Sense and Sensibility
By Chuck Colson, Breakpoint.com., August 6, 2010
Earlier this week [of Aug. 6th], the proposed New York City mosque at ground zero cleared its final hurdle. Nothing seems to stand in the way of its construction. I am appalled that peace-loving Muslims would want to do this on what is, for most Americans, hallowed ground. I am even more appalled that the mayor of New York is in favor of the idea. It would be like the Japanese building a Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor! At a speech in front of the statue of liberty, Mayor Bloomberg made the case for the mosque on the grounds of tolerance. But tolerance isn’t the issue here. And certainly not tolerance as Bloomberg means it.
Tolerance used to mean listening respectfully to others’ opinions, even when you disagree. Tolerance as Bloomberg understands it, means “I won’t say no to you for anything you want, and you don’t say no to me for anything I want.”—The ultimate expression of political correctness, and the most certain formula for moral chaos. But the construction of the mosque at ground zero is not about tolerance. And it isn’t about religious liberty. This is about prudence: the good sense to do what is right. That’s one of the four classic, cardinal virtues given to the West.
Let me give you an example. It isn’t a violation of tolerance or religious liberty when a local zoning commission tells a church, or a synagogue, that it cannot build a sanctuary in a residential neighborhood. Parking issues, traffic, could adversely affect the neighborhood. So, local government can make the prudent decision to tell the church to build somewhere else. So it would not be an act of intolerance to deny the construction of a mosque at a certain location—particularly one, ground zero, where the mosque will serve as a daily reminder to New Yorkers of the terrorists, who, motivated by their Islamo-fascist beliefs, killed 3,000 innocent people in the name of Islam. Go build the mosque somewhere else.
Earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal, columnist Bill McGurn wrote about a marvelous example of prudence in a similar situation during the early 1990s. Catholic nuns had moved onto an abandoned building at Auschwitz—the site of the Nazi death camp—to pray for peace and the victims of the Holocaust. The Jewish community was quite outraged. Although the nuns had the legal right to be at Auschwitz, Pope John Paul II intervened. Recognizing Jewish sensitivities, he ordered the nuns to move somewhere else to carry on their work. And they did.
Because I believe that the vast majority of Muslims are peace loving citizens who do not support terrorism, I can’t imagine why they would want to tempt us to think otherwise by building a mosque at the site where their co-religionists perpetrated the most barbaric acts of modern times. If they—and Mayor Bloomberg—don’t have the prudence to respect the sensibilities of others, then Congress ought to step in. With the upcoming elections, I’m sure your congressman will be all ears to your concerns. I understand the dilemma of religious freedom in this case. But as Bill McGurn pointed out, “having the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.” The Pope understood that at Auschwitz, and the Muslim community ought to understand it at ground zero.
Further Reading and Information
The Mosque Controversy and Religious Freedom, Cathy Young | RealClearPolitics | August 5, 2010
WTC Mosque, Meet the Auschwitz Nuns , The Wall Street Journal | August 3, 2010
Strange Tolerance, Stan Guthrie | BreakPoint Features | August 5, 2010
[Don't miss Part 2 on this subject THIS FRIDAY!]
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Sunday, September 5, 2010
#65 - The Sunday Special
Dear friend,
Today, I’d like to begin a new feature of this blog, “The Sunday Special.” As you know, my postings during the week tend to be geared toward helping you understand the issues of the day more fully so that you can be more fully informed as a citizen of this republic. I also know how the subjects covered can be “heavy” and often hard to absorb.
Obviously, during each week, there are other things I observe or learn that are not as “heavy” that you might also enjoy reading. Maybe enjoy more, though I hope you will take the time, if even on the weekends, to read over the postings I’ve made for the past week. (Once in awhile, I may just post one of my “Letters to the Churches” that will be on the “heavy” side but which I hope you will be sure to read.)
Anyway, I hope you enjoy this new feature I hope to make available every Sunday. (It should be posted by the time you sit down for Sunday dinner, wherever you are.)
As always, I would enjoy if you would post on the blog site your comments and feedback.
Thanks, Stan
#1 - HAVE YOU HAD EVER HAD PROBLEMS BEING MOTIVATED TO LOSE WEIGHT? The other day, I was reading the book “The Obama Diaries.” (I’ve possibly read every book about our President since he was inaugurated, which is at least a dozen books. Many are very technical as they analyze his political philosophy and actions. While they are informative, they are sometimes dull reading that can be overwhelming. This book stands out as doing the same analyzing without getting too “heavy.” Unless you refuse to consider any analysis other than what the mainstream (liberal) press feeds you constantly, I encourage you to borrow this book from your public library. It’s a great, and sometimes even a fun read.)
ANYWAY, at the end of a chapter that talks about Mrs. Obama’s anti-obesity campaign, the author, Laura Ingram, talks about the importance of physical fitness. I started to just glance over that section as it seemed to say the usual stuff about eating right and exercising. (Heard it, tried it!). What surprised me was that the author talked about it in the context of trying to shovel snow from her driveway in order to get to work one winter. She describes her getting winded and wondering if she would be able to carry her children to the nearest hospital if there was an emergency and she couldn’t otherwise get them there.
The author makes the point that we need to see our need for physical fitness not just in a selfish way, merely as to how it would be good for us. But instead, as citizens, we need to consider whether, in any emergency situation, if we are able to help not just those we know but also strangers who are in need of help. For the first time, its occurred to me that, while I may not care whether or not I’m just another “fat slob,” I need to think of my being physically fit in a truly selfless way (Of course, there’s every reason to also think of it in a “selfish” way.)
Just as there once were (still are?) official volunteer firemen, we each need to be ready at a moment’s call to help others in an emergency. I think of the guy who was at his child’s school and suddenly saw a parent lose control of their car and drive into a retention pong. That guy was fit enough to immediately dive into that pond and pull out the children who would have otherwise drowned. I don’t know about you, but this perspective has given me a new motivation to get into and stay in shape. [Isn’t it amazing how you can get motivated about something when reading it in the context of something entirely different, in this case motivated about losing weight and being physically fit while reading a book on political analysis?]
