“In ideologies there is not Jesus: in his tenderness, his love, his meekness. And ideologies are rigid, always. Of every sign: rigid. And when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith: he is no longer a disciple of Jesus, he is a disciple of this attitude of thought… For this reason Jesus said to them: ‘You have taken away the key of knowledge.’ The knowledge of Jesus is transformed into an ideological and also moralistic knowledge, because these close the door with many requirements. The faith becomes ideology and ideology frightens, ideology chases away the people, distances, distances the people and distances of the Church of the people. But it is a serious illness, this of ideological Christians. It is an illness, but it is not new, eh?”
~Pope Francis, (October 2013)
Hmm...sounds most familiar...
Friday, December 13, 2013
Thursday, December 12, 2013
The Adolescent
I've written previously about the modern day conservative as adolescent but this last week has certainly crystallized this theory and so a new tag is born, "The Adolescent." Once again, I was defriended by a conservative on Facebook. Reverend Jim said sayonara to Markadelphia after long exchanges over health care and race issues. Apparently, he and his wife (my first girlfriend) have had trouble signing up for health insurance on the federal exchange and blame me for it. They were in the individual market and were absolutely apoplectic about what the federal government was "making" them do.
Of course, the act of defriending itself is adolescent and, oddly, senior citizen-y (which is sort of the same thing when you think about it). Doesn't Reverend Jim know that you can delete someone from your news feed still remain friends? Man, working the computer machine is tough! Ah well, at least the bubble's integrity can remain intact. Thank goodness! Odder still, its that they tagged me in their health care rants, calling me a "box of turds" and "an idiot" for supporting the president and a political class that "lords over them, forcing them to live in servitude." The more I responded with the facts, the worse they got. Granted, the missus, who is still friends me with me on FB, has infinite leeway with me because she was the first love of my life but did they honestly want me to not respond? Again, adolescent:)
There were so many irrational and hysterical comments in those threads that it was hard for me to keep track but the one thing that struck me about all of them was how decidedly un-Christian they were. They were so self absorbed with their frustration with the web site, did they ever stop to think about these people? They are bitching about a buggy web site and the people in this link had nothing except life threatening illnesses. When Reverend Jim and the missus finally found out that they qualified for subsidies and would actually save money, suddenly they were happy. My oh my, how the emotions swing with teenagers! All talk of people "spooning off of the American taxpayer" went out the window as they finally happily got signed up.
This selfishness, aside from being un-Christian, is yet another strong indicator of a brain and higher reasoning not fully developed-just like an adolescent). They don't think rationally at all. Reverend Jim bemoans liberals that take offense at everything yet thinks conservatives that take offense at everything are justified. He vilifies our self esteem culture and the fairness for all attitude that goes along with it yet rips me when I say conservatives are far worse than liberals and...(not shockingly) gets massively offended himself. Again, the world revolves around them and only them.
It reminds me a great deal of the conversations I've had over the years with teenagers who take great umbrage with the fact that our society has rules and sometimes they aren't fair. As adults, one would think conservatives would have learned this by now but, as I have stated previously, something must have happened to them in their childhood to have so much trouble with authority. Because these sorts of conversations, with both adolescents and the modern day conservative, invariable end with an outburst followed by a stomp down the hallway, a door slam, and yelling about how I "think I'm so smart" and I'm always "talking down to them" like they are a child.
Well, perhaps they should stop acting like one:)
Of course, the act of defriending itself is adolescent and, oddly, senior citizen-y (which is sort of the same thing when you think about it). Doesn't Reverend Jim know that you can delete someone from your news feed still remain friends? Man, working the computer machine is tough! Ah well, at least the bubble's integrity can remain intact. Thank goodness! Odder still, its that they tagged me in their health care rants, calling me a "box of turds" and "an idiot" for supporting the president and a political class that "lords over them, forcing them to live in servitude." The more I responded with the facts, the worse they got. Granted, the missus, who is still friends me with me on FB, has infinite leeway with me because she was the first love of my life but did they honestly want me to not respond? Again, adolescent:)
There were so many irrational and hysterical comments in those threads that it was hard for me to keep track but the one thing that struck me about all of them was how decidedly un-Christian they were. They were so self absorbed with their frustration with the web site, did they ever stop to think about these people? They are bitching about a buggy web site and the people in this link had nothing except life threatening illnesses. When Reverend Jim and the missus finally found out that they qualified for subsidies and would actually save money, suddenly they were happy. My oh my, how the emotions swing with teenagers! All talk of people "spooning off of the American taxpayer" went out the window as they finally happily got signed up.
This selfishness, aside from being un-Christian, is yet another strong indicator of a brain and higher reasoning not fully developed-just like an adolescent). They don't think rationally at all. Reverend Jim bemoans liberals that take offense at everything yet thinks conservatives that take offense at everything are justified. He vilifies our self esteem culture and the fairness for all attitude that goes along with it yet rips me when I say conservatives are far worse than liberals and...(not shockingly) gets massively offended himself. Again, the world revolves around them and only them.
