Feb 09 2011

High speed rail? Obama tries to turn economic lead into gold

Category: Congress,economy,government,humor,legislation,Obama,politics — harmonicminer @ 9:36 am

Obama to call for $53B for high-speed rail

 

President Barack Obama is calling for a six-year, $53 billion spending plan for high-speed rail, as he seeks to use infrastructure spending to jumpstart job creation.

An initial $8 billion in spending will be part of the budget plan Obama is set to release Monday. If Congress approves the plan, the money would go toward developing or improving trains that travel up to 250 miles per hour, and connecting existing rail lines to new projects. The White House wouldn’t say where the money for the rest of the program would come from, though it’s likely Obama would seek funding in future budgets or transportation bills.

Obama’s push for high-speed rail spending is part of his broad goal of creating jobs in the short-term and increasing American competitiveness for the future through new spending on infrastructure, education and innovation. During last month’s State of the Union address, Obama said he wanted to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years.

At the same time he’s calling for new spending on sectors like high-speed rail in the upcoming budget, Obama also has pledged to cut overall spending as he seeks to bring down the nation’s mounting deficit.

Well, to be clear, Obama only called for a “freeze in spending”…  a freeze at the ridiculously high levels he set in his first two years.  Only his sycophants in the press would call not raising spending even further “a cut.”

In any case, America is not Europe, nor is it Japan.  There is not now a demand for high speed rail, nor will there be anytime soon.  If there was a demand for it, private interests would be busy investing in it, expecting to make money from it.  Obama seems to have learned nothing from the subsidy infested mess that is Amtrak.

I propose a better way to spend the money.  He should invest in research in alchemy.  Turning lead into gold is probably impossible….  but maybe not.  And along the way, spending 50 billion dollars is likely to accidentally result in some real science getting done, something with at least “spin off” benefits, technologically and economically.

So lets hear it for alchemy in the federal budget.  That makes a LOT more sense, and is probably a better way to spend large amounts of money, than high-speed rail, which will continue to be a sinkhole for money even after it’s built, which will probably cost a lot more than anyone now projects.

Of course, we all know Obama has no actual hope of doing this.  He just brought it up to play to his lefty audience, who love anything that makes people get in lines and wait somewhere.  But Obama knows he has no chance of getting this through a Republican House of Representatives.  He’s just talking for effect, and public relations with his base.

 

Still…  maybe in trying to turn lead into gold, the scientists would finally discover cold fusion.

 

 

 

Feb 08 2011

“Prosperity gospel” for Christian institutions? Part 2

Category: church,college,God,Group-think,higher education,media,ministry,missions,philosophy,religion,society,theology,university — harmonicminer @ 10:54 am

The previous post in this series is here, and will help provide background for what follows.

There are many instances of people and groups who take risks for the gospel, do the unpopular thing, and God does bless them.But obvious worldly blessing is not a given.God has His own agenda and ways of doing things, and we cannot assume that our worldly success is due to God’s blessing, nor our difficulties evidence of our failure to seek God’s will and do it.Some missionaries are murdered, and martyrdom in Christ’s service did not end with the fall of the Roman Empire.Lesser difficulties also occur with some regularity, even in the modern world.

Yet how many boards and leaders of churches and para-church organizations proceed with the assumption that apparent worldly or financial success equals God’s blessing, with such a rigid conflation of the two that any policy which carries some attendant risk of worldly disapproval is assumed to be the wrong one? Consider the logic: if we are doing good, God will bless us in worldly ways. Therefore, we should not consider doing something that risks getting worldly disapproval, since if the world disapproves, by our benighted definition, God is not blessing us.

So how can we decide if we are making our decisions according to God’s plan, from a fully Christian worldview, or if we are simply doing what seems best to us, within our human expertise (and afflicted with human pride and desire for power), as we try to strengthen our organization or institution in a worldly sense?There is no way to know for sure, of course.

But one thing seems indicative.

If we find we are mostly making decisions from the point of view of what the world will think of us (not from the point of view of God’s will, God’s commands, God’s moral precepts, and Christ within and among us), even if we have great institutional and public success, even if we are doing some good, we are not doing what God desires of us. Christ’s way is one of sacrifice and risk-taking for the sake of the gospel, most particularly the risk of being misunderstood and vilified by those who do not know Him. This is true whether we are explaining His way to the world, or standing for the principles He taught.

I’ll be developing this idea further in subsequent posts.

The next post in this series is here.

Feb 07 2011

“Properity gospel” for Christian institutions?