#2 - Doctors Have Health Problems? I just got an email from a long time friend whose a doctor. In it he tells me that he is praying for my sleep problems and asks for prayer for himself as he is also struggling with sleep problems. It just occurred to me that I can't remember when I heard a doctor share that he had some kind of medical problem. I've always just assumed that doctors are always feeling well - ie, have no health problems - because they are "in the business" of helping others with THEIR health problems. Here's a thought: The next time you visit your (a?) doctor, take a moment at the end to ask HIM OR HER how they are feeling. You might expect a "fine" but then, you might get a different answer. Either way, it would be a great opportunity to ask that doctor if you could just take a moment to pray with them for them. An opening to share the gospel? You never know!!!
Today, I’d like to begin a new feature of this blog, “The Sunday Special.” As you know, my postings during the week tend to be geared toward helping you understand the issues of the day more fully so that you can be more fully informed as a citizen of this republic. I also know how the subjects covered can be “heavy” and often hard to absorb.
Obviously, during each week, there are other things I observe or learn that are not as “heavy” that you might also enjoy reading. Maybe enjoy more, though I hope you will take the time, if even on the weekends, to read over the postings I’ve made for the past week. (Once in awhile, I may just post one of my “Letters to the Churches” that will be on the “heavy” side but which I hope you will be sure to read.)
Anyway, I hope you enjoy this new feature I hope to make available every Sunday. (It should be posted by the time you sit down for Sunday dinner, wherever you are.)
As always, I would enjoy if you would post on the blog site your comments and feedback.
Thanks, Stan
#1 - HAVE YOU HAD EVER HAD PROBLEMS BEING MOTIVATED TO LOSE WEIGHT? The other day, I was reading the book “The Obama Diaries.” (I’ve possibly read every book about our President since he was inaugurated, which is at least a dozen books. Many are very technical as they analyze his political philosophy and actions. While they are informative, they are sometimes dull reading that can be overwhelming. This book stands out as doing the same analyzing without getting too “heavy.” Unless you refuse to consider any analysis other than what the mainstream (liberal) press feeds you constantly, I encourage you to borrow this book from your public library. It’s a great, and sometimes even a fun read.)
ANYWAY, at the end of a chapter that talks about Mrs. Obama’s anti-obesity campaign, the author, Laura Ingram, talks about the importance of physical fitness. I started to just glance over that section as it seemed to say the usual stuff about eating right and exercising. (Heard it, tried it!). What surprised me was that the author talked about it in the context of trying to shovel snow from her driveway in order to get to work one winter. She describes her getting winded and wondering if she would be able to carry her children to the nearest hospital if there was an emergency and she couldn’t otherwise get them there.
The author makes the point that we need to see our need for physical fitness not just in a selfish way, merely as to how it would be good for us. But instead, as citizens, we need to consider whether, in any emergency situation, if we are able to help not just those we know but also strangers who are in need of help. For the first time, its occurred to me that, while I may not care whether or not I’m just another “fat slob,” I need to think of my being physically fit in a truly selfless way (Of course, there’s every reason to also think of it in a “selfish” way.)
Just as there once were (still are?) official volunteer firemen, we each need to be ready at a moment’s call to help others in an emergency. I think of the guy who was at his child’s school and suddenly saw a parent lose control of their car and drive into a retention pong. That guy was fit enough to immediately dive into that pond and pull out the children who would have otherwise drowned. I don’t know about you, but this perspective has given me a new motivation to get into and stay in shape. [Isn’t it amazing how you can get motivated about something when reading it in the context of something entirely different, in this case motivated about losing weight and being physically fit while reading a book on political analysis?]
#2 - Doctors Have Health Problems? I just got an email from a long time friend whose a doctor. In it he tells me that he is praying for my sleep problems and asks for prayer for himself as he is also struggling with sleep problems. It just occurred to me that I can't remember when I heard a doctor share that he had some kind of medical problem. I've always just assumed that doctors are always feeling well - ie, have no health problems - because they are "in the business" of helping others with THEIR health problems. Here's a thought: The next time you visit your (a?) doctor, take a moment at the end to ask HIM OR HER how they are feeling. You might expect a "fine" but then, you might get a different answer. Either way, it would be a great opportunity to ask that doctor if you could just take a moment to pray with them for them. An opening to share the gospel? You never know!!!
Friday, September 3, 2010
#64 – Economist-In-Chief or Commander-in-Chief?
(Don't Miss...: As always, please check out "The Coral Ridge Hour" this Sunday. (5-5:30pm, channel 40.1 (over the air), in Orlando.) Last Sunday, they began a four part series on why Christians should keep abreast of the public policy issues, ie "politics," in our country. I am saddened by the great number of Christians who do not believe this. I believe that this view is unbiblical citizenship. I'm sorry if you missed last week's broadcast, "Will the Church Forget." It is one of the most challenging and powerful messages I have ever heard. If you live in Orlando and would like to borrow my DVD copy of it, just call me at 407-382-3735. Also, please check the ministry website at Coral Ridge Ministries.org and click on the "Equip and Grow" button. One of the downloads you can get is entitled "The Christian and Politics." I strongly urge you to check it out.)
Obama Turns Page, Treats Iraq as a Distraction
The Foundry: Conservative Policy News – A Feature of The Heritage Foundation
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/31/obama-turns-page-treats-iraq-as-a-distraction/
Posted By James Phillips, August 31, 2010
"President Obama’s wooden speech tonight, ostensibly focused on Iraq, actually gave short shrift to the war in Iraq and failed to convincingly articulate a vision of Iraq’s future, his own Iraq policy, or America’s role in the world. The President talked about ending the war, but not of victory. Apparently in a rush to put the war in the past, he gave little attention to why the war was fought, what was at stake, or how the war related to broader U.S. goals in the Middle East."
"Instead, Obama maintained that “now it is time to turn the page,” and focus on restoring the economy—“my central responsibility as President.” Clearly more at ease acting as the “Economist-in-Chief” rather than the Commander-in-Chief, the President then devoted a surprisingly large portion of the speech, only his second from the Oval Office, to vague rhetoric about fixing the economy. But protecting America’s security and leading the nation in war should be his highest priorities as President, not to mention the paramount focus of a speech about Iraq. Unfortunately, the televised address sounded more like a campaign speech from a politician rather than a message from the Commander-in-Chief of a nation at war. He said that “Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq’s future is not.” But he gave no inkling of what that commitment entails, why America has a vital interest in Iraq’s future, or his Administration’s vision of Iraq’s future."
