[Dont you just get tired of celebrities who pontificate as experts about this or that social cause (such as scream about global warming and those greedy corportate people and then hypocritidally go on to burn up tons of fuel in their private jets), even to testifying before Congress?! Give me a break! When entertainers try to persuade us that their fame makes them experts, they surely play us for fools. Rather than advancing their cause they often just embarass it and themselves. Case in point - read this article:]
"Unionism, seldom if ever, uses such power as it has to ensure better work; almost always it devotes a large part of that power to safeguarding bad work. - H.L. Menken
Schooling Matt Damon by Michelle Malkin http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45327 08/05/2011
Actor Matt Damon? is a walking, talking public service reminder to immunize your children early and often against La-La-Land disease.In Damon's world, all public school teachers are selfless angels. Government workers and Hollywood entertainers are impervious to economic incentives. And anyone who disagrees is a know-nothing, "corporate reformer" ingrate who hates education.
Last weekn [In late July], the liberal box-office star addressed a "Save Our Schools" march in Washington at the behest of his mother, a professor of early childhood education. He attacked standardized tests. He praised all the public school teachers who "empowered" him and unlocked his creative potential by rejecting "silly drill and kill nonsense." Speaking on behalf of "an army of regular people," Damon decried the demoralization of teachers by ruthless, results-oriented free marketeers whom he mocked as "simple-minded."
What Damon's superficial tirade lacked, however, was any real-world understanding of the deterioration of core curricular learning in America. Students can't master simple division or fractions because today's teachers -- churned out through lowest common denominator grad schools and shielded from competition -- have barely mastered those skills themselves. Un-educators have abandoned "drill and kill" computation for multicultural claptrap and fuzzy math, traded in grammar fundamentals for "creative spelling," and dropped standard civics for save-the-earth propaganda.
Consequence: bottom-basement U.S. student scores on global assessments over the past two decades. Blaming the tests is blaming the messenger. The liberal education establishment's response to its abject academic failures? Run away. This is why the Save Our Schools agenda championed by Damon calls for less curricular emphasis on math and reading -- and more focus on social justice, funding and "equity" issues.
Out: Reading is fundamental. In: Feeling is fundamental.
After his drippy pep talk absolving teachers of any responsibility for America's educational morass, Damon then lashed out at a young libertarian reporter who had the audacity to ask him about the negative impact of lifetime teacher tenure. "In acting there isn't job security, right?" Reason.tv's Michelle Fields asked Damon. "There is an incentive to work hard and be a better actor because you want to have a job. So why isn't it like that for teachers?"
It's elementary that people will work longer and harder if they know they will be rewarded. There's nothing anti-teacher about the question. (And before teachers-unions goons go on the attack, I am the child of a public school teacher and the mother of two children in an excellent public charter school by choice.) But Damon's hinges came undone when confronted with the mild question.
"You think job insecurity makes me work hard?" he retorted. "That's like saying a teacher is going to get lazy when she has tenure." Gathering all the creative potential he could muster, Damon unleashed crude profanities on Fields. "A teacher wants to teach," Damon fumed with his mother next to him. "Why else would you take a sh**ty" salary and really long hours and do that job unless you really loved to do it?"
Never mind that most out-of-work Americans would find nothing "sh**ty" about earning an average $53,000 annual salary plus health and retirement benefits for a 180-day work year.
Damon went on to deride standard, mainstream behavioral economic principles as "intrinsically paternalistic" and "MBA-style thinking." And when the young reporter's cameraman pointed out that there are bad apples in the teaching profession as in any profession, Damon called him "sh**ty," too.
Tinseltown stars can afford to put emotion over logic, progressive fantasy over practical reality. The rest of us are stuck with the bill. And those whom bleeding-heart celebrities purport to care most about -- the children -- suffer the consequences of bad ideas.
Interminable teacher tenure in America's largest school districts, from New York to Chicago to Los Angeles, has produced a rotten corps of incompetent (at best) and dangerous (at worst) educators coddled by Big Labor. As the D.C.-based Center for Union Facts reports, "In many major cities, only one out of 1,000 teachers is fired for performance-related reasons. ... In 10 years, only about 47 out of 100,000 teachers were actually terminated from New Jersey's schools."