Category: church,college,education,God,Group-think,media,ministry,philosophy,religion,society,theology — harmonicminer @ 1:06 am

Much is made of the centrality of sacrifice in the Christian life, and justifiably so. Christ’s own life on earth was one of individual sacrifice and service, and not only on the cross, though that is the preeminent example. Simply being incarnated was a sacrifice (Philippians 2:5-9), and his very manner of living was sacrificial, in that he never married and had a family but instead lived for others, took risks of many kinds at various times for the sake of doing his Father’s will and speaking the truth, and so on.

As individuals, we are all called to sacrifice in one way or another for the sake of Christ and the gospel, though it’s a mistake to assume that everyone should live sacrificially in the same ways. One may choose to live simply and have greater financial freedom to give more (though all should give some), another may choose to give greatly of time and service (though all should do this some), and another may choose a lifestyle of great self-denial of one kind or another (though all of us must deny ourselves in some ways), all for the sake of doing God’s will. Few are called to sacrifice all. What seems fairly clear is that a person who has sacrificed nothing, not time, not finances, not manner of living, is likely to be a person who is not listening to God’s whispers, and probably a person who has not closely read the scriptures.

Yet some churches and para-church organizations seem to operate as if it is God’s will for them never to suffer or risk suffering, and never to choose a path that is hard and uncertain, or one that is likely to earn some degree of disapproval from the world, especially the secular world. Some para-church organizations operate as if their leadership believes in a sort of “prosperity gospel” for their organization (even when they deny that as a proper perspective for individuals), assuming that their role is to manage their organization with the same professional risk management as they would apply for any secular organization. And this risk management is fine, up to a point.

The “prosperity gospel” approach to a church or para-church organization is that somehow it can just get bigger and bigger, more and more popular, and it will all be because of God’s blessing. This may work for a time. And God may indeed be blessing certain efforts of the institution, while at the same time some of the institution’s apparent success may be coming from “playing it safe,” maintaining “good public relations,” even innovative business practices and good luck with market demographics or placement. Unfortunately, it can be difficult for people in an organization, including its leadership, to really know what measure of an organization’s apparent success is due to God’s blessing of its efforts, and what proportion is due to good business practices, smooth marketing, or just plain good luck. The temptation, of course, is to ascribe all success to God’s blessing, especially in public pronouncements.

Of course, it doesn’t always work that way. The assumption that God will increase the institutional strength and vigor of any organization that is doing His will is itself evidence of “prosperity gospel” thinking, not scripturally sound thinking about the nature of sacrifice for Christians, and Christian organizations. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament and church history reveals many instances of people and groups (institutions) who appear to be following God’s commands, but who suffer in various ways, sometimes almost in a “no good deed goes unpunished” sort of way, which is of course, the intention of Satan. The point is that apparent prosperity in the world is not proof of God’s blessing. Indeed, it is a sort of heresy to assume so.

I will develop this line of thinking further in future posts.

The next post in this series is here.

Feb 01 2011

Conflicted Egyptians: just like us

Category: Uncategorized — harmonicminer @ 7:34 pm

Sometimes surverys of public opinion just aren’t revealing.  Here is a brief recounting of Egyptian attitudes as measured by some polling. 

 

Make of it what you will.  But don’t be too hard on them.  Americans who claim to believe in freedom elected Obama, who did not disguise his policies.   And we have our “compassionate conservatives” and “pro-life Democrats” continually trying to square the circle.

 

Most people hold at least some conflicting beliefs or perspectives. 

 

But “living Consitution” is still an oxymoron.

 

Jan 26 2011

Obama & Hu – The Cliffnotes Version

Category: appeasement,China,Obama — amuzikman @ 8:55 am

OBAMA: (bowing) Welcome Chairman Hu. We welcome a new season of cooperation between our countries.

HU: Your country is washed up.  You are all a bunch of has-beens.

OBAMA: We are here to make your visit as special as we can. Just ask and it is yours.

HU: I want no questions from the media

OBAMA: We’d really like China to buy a bunch of our stuff.

HU: Sure, We’re buying it with your money anyway.

OBAMA: China needs to improve in the area of human rights.

HU: Yeah, so….?

OBAMA: China is unfairly manipulating the value of its currency.

HU: Yeah, so…?

OBAMA: this has been an historic visit.

HU: You really don’t know who you are dealing with, do you?

Jan 25 2011

Political Correctness Amok

Category: guns,Palin,tea party — amuzikman @ 8:55 am

There is no doubt the death of six people and the wounding of 13 others in Tuscon was a terrible tragedy.  As more information on the killer comes out each day  it is clear he is and has been a very troubled man.  But there is another tragedy in all of this – the tragedy of those who would use this horrific incident for political gain.  The number of silly accusations hurled towards Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, talk radio and others have been as baseless as they have been shrill.  Sarah Palin is to blame because she used the word “targeted” in describing certain congressional districts of interest in the last election.  She is also blamed because some of her literature used the graphic image of a scope sight’s cross hairs.  The PC crowd would have us believe that these words and images, long used by many in both political parties and elsewhere, are now enough to drive someone to violence.  And it didn’t take long before the PC madness began to take hold.  A mere 10 days after the mass murder CNN was apologizing for a show guest who had used the phrase “in the cross hairs”.