It reminds me a great deal of the conversations I've had over the years with teenagers who take great umbrage with the fact that our society has rules and sometimes they aren't fair. As adults, one would think conservatives would have learned this by now but, as I have stated previously, something must have happened to them in their childhood to have so much trouble with authority. Because these sorts of conversations, with both adolescents and the modern day conservative, invariable end with an outburst followed by a stomp down the hallway, a door slam, and yelling about how I "think I'm so smart" and I'm always "talking down to them" like they are a child.
Well, perhaps they should stop acting like one:)
Time's Man of the Year: "Fake" Christian
Well, Time magazine went and done did it. They named Pope Francis the Man of the Year. As the image below aptly notes, Republican Jesus believers don't much like the new pontiff and his "socialist" ways (see: helping the poor, healing the sick, championing equality aka what Jesus actually taught) so this has got to be a real ass chap for them. The world is moving away from the hatred, anger and fear.
Oh well.
Oh well.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Great News!
Two great things have happened in the last 24 hours. We have thankfully returned to a core tenet of Glass Steagal and enacted the so called Volcker Rule which prohibits banks from using customer money to trade for their own gain. I can't understate how integral this is to bringing stability to our economy and, by extension, the world economy.
And we have a deal that looks like it will pass by houses of Congress and fund the government through 2015. Republicans saw what happened when the shut down the government recently and realized it was time to put the short wave radio crowd back in the garage. They were facing disaster in the 2014 elections and now, with the help of the poor rollout of the ACA, they are doing much better. While there will likely be some return to idiocy, electorally speaking, over the next few months, GOP leaders can see a path to holding ground in the House and maybe picking up some seats in the Senate. Of course, things look pretty bad for them in 2016 as 24 Republicans look to hold on to their seats while only 10 Democrats do the same. But who knows what could happen in 3 years?
So, great times, folks in terms of our economic path. It's going to be interesting to see how our economy does now that both of these issues are out of the way. GDP is up, unemployment is down, and consumer confidence, heading into the final stretch of the holiday season, is at a five month high.
Great News!
And we have a deal that looks like it will pass by houses of Congress and fund the government through 2015. Republicans saw what happened when the shut down the government recently and realized it was time to put the short wave radio crowd back in the garage. They were facing disaster in the 2014 elections and now, with the help of the poor rollout of the ACA, they are doing much better. While there will likely be some return to idiocy, electorally speaking, over the next few months, GOP leaders can see a path to holding ground in the House and maybe picking up some seats in the Senate. Of course, things look pretty bad for them in 2016 as 24 Republicans look to hold on to their seats while only 10 Democrats do the same. But who knows what could happen in 3 years?
So, great times, folks in terms of our economic path. It's going to be interesting to see how our economy does now that both of these issues are out of the way. GDP is up, unemployment is down, and consumer confidence, heading into the final stretch of the holiday season, is at a five month high.
Great News!
Responsible Gun Owners?
3-Year-Old Fatally Shot Near Broad Ripple Park After Gun Fell Off Counter
A neighbor to the family said "I've known they had guns; they've carried them in public on their side, they've got permits for them and I just thought they always were a little bit more responsible than that."
I guess not.
A neighbor to the family said "I've known they had guns; they've carried them in public on their side, they've got permits for them and I just thought they always were a little bit more responsible than that."
I guess not.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Spy vs. Spy: Elf vs. Orc
Not content with monitoring domestic phone calls, email, Internet searches, and porn habits, during the Bush administration the NSA decided to spy on people playing World of Warcraft. The New York Times reports the latest embarrassment from the Edward Snowden document dump:
There were so many NSA and GCHQ (British SIGINT) guys doing this that they had to develop protocols to avoid spying on each other.
This is another sign of the excessive amount of time and money we are wasting on supposed security threats. The bosses at the NSA are either completely stupid or ridiculously naive if they can't see that their employees were just looking for an excuse to play games at work.
No wonder Edward Snowden could just waltz in and steal them blind.
Not limiting their activities to the earthly realm, American and British spies have infiltrated the fantasy worlds of World of Warcraft and Second Life, conducting surveillance and scooping up data in the online games played by millions of people across the globe, according to newly disclosed classified documents.
Fearing that terrorist or criminal networks could use the games to communicate secretly, move money or plot attacks, the documents show, intelligence operatives have entered terrain populated by digital avatars that include elves, gnomes and supermodels.This is silly. Anyone who plays these games knows that there's no privacy. The companies running them are constantly on the watch for suspicious activity, because of rampant theft of game accounts, credit cards and in-game items and virtual currency. The companies log all communications, and monitor all activities to determine the best way to make money off their players.
There were so many NSA and GCHQ (British SIGINT) guys doing this that they had to develop protocols to avoid spying on each other.
This is another sign of the excessive amount of time and money we are wasting on supposed security threats. The bosses at the NSA are either completely stupid or ridiculously naive if they can't see that their employees were just looking for an excuse to play games at work.
No wonder Edward Snowden could just waltz in and steal them blind.
Citizens of the World
The recent cover story in the Christian Science Monitor illustrates just how much the world is changing. Retirees in this country are leaving the Unite States for Latin America in their golden years. Why? Their money lasts longer there with cheaper goods and more affordable health care.