By contrast, as the educational documentary "Waiting for Superman" (produced by avowed liberal turned reformer Davis Guggenheim) pointed out, one out of every 57 doctors loses his or her license to practice medicine, and one out of every 97 lawyers loses their license to practice law. In Los Angeles, it's not just meanie tea party terrorists making the case for abolishing teacher tenure. When the Los Angeles Times exposed how the city's tenure evaluation system rubber-stamped approvals and ignored actual performance, the district superintendent admitted: "Too many ineffective teachers are falling into tenured positions -- the equivalent of jobs for life." USC education professor Julie Slayton acknowledged: "It's ridiculous and should be changed."
Pop quiz: Would multimillionaire Matt Damon apply the same warped employment practices and dumbed-down curricular standards to his own accountants that he champions for America's public school teachers? Film at 11[emphases mine] [emphases mine]
Mrs. Malkin is author of Unhinged (Regnery) and "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2009).
Monday, August 8, 2011
Friday, August 5, 2011
#109 - Sunday Special > The Atom Bombings - A Matter of Regret, Not Apology
Prayer Alert - Let's all be sure to remember the families and comrade-in-arms of the nearly 3 dozen of our brave fighting men who perished yesteday in Afghanistan. Pray that knowing Him will comfort them and that this tragedy will especially draw those who have yet to come into a relationship withh Him.
Now, I am sure you are used to seeing the annual ceremonies in Japan marking the atomic bombings of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in World War II. Of course, there is no decent person who takes any pleasure that so many hundreds of thousands of lives perished as a result. And in checking the wikipedia site
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki) there is much information regarding the bombings, including some of the debate that has continued about the bomgings. There are some good arguments on both sides of the debate, but I find those who go so far as to accuse the United States of war crimes just go too far. I was startled when a year ago a friend who was a native of Japan but is now a US citizen said things such as that the bombs was denoted over a children's hospital in Hiroshima, as though that was the target of the bombing. What disturbed me even more in the newsletter he sent out as now the pasor of a Japanese American Church was that God has not opened the hearts of the japanese people to the gospel because America has never apologized for the bombing!
Of course, I can understand how he would have such emotions but find it hard to accept his conclusions. Also, with the distance from the actual event itself, I think it is easy for Americans today to forget about the context of the bombing. For those who can only see America as the big villian, I think it's helpful to put some context to the bombings. First of all, let me state what I believe everyone should know: the United States was thrust into World War II because of the Japan's unprovoked attack on our naval facility at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in which nearly 3,000 of our servicemen were killed. Prior to this and continuing throughout the war, Japanese troops marched through Manchuria, China, the Korean penninsula, through the Pacific and IndoChina killing hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians all to claim the natural resources of those countries. Aside from it's criminal treatment of prisoners of wars (tens of thousands having died in captivity), they were also responsible for actions similar to those of the Nazis against many people groups throughout Europe. For instance,
****At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731, you will learn about something called Unit 731. This was ..."was a covert biological and chemical warfare research and development unit of the Imperial Japanese Army that undertook lethal human experimentation during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) and World War II. It was responsible for some of the most notorious war crimes carried out by Japanese personnel." Also, "According to the 2002 International Symposium on the Crimes of Bacteriological Warfare, the number of people killed by the Imperial Japanese Army germ warfare and human experiments is around 580,000. According to other sources, the use of biological weapons researched in Unit 731's bioweapons and chemical weapons programs resulted in possibly as many as 200,000 deaths of military personnel and civilians in China.
****Also, at the Wikipedia site on the Battle of Okinawa > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa : "... the Japanese Army showed indifference to Okinawa's defense and safety, and the Japanese soldiers used civilians as human shields against the Americans. Japanese military confiscated food from the Okinawans and executed those who hid it, leading to a mass starvation among the population, and forced civilians out of their shelters. Japanese soldiers also killed about 1,000 Okinawans who spoke in a different local dialect in order to suppress spying. The museum writes that "some were blown apart by shells, some finding themselves in a hopeless situation were driven to suicide, some died of starvation, some succumbed to malaria, while others fell victim to the retreating Japanese troops." "... Ryukyu Shimpo, one of the two major Okinawan newspapers, wrote in 2007: 'There are many Okinawans who have testified that the Japanese Army directed them to commit suicide. There are also people who have testified that they were handed grenades by Japanese soldiers" to blow themselves up. Some of the civilians, having been induced by Japanese propaganda to
believe that U.S. soldiers were barbarians who committed horrible atrocities, killed their families and themselves to avoid capture.' (In the Wikipedia article, you can read of how Japanese governement officials as recently as 2007 tried to have textbooks revised to not say the Japanese military encouraged the suicides until a court finally ruled against them in 2008.)