Do rational people really think that removing gun metaphors from idiomatic speech will stop random acts violence by the Jared Loughners of this world?

If anyone truly believes this then in the interest of public safety let’s commit fully and wholeheartedly to remove these phrases from our language:

Henceforth…

No longer can a person be chewed out by their boss for something and then say, “She let me have it with both barrels”!
No longer can we have a civil dispute where the first side to get a lawyer is often referred to as “bringing out the big guns”.
No one is allowed to “go off  half cocked”!
You can no longer commit fully to something “lock stock and barrel”.
No more firing off a letter.
No more outlines with bullet points
Women can not be described as “hot as a $2 pistol”.
…or, as a “pistol-packing mama”. (I’m sure women are heart-broken about THAT!)
it is now off limits to “use a shotgun approach” (as to cover all bases).
Concluding a deal can no longer be referred to as “pulling the trigger”.
And poor old Roy Rodgers would have had to rename his horse AND dog!
The makers of Colt 45 Malt Liquor will be adversely affected.
Henceforth nothing streamlined will be described as “bullet-shaped”
(They’ll have to do something about that high-speed train in Japan)
Being drunk or high can no longer have the synonym “loaded”
Basketball players will have to come up with some other way of trying to make a basket since they will no longer be able to “shoot” the ball.
No one can stand “ramrod straight”
No one who speaks plainly and truthfully can be a “straight shooter”
Being accurate is no longer being “on target”
getting very angry is no longer “going ballistic”.
“Shooting from the hip” can no longer explain someone speaking extemporaneously.
“He’s just a flash in the pan” cannot be someone of temporary fame or importance
You may not “bite the bullet”.
you may not “jump the gun”.
Superman will have to describe his speed in terms of something other than being “faster than a speeding bullet”.
You cannot be “gun shy”
You had better not get caught “gunning your engine”.
…or “rifling through drawers”
no more “shotgun weddings”.
no more operations that result in “shooting blanks”.
No more job candidates described as “high caliber”
No more developed biceps described as “guns”
(And no more sleeveless shirts, apparently.)
You can no longer be “under the gun”.
…or “In the crosshairs” (thank you, CNN)
You cannot “drop the hammer”
..or look for “the smoking gun”.
You may not “ride shotgun” in a car
..or hazard a guess with “a shot in the dark”.
You cannot spend all your money and then complain “you shot your wad”.
You most certainly cannot describe the attitude of determined preparation as “locked and loaded”.
No one will encourage you to refrain from getting upset by telling you to “keep your powder dry”
You won’t be in any danger of “being out gunned”
And you won’t explain your preparation to tackle a difficult task by being “loaded for bear”.
Nobody will ever be a “loose cannon” again.
You’ll never be in danger of being “out-gunned”.
..or by having anyone “taking shots” at you.
(I wonder if this will adversely affect Tequila drinkers…)
There are no easy cures and no longer any other way to say it like, “there’s no silver bullet”.
There are no more “warning shots”
…or “a shot across the bows”
You cannot be “shot down”.
or “shot down in flames”, no matter how badly you lose an argument.
And you can’t “shoot yourself in the foot” ever again
You cannot be a “son of a gun”
You don’t have to take any “flak”.
And no one will criticize you in a malicious, underhanded manner by “sniping” at you.

That’s all there is to it.  Just see to it that these and other gun metaphors are forever banished from our language, then sit back and watch the world become a safer place!

Jan 24 2011

Mass Murder Among Us

Category: abortion — amuzikman @ 8:55 am

Michelle Malkin has an excellent article concerning the Philadelphia mass murder, er abortion clinic, now known as the “House of Horrors”.  Please read it.

For years the pro-abortion fear mongers among us have reviled us with tales of back alley abortions done with a coat hanger.   I find it ironic, to say the least, that some of the women who visited Dr. Gosnell’s clinic might have opted for the alley as a safer choice.  But I am sure that no one can paint a more fearful scenario than this very real one in the City of Brotherly Love.

I also can’t help but wonder why it is that the so called civil rights “leaders” do not raise a cry of outrage about the genocide that is being perpetrated on the minority community.

As the article explains, there were many who knew about the horrors of this clinic and yet chose to do nothing.  Why is that?