The exodus south is being driven by a confluence of factors. The baby boom generation – the largest in history – is reaching retirement age, and millions are looking for places to spend the next phase of their lives. As the most educated, well-traveled, and adventurous generation in history, many of these boomers are deciding to retire outside the country – including in Latin America. They're also looking for places that will allow them to stretch their 401(k)s after they lost a lot of money in the last stock market collapse. With the US economy remaining so tentative, and health-care costs so aggressive, retirees want to live where they can afford greens fees and where a trip to the emergency room won't bankrupt them.
It really helps to live in countries where the opposition party isn't trying to actively sabotage your health care system.
The bigger view of all of this, though, is how people are moving to consider themselves citizens of the world and not citizens of a particular country. I was particularly stuck by the story of James Cummiskey, the 20 year marine veteran who now owns his own coffee exporting business in Columbia. In the age of globalization, business can be conducted virtually anywhere so it makes sense to live in a country where you can make your dollars last longer.
As the article indicates, it isn't just Latin America. American retirees are moving all over the world. Perhaps that should tell us something about our current standard of living.
The exodus south is being driven by a confluence of factors. The baby boom generation – the largest in history – is reaching retirement age, and millions are looking for places to spend the next phase of their lives. As the most educated, well-traveled, and adventurous generation in history, many of these boomers are deciding to retire outside the country – including in Latin America. They're also looking for places that will allow them to stretch their 401(k)s after they lost a lot of money in the last stock market collapse. With the US economy remaining so tentative, and health-care costs so aggressive, retirees want to live where they can afford greens fees and where a trip to the emergency room won't bankrupt them.
It really helps to live in countries where the opposition party isn't trying to actively sabotage your health care system.
The bigger view of all of this, though, is how people are moving to consider themselves citizens of the world and not citizens of a particular country. I was particularly stuck by the story of James Cummiskey, the 20 year marine veteran who now owns his own coffee exporting business in Columbia. In the age of globalization, business can be conducted virtually anywhere so it makes sense to live in a country where you can make your dollars last longer.
As the article indicates, it isn't just Latin America. American retirees are moving all over the world. Perhaps that should tell us something about our current standard of living.
Monday, December 09, 2013
Why Do Those Charities Want Your Old T-Shirts?
We still have a landline phone, and 19 out of 20 calls are either 1) a scam for ripping off the elderly with a "free" health monitor that will cost them thousands of dollars, or 2) a notification that a truck from some charity or other will be in the neighborhood to collect old clothing.
I might be weird, but I wear my old clothing until it's worn out. I wear t-shirts until they get holes in the armpits, sweatshirts till the cuffs are frayed, and jeans till they get holes in the seat. Then I turn them into rags and use them to dust and clean my bike chain. Anyway, who could possibly want my old t-shirts?
Now I know who: people in Africa. From a story on NPR:
Jeff Steinberg had a maroon and white lacrosse jersey that he wore for years. It said "Denver Lacrosse" on the front and had his number, 5, on the back.Our old t-shirts are being packed into container ships, exported to Kenya where they sell for 15 cents. Often they are cut, resized (all those XL and XXL shirts are way too big for Africans), washed, ironed, tailored, and ultimately resold for a couple of bucks.
Then, one day, he cleaned out his closet and took the shirt to a Goodwill store in Miami. He figured that was the end of it. But some months after that, Steinberg found himself in Sierra Leone for work. He was walking down the street, and he saw a guy selling ice cream and cold drinks, wearing a Denver Lacrosse jersey.
Over the years I've noticed on the news that people in other countries wear American t-shirts a lot. Why, I wondered, are so many Africans fans of the Chicago Bulls and the New England Patriots?
It turns out they're not. These countries are so desperately poor compared to us that they have entire industries based on the stuff that we just toss out.
I guess it's great that this stuff is being recycled. It's a lot more benign than the nasty recycling of electronics, in which circuit boards are sent to third-world countries and burned to recover precious metals, exposing the workers -- frequently children -- to highly toxic fumes.
But it really puts into perspective how wealthy the average American is compared to the average Kenyan.
And then you realize that there are some Americans who are almost as badly off as those Kenyans, who get their pick of our castoffs before we ship them off to Kenya. And they work for Walmart and McDonalds.
The Metric of Success
A commenter recently asked what my metric for success was in terms of the Affordable Care Act. I've answered this question many times in posts and comments and one need only click here to peruse my answers over the last couple of years. In fact, I recently highlighted one such quantification that bounced off the bubble into outer space. Oh well.
Yet, unlike my conservative colleagues, I strive to be reflective. So, it is in that spirit that we start today with a new tag called "health care success." Today, I will highlight two main metrics of quantitative success that will be integral in judging the effectiveness of the ACA. As the numbers start to come in showing increased enrollment in health care insurance, we will be able to see the number of people insured in this country rise. Right now we stand at 84.6 percent insured. So, the first metric of success is to get as many of that 15.4 percent uninsured to have coverage. If we can have a total of 95 percent of the nation covered with health insurance by 2016, I'd say it was successful. That's about three quarters of that 15 percent or 30 million people. We may not be able to know this for certain until the next census (2020) but I think there will be plenty of data by the next presidential election to give us a clearer picture.