"Unfortunately, President Obama missed a golden opportunity to reassure anxious Iraqis and nervous U.S. allies elsewhere that the United States is a dependable friend that is determined to consolidate the long-term security of Iraq—not merely make a rush for the exit. While the speech may have helped him with Democratic voters, it is likely to undermine confidence in American leadership not only in Iraq and the broader Middle East, but in many other areas of the world. President Obama’s proclamation of his “central responsibility” for economic matters, shoe-horned into a major speech about Iraq—one of the world’s most important international security issues—will only encourage foreign doubts about his Administration’s commitment to finishing the job in Afghanistan, winning the struggle against Islamist extremism, and protecting U.S. allies around the world."
For more on what the speech should have covered, see: Obama’s Iraq Speech Should Stress a Resolute U.S. Security Commitment
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/08/obamas-iraq-speech-should-stress-a-resolute-us-security-
[Also, I found it sad that, while the President acknowledged President Bush's love for the troops, he failed to give the former President any credit for the troop surge late in his administration that turned the tide for the "good guys." It was a great opportunity for him to demonstrate humility by acknowledging the contribution of his predecessor. But as he has done often with other such opportunities to show himself as one who unites, he lacked the leadership to do so.]
Obama Turns Page, Treats Iraq as a Distraction
The Foundry: Conservative Policy News – A Feature of The Heritage Foundation
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/31/obama-turns-page-treats-iraq-as-a-distraction/
Posted By James Phillips, August 31, 2010
"President Obama’s wooden speech tonight, ostensibly focused on Iraq, actually gave short shrift to the war in Iraq and failed to convincingly articulate a vision of Iraq’s future, his own Iraq policy, or America’s role in the world. The President talked about ending the war, but not of victory. Apparently in a rush to put the war in the past, he gave little attention to why the war was fought, what was at stake, or how the war related to broader U.S. goals in the Middle East."
"Instead, Obama maintained that “now it is time to turn the page,” and focus on restoring the economy—“my central responsibility as President.” Clearly more at ease acting as the “Economist-in-Chief” rather than the Commander-in-Chief, the President then devoted a surprisingly large portion of the speech, only his second from the Oval Office, to vague rhetoric about fixing the economy. But protecting America’s security and leading the nation in war should be his highest priorities as President, not to mention the paramount focus of a speech about Iraq. Unfortunately, the televised address sounded more like a campaign speech from a politician rather than a message from the Commander-in-Chief of a nation at war. He said that “Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq’s future is not.” But he gave no inkling of what that commitment entails, why America has a vital interest in Iraq’s future, or his Administration’s vision of Iraq’s future."
"Unfortunately, President Obama missed a golden opportunity to reassure anxious Iraqis and nervous U.S. allies elsewhere that the United States is a dependable friend that is determined to consolidate the long-term security of Iraq—not merely make a rush for the exit. While the speech may have helped him with Democratic voters, it is likely to undermine confidence in American leadership not only in Iraq and the broader Middle East, but in many other areas of the world. President Obama’s proclamation of his “central responsibility” for economic matters, shoe-horned into a major speech about Iraq—one of the world’s most important international security issues—will only encourage foreign doubts about his Administration’s commitment to finishing the job in Afghanistan, winning the struggle against Islamist extremism, and protecting U.S. allies around the world."
For more on what the speech should have covered, see: Obama’s Iraq Speech Should Stress a Resolute U.S. Security Commitment
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/08/obamas-iraq-speech-should-stress-a-resolute-us-security-
[Also, I found it sad that, while the President acknowledged President Bush's love for the troops, he failed to give the former President any credit for the troop surge late in his administration that turned the tide for the "good guys." It was a great opportunity for him to demonstrate humility by acknowledging the contribution of his predecessor. But as he has done often with other such opportunities to show himself as one who unites, he lacked the leadership to do so.]
Friday, August 27, 2010
#63 - Yes, There Is A Place for the Bible in PUBLIC Schools
(Personal Note : As always, please check out "The Coral Ridge Hour" this Sunday. (5:00 pm, channel 40.1 (over the air), in Orlando.) Last Sunday, they began a four part series on why Christians should keep abreast of the public policy issues, ie "politics," in our country. I am saddened by the great number of Christians who do not believe this. I believe that this view is unbiblical citizenship. I'm sorry if you missed last week's broadcast, "Will the Church Forget." It is one of the most challenging and powerful messages I have ever heard. If you live in Orlando and would like to borrow my DVD copy of it, just call me at 407-382-3735. Also, please check the ministry website at Coral Ridge Ministries.org and click on the "Equip and Grow" button. One of the downloads you can get is entitled "The Christian and Politics." I strongly urge you to check it out.)
Public Schools and the Bible - What You Need To Know
By: Chuck Colson, August 26, 2010 – Breakpoint.org
It may be hard to believe, but many state school officials across the country actually encourage teaching public school students about the Bible and Christianity. That’s because the Bible and Christianity are so important in understanding Western civilization and, specifically, American history and culture.
For example, the California Department of Education’s History-Social Science standards expect sixth-graders to “Note the origins of Christianity in the Jewish Messianic prophecies, the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as described in the New Testament, and the contribution of St. Paul the Apostle to the definition and spread of Christian beliefs (For example, belief in the Trinity, resurrection, salvation).”
In Massachusetts, state school officials expect seventh grade students to “Describe the origins of Christianity and its central features: monotheism; the belief in Jesus as the Messiah and God’s son who redeemed humans from sin; the concept of salvation; belief in the Old and New Testament; and the lives and teachings of Jesus and Saint Paul.”
High school students in Florida are expected to “know the significant ideas and texts of… Christianity…”
Not only is it academically expected across the country, it is legally supported by the courts. Many people mistakenly assume using the Bible in a public school is prohibited by law. But in fact, the Supreme Court has actually endorsed using the Bible in public schools. In the 1963 Supreme Court case of Abington School District v. Schempp, the Court ruled that public schools cannot initiate devotional reading of the Bible. However, Justice Clark, writing the majority opinion also stated: “It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities.” In the case of Stone v. Graham, where the Supreme Court ruled against the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools because they “are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths,” it nonetheless found that Commandments and the “Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, and the like.”