[from the Wikipedia article on the bombings themseves] "..For six months before the atomic bombings, the United States intensely fire-bombed 67 Japanese cities. Together with the United Kingdom and the Republic of China, the United States called for a surrender of Japan in the Potsdam Declaration on July 26, 1945. The Japanese government ignored this ultimatum. By executive order of President Harry S. Truman,the U.S. dropped the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" on the city of Hiroshima on Monday, August 6, 1945,followed by the detonation of "Fat Man" over Nagasaki on August 9."
"Supporters of the bombings generally assert that they caused the Japanese surrender, preventing massive casualties on both sides in the planned invasion of Japan: Kyūshū was to be invaded in October 1945 and Ho"nshū five months later. Some estimate Allied forces would have suffered 1 million casualties in such a scenario, while Japanese casualties would have been in the millions. Although thousands of Japanese were taken prisoner, most fought until they were killed or committed suicide. According to Risa Brooks and Elizabeth A. Stanley, "One scholar estimated that kamikaze attacks could have sunk or damaged a full third of the invasion armada destined for Kyūshū." As the chief commander of the Japanese army, Korechika Anami was outspoken against the idea of surrender. Even after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Anami opposed talk of surrender, and proposed instead that a large-scale battle be fought on the Japanese mainland causing such massive Allied casualties that Japan would somehow be able to evade surrender and perhaps even keep some of what it had conquered.Eventually, his arguments were overcome when Emperor Hirohito directly requested an end to the war himself."
"Those who oppose the bombings, among them many US military leaders as well as ex-president Herbert Hoover, argue that it was simply an extension of the already fierce conventional bombing campaign.This,together with the sea blockade and the collapse of Germany (with its implications regarding redeployment), would also have led to a Japanese surrender - so the atomic bombings were militarily necessary. On the contrary, according to Kyoko Iriye Selden, "The most influential text is Truman's 1955 Memoirs, which states that the atomic bomb probably saved half a million US lives— anticipated casualties in an Allied invasion of Japan planned for November. [US Secretary of War] Stimson subsequently talked of saving one million US casualties,and Churchill of saving 1 million American and 1/2 that number of British lives."
I shared the details indicated with **** above to emphasize that the Japanese armies throughout the war were responsible for unspeakable atrocities and what could accurately be called war crimes. As opposed to the inexcuseable nature of those actions, I submit that the US government had sufficient reasons (stated above) to drop the bombs as they did, and that it was done only after great discussion and much regret, and only with the thought of forcing an end to a horrific World War, with what, on balance, was the least amount of casualties. With that in view, I see no reason for the United States to need to apologize for the bombings and cannot believe it's failure to do so has caused God to close the heart of the Japanese people to the gospel. If I may be so bold, I would instead argue (as I heard one japanese pastor also did) that it is the Japanese people who have as a nation never aplogized for their acts of war against people in the Pacfic region and that it may be THEIR refusal to do so that is part of the explanation of God continuing to close the heart of the majority of Japanese to the gospel.
It's time we help others remember that America has and continues to take the lead throughout the world to stand up against those who threaten not just our freedoms but also those of countless nations. We've usually been the one to send our young men and women in harm's way to defend free peoples and to spend our resources to help countless numbers in need again and again. We've never sought compensation or thanks and instead have had to endure much derision and betrayal by even those who we call our friends. America has long had unparralled military power but has always exercised it with severe restraint. One cannot see the heart of America and not believe it only took the action to drop those atomic bombs 66 years ago with much regret but resolved to do what it felt was necessary. For doing so, no apology is necessary.
Now, I am sure you are used to seeing the annual ceremonies in Japan marking the atomic bombings of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in World War II. Of course, there is no decent person who takes any pleasure that so many hundreds of thousands of lives perished as a result. And in checking the wikipedia site
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki) there is much information regarding the bombings, including some of the debate that has continued about the bomgings. There are some good arguments on both sides of the debate, but I find those who go so far as to accuse the United States of war crimes just go too far. I was startled when a year ago a friend who was a native of Japan but is now a US citizen said things such as that the bombs was denoted over a children's hospital in Hiroshima, as though that was the target of the bombing. What disturbed me even more in the newsletter he sent out as now the pasor of a Japanese American Church was that God has not opened the hearts of the japanese people to the gospel because America has never apologized for the bombing!