But what about that last five percent? Well, that's where my second metric comes into play. Those that don't get insurance will have to pay a fee which will offset the costs of the program. Will that fee and all the newly insured people be able to achieve the overall goal of the ACA in reducing the amount of money we spend on health care? Currently we each spend $8,233 per year and the U.S. health care costs now eat up 17.6 percent of GDP. How does that compare with other countries?
Terrible. Just terrible. This is why we had to have health care reform. Obviously, the goal here is to control growth, as I noted the other day, and the ACA is already doing that. Now we have to look at the goal numbers in terms of dollars spent per person and our GDP (adjusted for inflation, of course). A minor success would be for us to spend $8,232 per person-1 dollar less than we are now. A major one would be for us to spend as much as Norway does at $5,388 per person. I'm going to set the goal of $6,700 dollars per person which falls right in between as my measure of success. With GDP, a minor success would be to get it to 16 percent. A major success would be 11.5 percent, putting us right in the middle of many European countries. I'll set the goal here at 14 percent of GDP. \
Of course, quantifying health care success is only one piece of the puzzle. What about quality of care? We could meet these goals but what if the care level falls? In the coming months, I'll be discussing other metrics that will indicate success in terms of our new health care law. Look for the tag "health care success!"
Yet, unlike my conservative colleagues, I strive to be reflective. So, it is in that spirit that we start today with a new tag called "health care success." Today, I will highlight two main metrics of quantitative success that will be integral in judging the effectiveness of the ACA. As the numbers start to come in showing increased enrollment in health care insurance, we will be able to see the number of people insured in this country rise. Right now we stand at 84.6 percent insured. So, the first metric of success is to get as many of that 15.4 percent uninsured to have coverage. If we can have a total of 95 percent of the nation covered with health insurance by 2016, I'd say it was successful. That's about three quarters of that 15 percent or 30 million people. We may not be able to know this for certain until the next census (2020) but I think there will be plenty of data by the next presidential election to give us a clearer picture.
But what about that last five percent? Well, that's where my second metric comes into play. Those that don't get insurance will have to pay a fee which will offset the costs of the program. Will that fee and all the newly insured people be able to achieve the overall goal of the ACA in reducing the amount of money we spend on health care? Currently we each spend $8,233 per year and the U.S. health care costs now eat up 17.6 percent of GDP. How does that compare with other countries?
Terrible. Just terrible. This is why we had to have health care reform. Obviously, the goal here is to control growth, as I noted the other day, and the ACA is already doing that. Now we have to look at the goal numbers in terms of dollars spent per person and our GDP (adjusted for inflation, of course). A minor success would be for us to spend $8,232 per person-1 dollar less than we are now. A major one would be for us to spend as much as Norway does at $5,388 per person. I'm going to set the goal of $6,700 dollars per person which falls right in between as my measure of success. With GDP, a minor success would be to get it to 16 percent. A major success would be 11.5 percent, putting us right in the middle of many European countries. I'll set the goal here at 14 percent of GDP. \
Of course, quantifying health care success is only one piece of the puzzle. What about quality of care? We could meet these goals but what if the care level falls? In the coming months, I'll be discussing other metrics that will indicate success in terms of our new health care law. Look for the tag "health care success!"
Sunday, December 08, 2013
Parroting Atheists
It seems that some Christian conservatives aren't the only ones that think Jesus would have carried an AR-15. I guess atheists do as well. You know that you are in trouble as a devout Christian when you are parroting atheist talking points.
As I have mentioned previously, the "but to bring a sword" has to be looked at in context. Here is the rest of the quote.
For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.
So, the word "sword" is a metaphor for conflict between familial relations over the new word of Christ.
Here's another great explanation of the meaning and context of the verse.
As I have mentioned previously, the "but to bring a sword" has to be looked at in context. Here is the rest of the quote.
For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.
So, the word "sword" is a metaphor for conflict between familial relations over the new word of Christ.
Here's another great explanation of the meaning and context of the verse.
Saturday, December 07, 2013
'Tis The Season
It's the holidays and that means it's time to give back to those less fortunate than ourselves. With this spirit in mind, I thought I would answer all of the questions that a commenter (Not My Name) has been asking this year and give not only him a Christmas present but the four people that read his comments a gift as well. I've already answered many of them in posts or comments previously but he seems like he needs the attention and is lacking something pretty significant in his social life to spend as much time as he has writing in my comments section. So I thought one post with all my answers would be a great way to lift him out of his depression.
Question: Is the Constitution law?
The context of this question was the 2nd amendment and I have already answered it pretty thoroughly. Yet there is a more concise way to answer...
Answer: Yes, the perfectly legal to amend and continually open to interpretation, as evidenced by 200+ years of tort, United States Constitution is law.
Question: Why would an uninsured person going to the ER cause insurance rates to go up?
Answer: Because they often can't pay and due to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a law signed by Ronald Reagan and a bipartisan Congress, every person must be cared for regardless of their financial situation. The story of Sharon Ford was a primary driver behind this law. Note the pro life tone to what transpired and consider this recent post of mine. As the link notes, taxpayers pick up the cost via public dollars or raised rates that stem from cash strapped hospitals picking up the tab.