This is why courses like the Bible Literacy Project you’ve heard me speak about so often, are so important. You can find out about the Bible Literacy Project at BreakPoint.org. And because introducing the Bible to public school students is academically expected and legally supported, our friends at Gateways to Better Education have written a one-page document entitled “School District Guidelines for the Use of Bible Stories in The Classroom.” Gateways is a national ministry with expertise in the much-needed work of equipping Christian parents and teachers in the public schools. Having a Bible reading policy in place will reduce the “chilling” effect teachers feel from a principal who thinks it is not appropriate to reference the Bible. Your school may be open to implementing these guidelines for two reasons: First, it establishes what is and isn’t appropriate for teachers and guest speakers, and second, it helps protect a school from accusations that it is allowing devotional readings of the Bible as a classroom activity.
To download a free copy of the Bible reading guidelines for public schools, come to our website, www.breakpoint.org.
Further Reading and Information
Gateways to Better Education - Keeping the Faith in Public Schools
Model Curriculum and Resources California Department of Education
Bible Literacy Project - An Educated Person is Familiar with the Bible
Public Schools and the Bible - What You Need To Know
By: Chuck Colson, August 26, 2010 – Breakpoint.org
It may be hard to believe, but many state school officials across the country actually encourage teaching public school students about the Bible and Christianity. That’s because the Bible and Christianity are so important in understanding Western civilization and, specifically, American history and culture.
For example, the California Department of Education’s History-Social Science standards expect sixth-graders to “Note the origins of Christianity in the Jewish Messianic prophecies, the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as described in the New Testament, and the contribution of St. Paul the Apostle to the definition and spread of Christian beliefs (For example, belief in the Trinity, resurrection, salvation).”
In Massachusetts, state school officials expect seventh grade students to “Describe the origins of Christianity and its central features: monotheism; the belief in Jesus as the Messiah and God’s son who redeemed humans from sin; the concept of salvation; belief in the Old and New Testament; and the lives and teachings of Jesus and Saint Paul.”
High school students in Florida are expected to “know the significant ideas and texts of… Christianity…”
Not only is it academically expected across the country, it is legally supported by the courts. Many people mistakenly assume using the Bible in a public school is prohibited by law. But in fact, the Supreme Court has actually endorsed using the Bible in public schools. In the 1963 Supreme Court case of Abington School District v. Schempp, the Court ruled that public schools cannot initiate devotional reading of the Bible. However, Justice Clark, writing the majority opinion also stated: “It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities.” In the case of Stone v. Graham, where the Supreme Court ruled against the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools because they “are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths,” it nonetheless found that Commandments and the “Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, and the like.”
This is why courses like the Bible Literacy Project you’ve heard me speak about so often, are so important. You can find out about the Bible Literacy Project at BreakPoint.org. And because introducing the Bible to public school students is academically expected and legally supported, our friends at Gateways to Better Education have written a one-page document entitled “School District Guidelines for the Use of Bible Stories in The Classroom.” Gateways is a national ministry with expertise in the much-needed work of equipping Christian parents and teachers in the public schools. Having a Bible reading policy in place will reduce the “chilling” effect teachers feel from a principal who thinks it is not appropriate to reference the Bible. Your school may be open to implementing these guidelines for two reasons: First, it establishes what is and isn’t appropriate for teachers and guest speakers, and second, it helps protect a school from accusations that it is allowing devotional readings of the Bible as a classroom activity.
To download a free copy of the Bible reading guidelines for public schools, come to our website, www.breakpoint.org.
Further Reading and Information
Gateways to Better Education - Keeping the Faith in Public Schools
Model Curriculum and Resources California Department of Education
Bible Literacy Project - An Educated Person is Familiar with the Bible
Friday, August 20, 2010
#62 - Homosexual Marriage at the Polls - The People Have Spoken
By: Chuck Colson|, Breakpoint.com, August 18, 2010
(Personal Note #1: As always, please check out "The Coral Ridge Hour" this Sunday. (5:00 pm, channel 40.1 (over the air), in Orlando.) Last Sunday, they began a four part series on why Christians should keep abreast of the public policy issues, ie "politics," in our country. I am saddened by the great number of Christians who do not believe this. I believe that this view is unbiblical citizenship. I'm sorry if you missed last week's broadcast, "Will the Church Forget." It is one of the most challenging and powerful messages I have ever heard. If you live in Orlando and would like to borrow my DVD copy of it, just call me at 407-382-3735. Also, please check the ministry website at Coral Ridge Ministries.org and click on the "Equip and Grow" button. One of the downloads you can get is entitled "The Christian and Politics." I strongly urge you to check it out.)
(Personal Note #2: While it is often referred to as “gay” marriage, you will never see me use that term. (1) I don’t believe that any behavior condemned in God’s Word should be called “gay.” And (2) In 1987, I attended a retreat at which a woman who was named Gay by her parents cried at one of our meetings when she shared how the perversion that the term “gay” is now used to refer to causes her much pain. Since that day, I’ve pledged never to use that term to refer to homosexual behavior.)
"As the ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which overturned California’s Proposition 8, makes its way through the appeals process, one of the big questions concerns the impact of another case: Lawrence v. Texas. That 2003 Supreme Court decision overturned the Texas law making sodomy a criminal offense. Judge Vaughn Walker clearly thinks that the line between Lawrence and his ruling is clear. His opinion not only cited Lawrence – it was, as many commentators have noted, practically written for an audience of one: Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the Lawrence decision, and the likely swing-vote on the Supreme Court. But is the link as clear as Walker and his supporters say it is? No. Especially when you take public attitudes into account."
"At the time Lawrence was decided, Texas was one of only thirteen states that made sodomy a crime. In the rest of the country, consensual same-sex acts had been made legal by legislation. In other words, the public had adopted what could rightly be called a tolerant view of these acts: whatever people thought of homosexuality, they didn’t think it was a matter for the criminal law, and the political process reflected this cultural and political consensus. Thus, the ruling in Lawrence, whatever its constitutional merits, ratified an already-existing consensus – it didn’t set out to impose one. Even justice Thomas, who dissented from the majority opinion, called the Texas law 'uncommonly silly.' ”
"The same cannot be said of the ruling overturning Proposition 8. Only five states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex marriage and half of those are the result of court rulings. What’s more, the trajectory of public, as distinct from elite, opinion has been clearly to ratify the traditional understanding of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Since 1993, when the Hawaiian Supreme Court upheld same-sex marriage, the American people have consistently made their opposition clear at the polls. Every time the issue has been on the ballot (31 states in all), voters have rejected same sex marriage. This despite being outspent by same-sex marriage proponents and always being vilified in the media and elite opinion. All of this exposes the claim that we’re trying to “impose” our view on others. We aren’t doing that. That’s ludicrous! We’re simply defending the democratic consensus."