Of course, I can understand how he would have such emotions but find it hard to accept his conclusions. Also, with the distance from the actual event itself, I think it is easy for Americans today to forget about the context of the bombing. For those who can only see America as the big villian, I think it's helpful to put some context to the bombings. First of all, let me state what I believe everyone should know: the United States was thrust into World War II because of the Japan's unprovoked attack on our naval facility at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in which nearly 3,000 of our servicemen were killed. Prior to this and continuing throughout the war, Japanese troops marched through Manchuria, China, the Korean penninsula, through the Pacific and IndoChina killing hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians all to claim the natural resources of those countries. Aside from it's criminal treatment of prisoners of wars (tens of thousands having died in captivity), they were also responsible for actions similar to those of the Nazis against many people groups throughout Europe. For instance,
****At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731, you will learn about something called Unit 731. This was ..."was a covert biological and chemical warfare research and development unit of the Imperial Japanese Army that undertook lethal human experimentation during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) and World War II. It was responsible for some of the most notorious war crimes carried out by Japanese personnel." Also, "According to the 2002 International Symposium on the Crimes of Bacteriological Warfare, the number of people killed by the Imperial Japanese Army germ warfare and human experiments is around 580,000. According to other sources, the use of biological weapons researched in Unit 731's bioweapons and chemical weapons programs resulted in possibly as many as 200,000 deaths of military personnel and civilians in China.
****Also, at the Wikipedia site on the Battle of Okinawa > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa : "... the Japanese Army showed indifference to Okinawa's defense and safety, and the Japanese soldiers used civilians as human shields against the Americans. Japanese military confiscated food from the Okinawans and executed those who hid it, leading to a mass starvation among the population, and forced civilians out of their shelters. Japanese soldiers also killed about 1,000 Okinawans who spoke in a different local dialect in order to suppress spying. The museum writes that "some were blown apart by shells, some finding themselves in a hopeless situation were driven to suicide, some died of starvation, some succumbed to malaria, while others fell victim to the retreating Japanese troops." "... Ryukyu Shimpo, one of the two major Okinawan newspapers, wrote in 2007: 'There are many Okinawans who have testified that the Japanese Army directed them to commit suicide. There are also people who have testified that they were handed grenades by Japanese soldiers" to blow themselves up. Some of the civilians, having been induced by Japanese propaganda to
believe that U.S. soldiers were barbarians who committed horrible atrocities, killed their families and themselves to avoid capture.' (In the Wikipedia article, you can read of how Japanese governement officials as recently as 2007 tried to have textbooks revised to not say the Japanese military encouraged the suicides until a court finally ruled against them in 2008.)
[from the Wikipedia article on the bombings themseves] "..For six months before the atomic bombings, the United States intensely fire-bombed 67 Japanese cities. Together with the United Kingdom and the Republic of China, the United States called for a surrender of Japan in the Potsdam Declaration on July 26, 1945. The Japanese government ignored this ultimatum. By executive order of President Harry S. Truman,the U.S. dropped the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" on the city of Hiroshima on Monday, August 6, 1945,followed by the detonation of "Fat Man" over Nagasaki on August 9."
"Supporters of the bombings generally assert that they caused the Japanese surrender, preventing massive casualties on both sides in the planned invasion of Japan: Kyūshū was to be invaded in October 1945 and Ho"nshū five months later. Some estimate Allied forces would have suffered 1 million casualties in such a scenario, while Japanese casualties would have been in the millions. Although thousands of Japanese were taken prisoner, most fought until they were killed or committed suicide. According to Risa Brooks and Elizabeth A. Stanley, "One scholar estimated that kamikaze attacks could have sunk or damaged a full third of the invasion armada destined for Kyūshū." As the chief commander of the Japanese army, Korechika Anami was outspoken against the idea of surrender. Even after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Anami opposed talk of surrender, and proposed instead that a large-scale battle be fought on the Japanese mainland causing such massive Allied casualties that Japan would somehow be able to evade surrender and perhaps even keep some of what it had conquered.Eventually, his arguments were overcome when Emperor Hirohito directly requested an end to the war himself."
"Those who oppose the bombings, among them many US military leaders as well as ex-president Herbert Hoover, argue that it was simply an extension of the already fierce conventional bombing campaign.This,together with the sea blockade and the collapse of Germany (with its implications regarding redeployment), would also have led to a Japanese surrender - so the atomic bombings were militarily necessary. On the contrary, according to Kyoko Iriye Selden, "The most influential text is Truman's 1955 Memoirs, which states that the atomic bomb probably saved half a million US lives— anticipated casualties in an Allied invasion of Japan planned for November. [US Secretary of War] Stimson subsequently talked of saving one million US casualties,and Churchill of saving 1 million American and 1/2 that number of British lives."