Here NMN assumes that he has led me down a path that will show me that the government is the problem. Yet this same government stepped in to pass this law so we could save lives. Would NMN get rid of this law and let unborn babies like Sharon Ford's child die? I suppose only he can answer that but a reversal of this law would save taxpayers money so I guess he has a real puzzler on his hands. Maybe he should consult the Bible. On second thought, maybe not, as we can see from the next two questions.
Question: Faith in what?
Answer: Your faith in Jesus and God. It's very, very weak. That's why you need others to believe exactly as you do lest you be tempted to stray from Republican Jesus. You claim to be a "rugged individualist" yet positively can't stand the fact that someone might think differently than you not just with your religious faith but your political faith as well. Like the communists and socialists you decry, you want everyone to believe exactly as you do otherwise you condemn them. You also make the mistake of having faith in conservative political leaders and ideologies. Faith is reserved for spiritual matters not for issues like the economy or health care. Even here your faith is weak as well. I'm not responsible for your insecurities. You are. And Jesus is very clear about people that judge and cast the first stone.
One other note on this question. NMN has refused, despite repeated queries, to outright reject the various sects of Christianity that don't conform exactly to his warped version of it. He's certainly rejected my Christian beliefs. I wonder why he hasn't rejected the Unitarian Church, for example. Or the peace churches.
Primary Question: Authors of words have a meaning they intend to communicate, and that meaning is the only valid "interpretation" of any writing. Do you agree or disagree?
Related Questions: What makes you think God is UNABLE to do what mere humans can do—get someone to write what they want written? So you're claiming that the Jeremiah 31:33-34 prophecy has already come to pass? That every single person in the world sees and accepts Yahweh as his/her God, even Juris Imprudent? That there is no disagreement about God because we all know Him directly?
Answer: As a writer myself, I say no to the primary question because maybe someone else can dream up something even more wonderful than I intended. Being a reflective person, I welcome it, of course:) Perhaps I could inspire someone to a higher meaning, right? The other day in class I was offering a critique of John Maynard Keynes and a student raised his hand and said, "It seems that you are saying that Keynes' theories are too psychologically based." I hadn't actually said that but he took what I was saying and brought it to a higher level. It was magnificent. But really, it depends on the author. Bob Dylan would say yes. John Lennon would say no. NMN also seems to be lacking here in his understanding of the use of metaphor. Perhaps he doesn't understand symbolism either.
Anyway, the context of this question and the related ones is the Bible and the author's intent. As with all of his Bible, legal, constitutional, and morality related questions, NMN assumes he is the authority on the author's intent and proceeds (as always) with great hubris. He recently intimated that he is a more valid interpreter of the Bible than the pope. Wow, he's smart!
So, the question he lacks the courage to ask is "Am I the authority on Biblical interpretation, constitutional interpretation, and morality in terms of spiritual and civic law?" Or, more briefly, "Do I know what God is thinking?" The answer is no (and it's no for me as well) because he continually makes false assumptions based on emotions and a completely instransigent ideology. The failure is not with the authors but with NMN himself because he misinterprets, either purposefully, through ignorance or both, the author's intent. And, as I have mentioned far too many times, he also purposefully misinterprets what I say and turns my writings into gotcha questions (so, how long have you been beating your wife?) in order to go for the win and show off for the TSM people that read his comments. Does he know any other way? Thus far, the answer is no.
Primary Question: Do you think it's okay to punish a child for the parent's crime?
Answer: No, but I wish it were OK to punish parents for children's crimes. There would be a lot less gun deaths and spree shootings if that were the case. Perhaps parents would think twice about having guns in the house with their mentally ill child if their asses were on the line.
The background to this question is abortion and NMN falsely assumes (more on false assumptions aka lying below) that the moment of inception equals a child. It does not. Science (remember facts, evidence and logic?) shows us that there is not a fetus until the 10th week of development. The link above has detailed images of development and people can judge for themselves as to what constitutes a "child." For me that's towards the end of the first trimester which is why I have no problem with a federal ban on abortion extended to include the 2nd trimester. I'd even consider going back earlier with a ban when brain, heart and lung functions are more fully developed. A question that NMN or other pro life folks need to answer...is something human if it has no heart?
Of course, there is no such thing as compromise in NMN's world. Even I have to consider that my views may be wrong. Can the child survive outside of the womb? When? What of the mother's rights? Is her body now a ward of the state? This is a gray area because it's not as cut and dried as human-not human. And the Right doesn't do well at all with gray areas. It's not a person at every stage of neonatal development and even when it is in my view, should the fetus really be granted 14th amendment rights? Consider as well that the same argument against banning guns (only criminals will have guns) applies here. Only criminals will provide abortions and there will have to be funds for enforcement and personnel assigned to police it. Who is going to pay for it? Imagine what happened during Prohibition with liquor happening with abortion in terms of crime. Witness what is happening now with drugs. It would be a nightmare. NMN, like many on the Right, don't really think before they bloviate about nearly all of the issues facing our country today. Recall this as well.
