better off if we had done nothing at all. To borrow again from Wilson, what if our shipments of "relief" to an impoverished community in Africa are diverted to the local dictator and his armies, keeping him in power and assuring that the people under his tyranny will continue to starve? Are these people better off because of the so-called aid we've provided? What if sending out government checks to those "less fortunate than us" encourages them to not get married, not find a job, and to have more illegitimate children? Are they better off because of it? Judging by the progress in the War on Poverty (which, I should mention, has gone on much longer, and at much greater cost, than the war in Iraq), I would say that we're teaching people to be less responsible, and more dependent on their governmental ATM, which will most certainly run out of cash at some point.
While this shouldn't be misconstrued as an excuse to not do anything, it should serve as a warning that we should evaluate the potential consequences (intentional and otherwise) of any governmental (or social, for that matter) intervention before we launch the latest and greatest new program to solve everyone's problems for them. I say we employ this novel approach before the proposed legislation bailing out mortgage lenders and "distressed" home owners gets through Congress. The legislation is "meant to save hundreds of thousands of troubled homeowners from foreclosure. The legislation would create a government-backed mortgage insurance program with the power to refinance as much as $300 billion worth of failing home loans."
Hey, that sounds great. I mean, think of the CHILDREN! Think of their PETS! Don't we have a responsibility–nay, a duty–to protect people from the consequences of their decisions? Continue reading this post »
The headline: Gore's Mansion Uses More Energy After 'Going Green'
Enviro-crusader Al Gore just finished up renovating his home in Tennessee to make it more eco-friendly. After spending more than $16,000 on improvements that will surely save this soon-to-be-melting planet, "the former vice president uses an average of 17,768 kWh per month — 1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations."
Some perspective; according to the Energy Information Administration's website, the average American household uses 920 kilowatthours (kWh) per month. In other words, Al Gore uses 1,900% (19x) more electricity per month than the average American household. In fact, the additional amount of electricity Gore uses each month since the renovation is nearly double the amount a "normal" family uses each month.
Frankly, the High Priest of Hype wouldn't be any more hypocritical if he were actually having polar bears flown in from the Arctic and throwing them into a bear-burning stove to heat his humble abode all winter long. I've said all along that I'd be more inclined to believe the global warming hype if the people proclaiming our impending doom actually believed it.
By the way, this article over on Snopes is kind of fun, too.
I've heard this list attributed to one source or another, but I found it here today. It's a list of questions that need to be answered before we do anything drastic about global warming.
(1) Is it occurring?
(2) If it is occurring, is it bad overall?
(3) If it is occurring and is bad overall, is it caused primarily by human factors?
(4) If (1) , (2), and (3) are true, can humans do anything significant about it that is not overbalanced by detrimental factors?
(On global warming, see the chapter on global warming in Tom Bethell's delightful book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science.)
After talking about this issue with Jared, I'm willing to concede that #3 isn't critical to the logical cohesiveness of the list1, but I would suggest that most folks that are truly concerned with this issue haven't answered (even in their own minds) #4. I would further suggest that many of them have barely answered #1 (can you say "scientific consensus" ten times fast?), and have used this as a launch pad for crusades involving funny-shaped light bulbs and unplugged cell phone chargers.
Anyway, back on track. Consider the following scenario: The earth is really getting warmer, and every one degree increase in the temperature will lead to the extinction of one endangered species. Our nasty addiction to internal combustion has been proven to be the cause, and the only way to turn the tide is to stop pumping oil out of the ground and instead to run cars on pure ethanol. While this course of action would guarantee the reversal of an increasing greenhouse effect, it would also lead to the collapse of any vestige of civilization in the Middle East, leading to civil wars and terrorist acts that would kill nearly a billion people throughout Europe, Asia, and northern Africa. One other byproduct would be for the U.S. to invest all surplus corn, wheat, soybeans, and any other food crop into clean fuel production, instead of exporting them, leading to the starvation of 750 million starving people in Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia.
Now, I'll admit that this scenario may be far-fetched. However, humor me for a second. If the "cost to cure" global warming would be the death of 1.75 billion people, would it be worth fighting in order to save polar bears? What if the number was *only* 1 billion? Would that be any different? What if coastal flooding, induced by the complete disappearance of the polar caps, would kill or displace 100 million people, while global warming counter measures would kill or displace 200 million? No matter what you believe, you would have to admit that efforts to combat global warming come with a price tag.
I saw one estimate the other day that said it would take $45 trillion to effectively fight global warming. The Global Warming Zealots will tell you that this "investment" would actually have a positive effect on the global economy, but that can't possibly be true. Every dollar that is invested into the science of "carbon capture and storage", for example, is a dollar that won't be invested into the production of something that would actually be useful. Look at it this way; I could pay you $45k a year to walk in circles in my back yard all day, and that would impact the economy because you now have a job, you pay taxes, and you spend that money on "stuff," which keeps the economy rolling. Or, I could pay you $45k to tend a garden in my back yard, producing $10 a week in vegetables that wouldn't exist if not for your hard work. In scenario 1, the "investment" of $45k yields less per year in productivity, because in scenario 2 I still have all of the benefits of scenario 1, plus $520 in fruits and vegetables.
Now, think about the effect of pulling $45 trillion out of the global economy to produce goods and services nobody really wants, nobody really needs, and that will likely decrease global production instead of increasing it. You think high gas prices are hitting the economy hard?
Here's the bottom line. Global warming may or may not be happening. Global warming may or may not be bad. Global warming may or may not be caused by man. That's not the point. Even if these three things are true, before we start taking action we first need to realize that such actions will have consequences. And, if these consequences outweigh the initial threat proposed by global warming, then the best course of action would be to just get out of the way and to try not make things worse by starving people and shipwrecking economies in the name of environmentalism.
RSS 2.0