I shared the details indicated with **** above to emphasize that the Japanese armies throughout the war were responsible for unspeakable atrocities and what could accurately be called war crimes. As opposed to the inexcuseable nature of those actions, I submit that the US government had sufficient reasons (stated above) to drop the bombs as they did, and that it was done only after great discussion and much regret, and only with the thought of forcing an end to a horrific World War, with what, on balance, was the least amount of casualties. With that in view, I see no reason for the United States to need to apologize for the bombings and cannot believe it's failure to do so has caused God to close the heart of the Japanese people to the gospel. If I may be so bold, I would instead argue (as I heard one japanese pastor also did) that it is the Japanese people who have as a nation never aplogized for their acts of war against people in the Pacfic region and that it may be THEIR refusal to do so that is part of the explanation of God continuing to close the heart of the majority of Japanese to the gospel.
It's time we help others remember that America has and continues to take the lead throughout the world to stand up against those who threaten not just our freedoms but also those of countless nations. We've usually been the one to send our young men and women in harm's way to defend free peoples and to spend our resources to help countless numbers in need again and again. We've never sought compensation or thanks and instead have had to endure much derision and betrayal by even those who we call our friends. America has long had unparralled military power but has always exercised it with severe restraint. One cannot see the heart of America and not believe it only took the action to drop those atomic bombs 66 years ago with much regret but resolved to do what it felt was necessary. For doing so, no apology is necessary.
#108 - Lights Out for the Light Bulb Ban?
[What illustrates better the government taking away more and more of our freedoms than the move to force us to purchase a particular type of light bulb. One thing this article does not point out are the idiotic laws that come into play should you break one of these newer bulbs and have to clean up the dangerous waste that results. Honestly!!]
1) As always, I encourage you to check out this week's broadcast of "Truths That Transform" (formerly "The Coral Ridge Hour") - 5 pm, channel 55.1 here in Orlando.
2) I invite you to check out the new editorial cartoons found at: http://www.worldmag.com/editorialcartoons/
3. Check this blog for a Sunday Special
The following article was posted at > http://www.askheritage.org/lights-out-for-the-light-bulb-ban/?utm_source=AH_Weekly&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2011-07-15&utm_campaign=2011_Brand July 15, 2011
Some politicians in Washington don’t think you’re all that bright. They believe that you can’t make wise decisions in your day-to-day life, so they have taken it upon themselves to impose regulations to protect you from yourself. And there’s no better example than Congress’ ban on the incandescent light bulb, which is up for repeal in the House today.
The 2007 law is set to phase-out Thomas Edison’s brainchild bulbs in 2012 and replace them with costlier but more energy-efficient alternatives, the most popular being compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs). Since then, the impending restrictions have become a hallmark of Nanny State overreach, provoking backlash across the country. State representatives in South Carolina went so far as to try to circumvent Congress and push for the state to produce and use incandescents solely for its own use. And just last week, U.S. Representatives Joe Barton (R–TX), Michael Burgess (R–TX) and Marsha Blackburn (R–TN) introduced a bill in Congress to put an end to the bulb ban.
But the fact that some folks like consumer choice and prefer the soft yellow lighting of less expensive incandescents to the unnatural, office-like white light of pricey fluorescents confounds Nanny State politicians and regulators. Case in point: Secretary of Energy Steven Chu. Secretary Chu, who is an advocate of the ban, said of the potential repeal, “We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.” Confused by the bureaucratic doublespeak? Reaching for your copy of Orwell’s Guide to Big Brotherisms? You should be. Chu apparently believes that government regulations that restrict choice and force decisions upon you are great things for society because they pre-select the best choice imaginable, taking the guesswork out of being a free-thinking being. And they’re saving you money, to boot!
Chu isn’t the only one who thinks the light bulb ban is a great idea. Former Senator John Warner (R–VA) said, “We’ll be dropping backwards in America’s need to become more energy-efficient.” And then there’s Jim Presswood of the environmental activist Natural Resources Defense Council, who says, “Clearly, consumers, the economy and the environment will suffer if these standards are repealed.” The organization claims that the ban would save consumers $85 per year. Well, that’s not entirely true. In California, utilities spent nearly $550 million to subsidize CFLs for consumers, but they didn’t get such great results. In March, The Wall Street Journal reported that energy savings under the program were 73 percent less than expected.