If we left behind the rock solid stubbornness of both sides in the abortion debate, we might actually be able to solve this problem. Abortion is not birth control and it should be harder to obtain. Single woman in their 20s are the group that need to be targeted as they have the most abortions. At a certain stage (earlier than what is legal now), they should not be allowed to have an abortion unless their life is threatened. If they are raped or a victim of incest, they should use the day after pill or terminate in the first couple of weeks. Family planning and sex education need to be improved. People have to behave more responsibly when it comes to sex. Overall, there needs to be societal shift so demand for abortion is reduced it not all together eliminated. As with most issues, the Right can't help but focus on supply when they should be focusing on demand. Get rid of the demand and you get rid of abortion.
Primary Question: Is "false" equal to "truth"?
Related Questions: Even Joe Biden admits that the administration's gun control actions won't stop the shootings. So why do those things? Since the leaders of the Democrat's effort to implement universal background checks say that "any bill without a records provision would be as toothless as an honor system", do you still assert that "[n]o one is talking about universal registration" and/or that it can be implemented without registration?
Answer: No, false does not equal truth and NMN does an excellent job of illustrating this given the content of the primary question and the related questions. Honestly, all of his questions are, in one way or another, based on false assumptions about the issues of the day or, in this case, me and what I am asserting. With me, that's part and parcel to his childish games.
The context of this specific line of query (along with all of the other gun questions he asks) is based on the false assumption and an inconsolable paranoia that the federal government is out to get our guns. For NMN, any changes to gun laws will result in tyranny. Our system of checks and balances make this highly unlikely. Consider how difficult it is to pass something as simple as a budget let alone a new law on the regulation of guns. A tyranny assumes swift and decisive action not government by sedimentation which is what we have now. He pulls half truths, spins, or simply lies with this category of questions.
Joe Biden's comment is quite different than what NMN has described and essentially (and hilariously) asks, "Why even have laws?" In fact, this very question is at the root of conservative whining. Like the adolescent that simply can't take the rules of the house, conservatives grouse about having to follow rules they don't like. New rules are the worst, man! They suck, and like, the Right doesn't want to do them and stuff. Of course, the rest of the adults in our country recognize that as our society evolves, problems arise and sometimes need to be addressed with (gasp!) new laws. Pretending that a problem doesn't exist or will magically go away (the conservative go to thinking these days) doesn't work.
The background check question is a half truth at best and based on opinions and heresay, not the actual law or an evidence based argument. The Manchin-Toomey bill is available here for review and a Google search (unaided by someone as biased as me:)) will show the full story on his related questions. And why can't we figure out a way to improve gun safety while honoring the 2nd amendment? We are the greatest nation on the planet, aren't we? I find it amusing that someone such as NMN decries those who "hate America" yet appears to be doing just that. Clearly the thinks very little of the leaders of this country and the people in it but that's the adolescent problem with authority again. Equally as amusing is the fact that NMN spends a lot of time and energy debunking things that Democrats say, accusing them of being incompetent liars, but on the issue of universal background checks, they are now suddenly "telling the truth." Wow...it's a Christmas miracle!!
Will NMN accept this gift in the spirit of the season and be gracious? Will his obsession with me continue? Or something else? Or will he reject my gift, take it back, psychotically keep asking the questions over and over again, circle jerk for juris, GD, 6Kings and Larry, and pretend that I never answered the questions? Honestly, it doesn't really matter.
Because in the final analysis we will never, ever see the kind of our nation he claims he wants. The trajectory of our country is evolving to fit the age of globalization and leaving behind backwards, hateful, and ignorant thinking. NMN's comments and questions are great examples of the fear that only comes with the realization that old ideologies are quickly becoming irrelevant.
Question: Is the Constitution law?
The context of this question was the 2nd amendment and I have already answered it pretty thoroughly. Yet there is a more concise way to answer...
Answer: Yes, the perfectly legal to amend and continually open to interpretation, as evidenced by 200+ years of tort, United States Constitution is law.
Question: Why would an uninsured person going to the ER cause insurance rates to go up?
Answer: Because they often can't pay and due to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a law signed by Ronald Reagan and a bipartisan Congress, every person must be cared for regardless of their financial situation. The story of Sharon Ford was a primary driver behind this law. Note the pro life tone to what transpired and consider this recent post of mine. As the link notes, taxpayers pick up the cost via public dollars or raised rates that stem from cash strapped hospitals picking up the tab.
Here NMN assumes that he has led me down a path that will show me that the government is the problem. Yet this same government stepped in to pass this law so we could save lives. Would NMN get rid of this law and let unborn babies like Sharon Ford's child die? I suppose only he can answer that but a reversal of this law would save taxpayers money so I guess he has a real puzzler on his hands. Maybe he should consult the Bible. On second thought, maybe not, as we can see from the next two questions.
Question: Faith in what?