"The only way to counter this distortion is if we do it ourselves: present our case winsomely and persistently. And, given what’s at stake in this battle, we don’t have any choice. The battle over this California case involves more than same-sex marriage or even the institution of marriage. As the Manhattan Declaration [Manhattan Declaration.org] points out, the biggest threat to religious freedom comes from those who want to redefine marriage and impose a particular view of sexual morality on all of us."
"How could pastors denounce sinful behavior held by a court to be a constitutional right? The only way to keep that from happening is to make clear—to make known—the great consensus in America in support of traditional marriage. Because courts rarely go against that."
Further Reading and Information
Poll: Support for Same Sex Marriage Grows, Brian Montopoli | CBS News | April 27, 2009
Same-Sex Mariage, Gay Rights, PollingReport.com
'Gay Marriages' Haulted; Case Fast-Tracked, Michael Foust | Baptist Press | August 17, 2010
(Personal Note #1: As always, please check out "The Coral Ridge Hour" this Sunday. (5:00 pm, channel 40.1 (over the air), in Orlando.) Last Sunday, they began a four part series on why Christians should keep abreast of the public policy issues, ie "politics," in our country. I am saddened by the great number of Christians who do not believe this. I believe that this view is unbiblical citizenship. I'm sorry if you missed last week's broadcast, "Will the Church Forget." It is one of the most challenging and powerful messages I have ever heard. If you live in Orlando and would like to borrow my DVD copy of it, just call me at 407-382-3735. Also, please check the ministry website at Coral Ridge Ministries.org and click on the "Equip and Grow" button. One of the downloads you can get is entitled "The Christian and Politics." I strongly urge you to check it out.)
(Personal Note #2: While it is often referred to as “gay” marriage, you will never see me use that term. (1) I don’t believe that any behavior condemned in God’s Word should be called “gay.” And (2) In 1987, I attended a retreat at which a woman who was named Gay by her parents cried at one of our meetings when she shared how the perversion that the term “gay” is now used to refer to causes her much pain. Since that day, I’ve pledged never to use that term to refer to homosexual behavior.)
"As the ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which overturned California’s Proposition 8, makes its way through the appeals process, one of the big questions concerns the impact of another case: Lawrence v. Texas. That 2003 Supreme Court decision overturned the Texas law making sodomy a criminal offense. Judge Vaughn Walker clearly thinks that the line between Lawrence and his ruling is clear. His opinion not only cited Lawrence – it was, as many commentators have noted, practically written for an audience of one: Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the Lawrence decision, and the likely swing-vote on the Supreme Court. But is the link as clear as Walker and his supporters say it is? No. Especially when you take public attitudes into account."
"At the time Lawrence was decided, Texas was one of only thirteen states that made sodomy a crime. In the rest of the country, consensual same-sex acts had been made legal by legislation. In other words, the public had adopted what could rightly be called a tolerant view of these acts: whatever people thought of homosexuality, they didn’t think it was a matter for the criminal law, and the political process reflected this cultural and political consensus. Thus, the ruling in Lawrence, whatever its constitutional merits, ratified an already-existing consensus – it didn’t set out to impose one. Even justice Thomas, who dissented from the majority opinion, called the Texas law 'uncommonly silly.' ”
"The same cannot be said of the ruling overturning Proposition 8. Only five states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex marriage and half of those are the result of court rulings. What’s more, the trajectory of public, as distinct from elite, opinion has been clearly to ratify the traditional understanding of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Since 1993, when the Hawaiian Supreme Court upheld same-sex marriage, the American people have consistently made their opposition clear at the polls. Every time the issue has been on the ballot (31 states in all), voters have rejected same sex marriage. This despite being outspent by same-sex marriage proponents and always being vilified in the media and elite opinion. All of this exposes the claim that we’re trying to “impose” our view on others. We aren’t doing that. That’s ludicrous! We’re simply defending the democratic consensus."
"The only way to counter this distortion is if we do it ourselves: present our case winsomely and persistently. And, given what’s at stake in this battle, we don’t have any choice. The battle over this California case involves more than same-sex marriage or even the institution of marriage. As the Manhattan Declaration [Manhattan Declaration.org] points out, the biggest threat to religious freedom comes from those who want to redefine marriage and impose a particular view of sexual morality on all of us."
"How could pastors denounce sinful behavior held by a court to be a constitutional right? The only way to keep that from happening is to make clear—to make known—the great consensus in America in support of traditional marriage. Because courts rarely go against that."
Further Reading and Information
Poll: Support for Same Sex Marriage Grows, Brian Montopoli | CBS News | April 27, 2009
Same-Sex Mariage, Gay Rights, PollingReport.com
'Gay Marriages' Haulted; Case Fast-Tracked, Michael Foust | Baptist Press | August 17, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
#61 - Elena Kagan - Another Reason Why Voting for Obama Was a BAD Idea
[Please be in DAILY PRAYER that the right questions will be asked at the Senate hearings which began this week which will reveal the true dangerous nature of this Supreme Court candidate.]
As a judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, Bruce Hausknecht, J.D., is an attorney in charge of research and analysis of legal and judicial issues of interest to the family. He is a frequent contributor to CitizenLink Daily Update and Family News in Focus. Prior to joining Focus Action in 2004, Hausknecht practiced law for 17 years. Hausknecht provides insight into President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan.
1. Why are pro-family groups opposing Elena Kagan's nomination?
We've heard the president emphasize his commitment to abortion-on-demand, his support for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), his opposition to Proposition 8 in California, and his professed desire to nominate judges who rule based on "empathy," rather than on the law and the Constitution. There's no doubt that the president searched for a nominee whose views are similar to his own. Although Elena Kagan has a thin — some would stay "stealth" — history with regard to hints of her judicial philosophy (she's never been a judge), there are indeed glimpses into her legal and constitutional views on several subjects near and dear to pro-family groups, and those glimpses are alarming.