Pro-abortionists like to thump their proverbial chests and proclaim how theirs is the “logical” position and how it is fruitless to use logic in a debate with someone who is pro-life.  Can someone please explain to me the “logic” of Dr. Gosnell?

Jan 23 2011

The Next Great Awakening Part 15: Reasoned response to skeptics

Category: apologetics,Bible,God,philosophy,Scripture,theology — harmonicminer @ 1:52 pm

The previous post in this series is here.

Here is a website that addresses many of the claims of skeptics about Christ and Christianity.  It does so in the context of responding to various claims made by a prominent scholar/skeptic, Bart Ehrman.  The speakers and writers on this site are also prominent scholars who do not respond with polemics or personal attacks, but with calm reasoning and observation.  It has many short, well-produced videos with concise responses to various issues and problems.  Click the links along the top of the page linked above to reveal other videos and links.

Highly recommended.

h/t:  Koinonia

In general, I think too many upwardly mobile Christian universities put too little emphasis on apologetics, and I hope more of them will seek the contributors to the site linked above as guest speakers.

 

The next post in this series is here.

Jan 21 2011

Dependence Day: Mark Steyn is seeing things all too clearly

Category: Uncategorized — harmonicminer @ 1:55 pm

You really have to read this.

Jan 19 2011

It’s only murder if you kill in certain places and certain ways; otherwise, it’s just medical care

Category: abortion — harmonicminer @ 12:55 pm

Philadelphia abortion doctor charged with murder

An abortion doctor killed hundreds of babies by cutting their spinal cords with scissors after removing them from mothers late in their pregnancies, prosecutors said on Wednesday.

Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams charged Dr. Kermitt Gosnell, 69, and nine associates with eight counts of murder, following a year-long investigation by a grand jury, whose report was unveiled on Wednesday.

The defendants are charged with first-degree murder in the cases of seven babies for which there is substantial evidence, Williams said.

Hundreds of other babies are likely to have died in Gosnell’s West Philadelphia clinic, which he operated from 1979 to 2010, Williams said.

A third-degree murder charge stemmed from the death of a mother who died from an overdose of anesthetics, he said.

“My comprehension of the English language can’t adequately describe the barbaric nature of Dr. Gosnell,” Williams said at a news conference.

Gosnell and his associates were arrested without incident on Wednesday, and Williams said he may seek the death penalty for Gosnell.

He said Gosnell’s clients, many of whom were poor, were charged $325 for a first-trimester abortion and between $1,625 and $3,000 for an illegal abortion after 24 weeks.

Under the law, it make a huge difference if the baby is killed in the womb, or out.   If the “medical doctor” in this story had simply been more careful to kill the babies in the womb, instead of after getting them out, he’d be in no legal jeopardy whatsoever, other than perhaps for his carelessness in getting one of the mothers dead.  Hey “Doc”, you should have stuck the scissors in and done the spinal cord snipping while the baby was still in the womb.

Just to get a feel for things in Pennsylvania (not so different from other states), here are a couple of links.

If you’re under 18, and want to get an abortion without your parents’ consent or knowledge, here is how to do it in Pennsylvania, where “So far, in Pennsylvania, the judges have never said no to anyone.”

Here’s an especially nice touch:

Special Arrangements

Allegheny Reproductive Health Center will handle arrangements for cremation after pathology. A small memento of your choice can be included in with the baby at the time it is sent for pathology. If you wish, you can receive a special memory packet which contains a copy of the ultrasound report if you do not have one, online and printed materials, and a little memento to take home with you. It is our hope that you and your loved ones feel comfortable and cared for while at ARHC. If there is anything else we should know or can do to make your visit easier, please let us know.

RESOURCES

Traditionally, particularly in many Western faiths, there have been no rituals or ceremonies or prayers written to connect God’s love and mercy to women’s experience of pregnancy loss.  Fortunately, today much work has been done to address this need.  New prayers, rituals and ceremonies have been created and are available to help women and their families honor their loss, name their grief, and find solace in the warmth of family, friends, and their faith community.

Did you get that?  They actually called the killed human child a “baby”, not a “product of conception”.  After you pay a “doctor” to murder your baby, you can be all touchy-feely and warm and have a nice memento (baby booties?  Ultrasound photos?  A picture of “mom”?) burned to ashes along with the baby’s corpse.  And from the sound of the paragraph above, it looks like you can do anything from taking communion to having a nice wiccan ceremony, to commemorate your decision to kill your child.  We certainly want to be supportive, don’t we?

And here’s a nice list of late term abortion clinics around the nation, from abortion.com.

I wonder how many of the aborted babies were black?   I don’t think there is too much doubt about what Martin Luther King, Jr. would have thought about this.

« Previous Page — Next Page »