Answer: Your faith in Jesus and God. It's very, very weak. That's why you need others to believe exactly as you do lest you be tempted to stray from Republican Jesus. You claim to be a "rugged individualist" yet positively can't stand the fact that someone might think differently than you not just with your religious faith but your political faith as well. Like the communists and socialists you decry, you want everyone to believe exactly as you do otherwise you condemn them. You also make the mistake of having faith in conservative political leaders and ideologies. Faith is reserved for spiritual matters not for issues like the economy or health care. Even here your faith is weak as well. I'm not responsible for your insecurities. You are. And Jesus is very clear about people that judge and cast the first stone.
One other note on this question. NMN has refused, despite repeated queries, to outright reject the various sects of Christianity that don't conform exactly to his warped version of it. He's certainly rejected my Christian beliefs. I wonder why he hasn't rejected the Unitarian Church, for example. Or the peace churches.
Primary Question: Authors of words have a meaning they intend to communicate, and that meaning is the only valid "interpretation" of any writing. Do you agree or disagree?
Related Questions: What makes you think God is UNABLE to do what mere humans can do—get someone to write what they want written? So you're claiming that the Jeremiah 31:33-34 prophecy has already come to pass? That every single person in the world sees and accepts Yahweh as his/her God, even Juris Imprudent? That there is no disagreement about God because we all know Him directly?
Answer: As a writer myself, I say no to the primary question because maybe someone else can dream up something even more wonderful than I intended. Being a reflective person, I welcome it, of course:) Perhaps I could inspire someone to a higher meaning, right? The other day in class I was offering a critique of John Maynard Keynes and a student raised his hand and said, "It seems that you are saying that Keynes' theories are too psychologically based." I hadn't actually said that but he took what I was saying and brought it to a higher level. It was magnificent. But really, it depends on the author. Bob Dylan would say yes. John Lennon would say no. NMN also seems to be lacking here in his understanding of the use of metaphor. Perhaps he doesn't understand symbolism either.
Anyway, the context of this question and the related ones is the Bible and the author's intent. As with all of his Bible, legal, constitutional, and morality related questions, NMN assumes he is the authority on the author's intent and proceeds (as always) with great hubris. He recently intimated that he is a more valid interpreter of the Bible than the pope. Wow, he's smart!
So, the question he lacks the courage to ask is "Am I the authority on Biblical interpretation, constitutional interpretation, and morality in terms of spiritual and civic law?" Or, more briefly, "Do I know what God is thinking?" The answer is no (and it's no for me as well) because he continually makes false assumptions based on emotions and a completely instransigent ideology. The failure is not with the authors but with NMN himself because he misinterprets, either purposefully, through ignorance or both, the author's intent. And, as I have mentioned far too many times, he also purposefully misinterprets what I say and turns my writings into gotcha questions (so, how long have you been beating your wife?) in order to go for the win and show off for the TSM people that read his comments. Does he know any other way? Thus far, the answer is no.
Primary Question: Do you think it's okay to punish a child for the parent's crime?
Answer: No, but I wish it were OK to punish parents for children's crimes. There would be a lot less gun deaths and spree shootings if that were the case. Perhaps parents would think twice about having guns in the house with their mentally ill child if their asses were on the line.
The background to this question is abortion and NMN falsely assumes (more on false assumptions aka lying below) that the moment of inception equals a child. It does not. Science (remember facts, evidence and logic?) shows us that there is not a fetus until the 10th week of development. The link above has detailed images of development and people can judge for themselves as to what constitutes a "child." For me that's towards the end of the first trimester which is why I have no problem with a federal ban on abortion extended to include the 2nd trimester. I'd even consider going back earlier with a ban when brain, heart and lung functions are more fully developed. A question that NMN or other pro life folks need to answer...is something human if it has no heart?
Of course, there is no such thing as compromise in NMN's world. Even I have to consider that my views may be wrong. Can the child survive outside of the womb? When? What of the mother's rights? Is her body now a ward of the state? This is a gray area because it's not as cut and dried as human-not human. And the Right doesn't do well at all with gray areas. It's not a person at every stage of neonatal development and even when it is in my view, should the fetus really be granted 14th amendment rights? Consider as well that the same argument against banning guns (only criminals will have guns) applies here. Only criminals will provide abortions and there will have to be funds for enforcement and personnel assigned to police it. Who is going to pay for it? Imagine what happened during Prohibition with liquor happening with abortion in terms of crime. Witness what is happening now with drugs. It would be a nightmare. NMN, like many on the Right, don't really think before they bloviate about nearly all of the issues facing our country today. Recall this as well.
If we left behind the rock solid stubbornness of both sides in the abortion debate, we might actually be able to solve this problem. Abortion is not birth control and it should be harder to obtain. Single woman in their 20s are the group that need to be targeted as they have the most abortions. At a certain stage (earlier than what is legal now), they should not be allowed to have an abortion unless their life is threatened. If they are raped or a victim of incest, they should use the day after pill or terminate in the first couple of weeks. Family planning and sex education need to be improved. People have to behave more responsibly when it comes to sex. Overall, there needs to be societal shift so demand for abortion is reduced it not all together eliminated. As with most issues, the Right can't help but focus on supply when they should be focusing on demand. Get rid of the demand and you get rid of abortion.
Primary Question: Is "false" equal to "truth"?