2. What is a proper judicial philosophy for a judge, and why is that important?
Whether you call it "strict constructionism" or "constitutionalism" or "originalism," the ideal judge should interpret and apply the nation's laws and Constitution based on the plain meaning of the text, supplemented, where necessary, by an analysis of the original understanding of the law as best we can glean it from the historical record.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, the popular method of interpretation favored by liberals refers to the "living Constitution," which is an innocent-sounding euphemism that empowers activist judges to develop and create new constitutional interpretations based on their personal notions of how society should be evolving. In short, a living Constitutionalist has free reign to mold the law or Constitution into whatever he or she thinks is best for us. That's elitist, dangerous, and takes us in a direction our Founders never intended.
3. What has Elena Kagan said about same-sex marriage?
We know that as the current solicitor general (in charge of defending America's laws in court challenges around the country), Kagan has undermined the federal DOMA, which defines marriage as one man and one woman for all federal purposes. She's done so by admitting in legal papers filed with the courts that the Obama administration feels the law is discriminatory and ought to be repealed. She's further undermined DOMA in those cases by conceding that marriage has nothing to do with responsible procreation or child-rearing — a startling and ill-founded concession.
We also know of her well-publicized personal distaste for our country's law prohibiting gays from openly serving in the military. It's not hard to draw a line from her opposition to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to support for same-sex marriage.
4. Where does she stand on abortion?
There's no doubt that she'll be a strong supporter of abortion. First, President Obama has publicly announced that he would only nominate someone who showed a concern for "individual rights, which includes women's rights" — another euphemism that pro-family groups know from sad experience means abortion-on-demand.
Second, it appears she has donated to pro-abortion groups. Third, pro-abortion groups like Emily's List are already issuing press releases with glowing recommendations of Kagan. What do they know that we don't know? Finally, she has criticized a Supreme Court decision that upheld a federal ban on taxpayer dollars going to abortion, chiding the government for subsidizing "anti-abortion speech."
5. What can family advocates do?
Initially, they should realize they are not alone. Poll after poll says that the vast majority of Americans want center-Right judges who will rule based on the Constitution and the law's text, not based on whim, empathy or according to evolving societal standards. Then, do your homework:
(A) Follow CitizenLink.com and DriveThru blog for reports, analysis and updates on Kagan's nomination.
(B) Then, get active. The Senate has the responsibility to offer "advice and consent" on this nomination. There will be televised hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee in late June or early July, and then a final up-or-down vote by the entire Senate sometime thereafter. Pay attention to these proceedings, and call, write or e-mail your senators to voice your opinion.(You can send your Senators an email by clicking on the button to the right of this blog.)
(C) Gear up for the November elections. Are your senators voting in accord with your wishes? Are they up for re-election this year? Elections have consequences. The Supreme Court is one of the biggest.
As a judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, Bruce Hausknecht, J.D., is an attorney in charge of research and analysis of legal and judicial issues of interest to the family. He is a frequent contributor to CitizenLink Daily Update and Family News in Focus. Prior to joining Focus Action in 2004, Hausknecht practiced law for 17 years. Hausknecht provides insight into President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan.
1. Why are pro-family groups opposing Elena Kagan's nomination?
We've heard the president emphasize his commitment to abortion-on-demand, his support for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), his opposition to Proposition 8 in California, and his professed desire to nominate judges who rule based on "empathy," rather than on the law and the Constitution. There's no doubt that the president searched for a nominee whose views are similar to his own. Although Elena Kagan has a thin — some would stay "stealth" — history with regard to hints of her judicial philosophy (she's never been a judge), there are indeed glimpses into her legal and constitutional views on several subjects near and dear to pro-family groups, and those glimpses are alarming.
2. What is a proper judicial philosophy for a judge, and why is that important?
Whether you call it "strict constructionism" or "constitutionalism" or "originalism," the ideal judge should interpret and apply the nation's laws and Constitution based on the plain meaning of the text, supplemented, where necessary, by an analysis of the original understanding of the law as best we can glean it from the historical record.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, the popular method of interpretation favored by liberals refers to the "living Constitution," which is an innocent-sounding euphemism that empowers activist judges to develop and create new constitutional interpretations based on their personal notions of how society should be evolving. In short, a living Constitutionalist has free reign to mold the law or Constitution into whatever he or she thinks is best for us. That's elitist, dangerous, and takes us in a direction our Founders never intended.
3. What has Elena Kagan said about same-sex marriage?
We know that as the current solicitor general (in charge of defending America's laws in court challenges around the country), Kagan has undermined the federal DOMA, which defines marriage as one man and one woman for all federal purposes. She's done so by admitting in legal papers filed with the courts that the Obama administration feels the law is discriminatory and ought to be repealed. She's further undermined DOMA in those cases by conceding that marriage has nothing to do with responsible procreation or child-rearing — a startling and ill-founded concession.
We also know of her well-publicized personal distaste for our country's law prohibiting gays from openly serving in the military. It's not hard to draw a line from her opposition to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to support for same-sex marriage.
4. Where does she stand on abortion?
There's no doubt that she'll be a strong supporter of abortion. First, President Obama has publicly announced that he would only nominate someone who showed a concern for "individual rights, which includes women's rights" — another euphemism that pro-family groups know from sad experience means abortion-on-demand.
Second, it appears she has donated to pro-abortion groups. Third, pro-abortion groups like Emily's List are already issuing press releases with glowing recommendations of Kagan. What do they know that we don't know? Finally, she has criticized a Supreme Court decision that upheld a federal ban on taxpayer dollars going to abortion, chiding the government for subsidizing "anti-abortion speech."
5. What can family advocates do?
Initially, they should realize they are not alone. Poll after poll says that the vast majority of Americans want center-Right judges who will rule based on the Constitution and the law's text, not based on whim, empathy or according to evolving societal standards. Then, do your homework:
(A) Follow CitizenLink.com and DriveThru blog for reports, analysis and updates on Kagan's nomination.
(B) Then, get active. The Senate has the responsibility to offer "advice and consent" on this nomination. There will be televised hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee in late June or early July, and then a final up-or-down vote by the entire Senate sometime thereafter. Pay attention to these proceedings, and call, write or e-mail your senators to voice your opinion.(You can send your Senators an email by clicking on the button to the right of this blog.)