Related Questions: Even Joe Biden admits that the administration's gun control actions won't stop the shootings. So why do those things? Since the leaders of the Democrat's effort to implement universal background checks say that "any bill without a records provision would be as toothless as an honor system", do you still assert that "[n]o one is talking about universal registration" and/or that it can be implemented without registration?
Answer: No, false does not equal truth and NMN does an excellent job of illustrating this given the content of the primary question and the related questions. Honestly, all of his questions are, in one way or another, based on false assumptions about the issues of the day or, in this case, me and what I am asserting. With me, that's part and parcel to his childish games.
The context of this specific line of query (along with all of the other gun questions he asks) is based on the false assumption and an inconsolable paranoia that the federal government is out to get our guns. For NMN, any changes to gun laws will result in tyranny. Our system of checks and balances make this highly unlikely. Consider how difficult it is to pass something as simple as a budget let alone a new law on the regulation of guns. A tyranny assumes swift and decisive action not government by sedimentation which is what we have now. He pulls half truths, spins, or simply lies with this category of questions.
Joe Biden's comment is quite different than what NMN has described and essentially (and hilariously) asks, "Why even have laws?" In fact, this very question is at the root of conservative whining. Like the adolescent that simply can't take the rules of the house, conservatives grouse about having to follow rules they don't like. New rules are the worst, man! They suck, and like, the Right doesn't want to do them and stuff. Of course, the rest of the adults in our country recognize that as our society evolves, problems arise and sometimes need to be addressed with (gasp!) new laws. Pretending that a problem doesn't exist or will magically go away (the conservative go to thinking these days) doesn't work.
The background check question is a half truth at best and based on opinions and heresay, not the actual law or an evidence based argument. The Manchin-Toomey bill is available here for review and a Google search (unaided by someone as biased as me:)) will show the full story on his related questions. And why can't we figure out a way to improve gun safety while honoring the 2nd amendment? We are the greatest nation on the planet, aren't we? I find it amusing that someone such as NMN decries those who "hate America" yet appears to be doing just that. Clearly the thinks very little of the leaders of this country and the people in it but that's the adolescent problem with authority again. Equally as amusing is the fact that NMN spends a lot of time and energy debunking things that Democrats say, accusing them of being incompetent liars, but on the issue of universal background checks, they are now suddenly "telling the truth." Wow...it's a Christmas miracle!!
Will NMN accept this gift in the spirit of the season and be gracious? Will his obsession with me continue? Or something else? Or will he reject my gift, take it back, psychotically keep asking the questions over and over again, circle jerk for juris, GD, 6Kings and Larry, and pretend that I never answered the questions? Honestly, it doesn't really matter.
Because in the final analysis we will never, ever see the kind of our nation he claims he wants. The trajectory of our country is evolving to fit the age of globalization and leaving behind backwards, hateful, and ignorant thinking. NMN's comments and questions are great examples of the fear that only comes with the realization that old ideologies are quickly becoming irrelevant.
Anecdata
Remember all those Obamacare horror stories? Not looking so bad now.
Oh, really? Why? Well, read the piece. But how did this happen?
The failure of the exchanges created an information vacuum as far as Obamacare successes went; in rushed the individual stories of those who claimed to have been hurt by the changes to the market. It didn't matter that these stories are, even without enrollment numbers from the exchanges, demonstrably unrepresentative!
In steps...anecdata!
Statisticians dismiss the practice of using personal stories to argue about an objective reality as "anecdata", but it might be more accurate to call the "Obamacare horror stories" that have taken over social media "urban legends". There are urban legends about a lot of things – from spiders in hairdos to red velvet cake. Some are funny, some feature a satisfying come-uppance, but folklorists agree that the stickiest of them, the ones that last for generations and resist debunking are the ones that live off ignorance and feed off fear. As one researcher put it: "It's a lack of information coupled with these fears that tends to give rise to new legends. When demand exceeds supply, people will fill in the gaps with their own information … they'll just make it up."
I can't think of a better description of the conservative media ecosystem at the moment.
Neither can I. I quite enjoyed the torpedoeing of some of the more prominent "horror" stories.
Oh, really? Why? Well, read the piece. But how did this happen?
The failure of the exchanges created an information vacuum as far as Obamacare successes went; in rushed the individual stories of those who claimed to have been hurt by the changes to the market. It didn't matter that these stories are, even without enrollment numbers from the exchanges, demonstrably unrepresentative!
In steps...anecdata!
Statisticians dismiss the practice of using personal stories to argue about an objective reality as "anecdata", but it might be more accurate to call the "Obamacare horror stories" that have taken over social media "urban legends". There are urban legends about a lot of things – from spiders in hairdos to red velvet cake. Some are funny, some feature a satisfying come-uppance, but folklorists agree that the stickiest of them, the ones that last for generations and resist debunking are the ones that live off ignorance and feed off fear. As one researcher put it: "It's a lack of information coupled with these fears that tends to give rise to new legends. When demand exceeds supply, people will fill in the gaps with their own information … they'll just make it up."
I can't think of a better description of the conservative media ecosystem at the moment.
Neither can I. I quite enjoyed the torpedoeing of some of the more prominent "horror" stories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)