(C) Gear up for the November elections. Are your senators voting in accord with your wishes? Are they up for re-election this year? Elections have consequences. The Supreme Court is one of the biggest.
Friday, June 25, 2010
#60 – The General and the CEO - Lessons In Media Demonization
1 - Please remember to tune in to the half hour broadcast of "The Coral Ridge Hour" this and every Sunday (5 pm, channel 40.1 in Orlando) You will never be disappointed with its balance of a great gospel message and a commentary as well of a current issue our country faces.]
2 - Be sure to check: http://www.worldmag.com/editorialcartoons Talk about how one picture can communicate a thousand words. Great stuff each Friday!
1) The Dismissal of General McCrystal [The Obligatory Disclaimer – Of course, there is no disagreement that a soldier never publicly says anything critical of his commanding officer or his policies. And for his two statements in the Rolling Stones article (one of his impression of the President on their first meeting and the other of the Vice-President), the General did deserve to be dismissed. (The other disparaging comments about other members of the President’s Afghanistan civilian team were by unnamed sources on the General’s staff.)]
However, there are 2 significant points that has rarely been mentioned regarding what transpired:
a) It’s been reported that the article was read and approved of by the General for printing. Therefore, the General was not really surprised by its contents and we are left to conclude he wanted it released. The question that should have been asked by the media and the public is what was it that so frustrated the General about the President’s Afghanistan civilian leadership team that caused him to resort to do something that was blatantly insubordinate. It should be noted that the media – who almost always shapes (and not simply reports on) any debate in this country – never once queried how much of such criticism and frustration is prevalent throughout the military. insubordinate action. You can be sure that if it was a General under President Bush or some other President not favored by the media that was the subject of such frustration it would be the General’s views which would have received media scrutiny and the debate not merely confined to the of the General.
b)The General may never reveal and thus we may never know what caused him to allow that article to be published. But to whatever degree it causes some attention to be drawn to the Truths imbedded in the article that might not have otherwise been known, we may one day have to look back and give thanks to the General for the courage to put his career on the line to at least try to focus the nation's attention on those views.
P.S. - By the way, do you remember at the State of the Union address in January when the President (with 7 of the Justices sitting in front of him on national television)criticized their recent ruling on campaign finance reform? Historians all agreed that the President - representing one branch of the government - never uses such a forum to criticize those of the Judicial Branch of the federal government. And was he criticized? Not only was not, but those of his party present actually gave him a standing ovation. Talk about speaking out of turn and getting away with it? Hmm.. do you think maybe the President gets a free pass when his General doesn't? Can you say, "double standard?"
P.S.S. - Check out this article as well on the growing rift between the President and the Military:http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/mcchrystal-petraeus-obama-afghanistan/2010/06/23/id/362888?s=al&prom
2) The Demonization of British Petroleum and Its CEO. [The Obligatory Disclaimer - No one can argue that what has happened with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is an incredible tragedy – for the environmental damage and the cost to the livelihood of those who live in the region. HOWEVER, you have to wonder if the nightly new coverage with obligatory pictures of oil soaked birds and endless interviews with local people who’ve been affected is just meant to stoke our emotional fires to demonize British Petroleum.]
Take, for example, when the two different heads of the company have spoken, there have been instances where their English and Sweedish (respectively) phrasing has been used to criticize them. When CEO Tony Hayward said that he wanted to “get back to his life,” why is it no one bothered to understand him to mean that he was just tired of being away from his family for so long. Why did people just see it as an insensitive statement regarding the people in the Gulf?. Then, when the President of the company used the phrase “the little people” to refer to the people who live in the Gulf, why did people jump on him as well without considering that it was just the way Sweedish people expressed themselves and was also not a denigration of the people in the Gulf. I wish that someone, anyone, in U.S. leadership would have asked people to take a deep breath and not be so caught up in their emotions that they were not so quick to turn blame into mindless demonization.
Speaking of which, how about that Congressional Inquisition several weeks ago? Those representatives called them an investigative group but all any of them did was verbally abuse that BP executive and ask him questions that they probably knew he could not answer. They just refused to believe that BP still hadn’t finished their evaluations of what could have caused the spill even though the representatives had no evaluations of their own to prevent from any experts. In fact, they kept pressing the executive to say that BP had been reckless when there was no way for him to state any such conclusion if they had not finished their evaluations. It was so obvious that the congressmen merely wanted a venue to show themselves being “tough” on BP for the voters back home – voters they would each face in the upcoming elections in November. The most outrageous was a congressman from Louisiana suggesting that the CEO should consider committing hara kiri or Japanese ritual suicide!
Ordinary citizens have also been acting in ways that are simply silly. Did you hear how early on a minor league baseball team in Florida announced that they were so mad at BP that they were no longer going to call their baseball practice sessions “BP” but would begin to refer them as “game rehearsal.” How silly!
Then there are the people who want to boycott BP gas stations even though they are aware that the local station owner would suffer and not BP. That also points to what is not often reported: BP is a corporation and thus is owned by tens of millions of shareholders, many of who have their pension funds in BP stock. Also, 40% of these are fellow Americans and so as the company has lost at least 50% of its stock value as a result of this oil spill, so have these Americans seen their savings severely hurt.
In trying to demonize BP, the media has also shined little spotlight on the government’s failures in helping to clean up the oil seepage. For example, sixteen barges sat stationary at one time although they had been sucking up thousands of gallons of BP’s oil. So why did these barges stop sucking oil? Because the Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board. (Were the firemen who rushed up the Twin Towers before they crashed held back until it was verified that they were rightly outfitted or didn’t the urgency of the moment simply override such a consideration?)
Another equally frustrating situation occurred when Louisiana Gov. Jindal requested that small “sand islands” be constructed to prevent oil from washing ashore. He was told by the government that his plans would have to wait until the Army Corp of Engineers did an environmental impact study first. As Newt Gingrich remarked, “It would take them longer to do the environmental impact study then it would take the oil to get to shore to impact the environment that they’re studying!”
I don’t know about you, but what really had me screaming at the television was when the lead off story last Saturday was that the CEO of BP had gone yachting after he had been removed from being the on-site spokesman for the company. In railing against his “insensitivity to the people in the Gulf,” the media’s reaction merely fueled sentiments against those who are wealthy capitalists. Never mind that the President himself hosted a Father’s Day Barbecue, played a round of golf, and flew to Chicago to watch the White Sox play. Wasn’t he also supposed to be focused on the oil spill? And how was the President’s actions explained: it was “good for the country” that the President took time to relax! Gee, can anyone say media bias and hypocrisy?!!!
2 - Be sure to check: http://www.worldmag.com/editorialcartoons Talk about how one picture can communicate a thousand words. Great stuff each Friday!
1) The Dismissal of General McCrystal [The Obligatory Disclaimer – Of course, there is no disagreement that a soldier never publicly says anything critical of his commanding officer or his policies. And for his two statements in the Rolling Stones article (one of his impression of the President on their first meeting and the other of the Vice-President), the General did deserve to be dismissed. (The other disparaging comments about other members of the President’s Afghanistan civilian team were by unnamed sources on the General’s staff.)]
However, there are 2 significant points that has rarely been mentioned regarding what transpired:
a) It’s been reported that the article was read and approved of by the General for printing. Therefore, the General was not really surprised by its contents and we are left to conclude he wanted it released. The question that should have been asked by the media and the public is what was it that so frustrated the General about the President’s Afghanistan civilian leadership team that caused him to resort to do something that was blatantly insubordinate. It should be noted that the media – who almost always shapes (and not simply reports on) any debate in this country – never once queried how much of such criticism and frustration is prevalent throughout the military. insubordinate action. You can be sure that if it was a General under President Bush or some other President not favored by the media that was the subject of such frustration it would be the General’s views which would have received media scrutiny and the debate not merely confined to the of the General.
b)The General may never reveal and thus we may never know what caused him to allow that article to be published. But to whatever degree it causes some attention to be drawn to the Truths imbedded in the article that might not have otherwise been known, we may one day have to look back and give thanks to the General for the courage to put his career on the line to at least try to focus the nation's attention on those views.
P.S. - By the way, do you remember at the State of the Union address in January when the President (with 7 of the Justices sitting in front of him on national television)criticized their recent ruling on campaign finance reform? Historians all agreed that the President - representing one branch of the government - never uses such a forum to criticize those of the Judicial Branch of the federal government. And was he criticized? Not only was not, but those of his party present actually gave him a standing ovation. Talk about speaking out of turn and getting away with it? Hmm.. do you think maybe the President gets a free pass when his General doesn't? Can you say, "double standard?"
P.S.S. - Check out this article as well on the growing rift between the President and the Military:http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/mcchrystal-petraeus-obama-afghanistan/2010/06/23/id/362888?s=al&prom
2) The Demonization of British Petroleum and Its CEO. [The Obligatory Disclaimer - No one can argue that what has happened with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is an incredible tragedy – for the environmental damage and the cost to the livelihood of those who live in the region. HOWEVER, you have to wonder if the nightly new coverage with obligatory pictures of oil soaked birds and endless interviews with local people who’ve been affected is just meant to stoke our emotional fires to demonize British Petroleum.]
Take, for example, when the two different heads of the company have spoken, there have been instances where their English and Sweedish (respectively) phrasing has been used to criticize them. When CEO Tony Hayward said that he wanted to “get back to his life,” why is it no one bothered to understand him to mean that he was just tired of being away from his family for so long. Why did people just see it as an insensitive statement regarding the people in the Gulf?. Then, when the President of the company used the phrase “the little people” to refer to the people who live in the Gulf, why did people jump on him as well without considering that it was just the way Sweedish people expressed themselves and was also not a denigration of the people in the Gulf. I wish that someone, anyone, in U.S. leadership would have asked people to take a deep breath and not be so caught up in their emotions that they were not so quick to turn blame into mindless demonization.
Speaking of which, how about that Congressional Inquisition several weeks ago? Those representatives called them an investigative group but all any of them did was verbally abuse that BP executive and ask him questions that they probably knew he could not answer. They just refused to believe that BP still hadn’t finished their evaluations of what could have caused the spill even though the representatives had no evaluations of their own to prevent from any experts. In fact, they kept pressing the executive to say that BP had been reckless when there was no way for him to state any such conclusion if they had not finished their evaluations. It was so obvious that the congressmen merely wanted a venue to show themselves being “tough” on BP for the voters back home – voters they would each face in the upcoming elections in November. The most outrageous was a congressman from Louisiana suggesting that the CEO should consider committing hara kiri or Japanese ritual suicide!
Ordinary citizens have also been acting in ways that are simply silly. Did you hear how early on a minor league baseball team in Florida announced that they were so mad at BP that they were no longer going to call their baseball practice sessions “BP” but would begin to refer them as “game rehearsal.” How silly!
Then there are the people who want to boycott BP gas stations even though they are aware that the local station owner would suffer and not BP. That also points to what is not often reported: BP is a corporation and thus is owned by tens of millions of shareholders, many of who have their pension funds in BP stock. Also, 40% of these are fellow Americans and so as the company has lost at least 50% of its stock value as a result of this oil spill, so have these Americans seen their savings severely hurt.
In trying to demonize BP, the media has also shined little spotlight on the government’s failures in helping to clean up the oil seepage. For example, sixteen barges sat stationary at one time although they had been sucking up thousands of gallons of BP’s oil. So why did these barges stop sucking oil? Because the Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board. (Were the firemen who rushed up the Twin Towers before they crashed held back until it was verified that they were rightly outfitted or didn’t the urgency of the moment simply override such a consideration?)
Another equally frustrating situation occurred when Louisiana Gov. Jindal requested that small “sand islands” be constructed to prevent oil from washing ashore. He was told by the government that his plans would have to wait until the Army Corp of Engineers did an environmental impact study first. As Newt Gingrich remarked, “It would take them longer to do the environmental impact study then it would take the oil to get to shore to impact the environment that they’re studying!”
I don’t know about you, but what really had me screaming at the television was when the lead off story last Saturday was that the CEO of BP had gone yachting after he had been removed from being the on-site spokesman for the company. In railing against his “insensitivity to the people in the Gulf,” the media’s reaction merely fueled sentiments against those who are wealthy capitalists. Never mind that the President himself hosted a Father’s Day Barbecue, played a round of golf, and flew to Chicago to watch the White Sox play. Wasn’t he also supposed to be focused on the oil spill? And how was the President’s actions explained: it was “good for the country” that the President took time to relax! Gee, can anyone say media bias and hypocrisy?!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