That’s not to say cutting energy consumption isn’t a great thing—it certainly is. But guess what? It’s already happening, and not because of the Nanny State. Heritage’s Nicolas Loris explains:"When you take a look at America’s energy efficiency track record, it’s not too shabby—and it’s a result of innovation and cost reduction, not government mandates and regulations. Overall, energy consumption per real dollar of gross domestic product has dropped dramatically in the past 60 years, because we’ve innovated and become drastically more efficient in the process."In short, America has achieved energy savings as a result of the free market—and the free market is fueled by consumer choice, the very thing big government regulators and politicians would like to take away. Fortunately, there’s another way.
“We should let the marketplace decide,” Barton said of the effort to repeal the light bulb ban. “We should let people decide if they want to buy a $6 light bulb or a 39 cent light bulb.” Maybe, soon enough, Congress will see the light and allow Americans to continue to have that choice.
1) As always, I encourage you to check out this week's broadcast of "Truths That Transform" (formerly "The Coral Ridge Hour") - 5 pm, channel 55.1 here in Orlando.
2) I invite you to check out the new editorial cartoons found at: http://www.worldmag.com/editorialcartoons/
3. Check this blog for a Sunday Special
The following article was posted at > http://www.askheritage.org/lights-out-for-the-light-bulb-ban/?utm_source=AH_Weekly&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2011-07-15&utm_campaign=2011_Brand July 15, 2011
Some politicians in Washington don’t think you’re all that bright. They believe that you can’t make wise decisions in your day-to-day life, so they have taken it upon themselves to impose regulations to protect you from yourself. And there’s no better example than Congress’ ban on the incandescent light bulb, which is up for repeal in the House today.
The 2007 law is set to phase-out Thomas Edison’s brainchild bulbs in 2012 and replace them with costlier but more energy-efficient alternatives, the most popular being compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs). Since then, the impending restrictions have become a hallmark of Nanny State overreach, provoking backlash across the country. State representatives in South Carolina went so far as to try to circumvent Congress and push for the state to produce and use incandescents solely for its own use. And just last week, U.S. Representatives Joe Barton (R–TX), Michael Burgess (R–TX) and Marsha Blackburn (R–TN) introduced a bill in Congress to put an end to the bulb ban.
But the fact that some folks like consumer choice and prefer the soft yellow lighting of less expensive incandescents to the unnatural, office-like white light of pricey fluorescents confounds Nanny State politicians and regulators. Case in point: Secretary of Energy Steven Chu. Secretary Chu, who is an advocate of the ban, said of the potential repeal, “We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.” Confused by the bureaucratic doublespeak? Reaching for your copy of Orwell’s Guide to Big Brotherisms? You should be. Chu apparently believes that government regulations that restrict choice and force decisions upon you are great things for society because they pre-select the best choice imaginable, taking the guesswork out of being a free-thinking being. And they’re saving you money, to boot!
Chu isn’t the only one who thinks the light bulb ban is a great idea. Former Senator John Warner (R–VA) said, “We’ll be dropping backwards in America’s need to become more energy-efficient.” And then there’s Jim Presswood of the environmental activist Natural Resources Defense Council, who says, “Clearly, consumers, the economy and the environment will suffer if these standards are repealed.” The organization claims that the ban would save consumers $85 per year. Well, that’s not entirely true. In California, utilities spent nearly $550 million to subsidize CFLs for consumers, but they didn’t get such great results. In March, The Wall Street Journal reported that energy savings under the program were 73 percent less than expected.
That’s not to say cutting energy consumption isn’t a great thing—it certainly is. But guess what? It’s already happening, and not because of the Nanny State. Heritage’s Nicolas Loris explains:"When you take a look at America’s energy efficiency track record, it’s not too shabby—and it’s a result of innovation and cost reduction, not government mandates and regulations. Overall, energy consumption per real dollar of gross domestic product has dropped dramatically in the past 60 years, because we’ve innovated and become drastically more efficient in the process."In short, America has achieved energy savings as a result of the free market—and the free market is fueled by consumer choice, the very thing big government regulators and politicians would like to take away. Fortunately, there’s another way.
“We should let the marketplace decide,” Barton said of the effort to repeal the light bulb ban. “We should let people decide if they want to buy a $6 light bulb or a 39 cent light bulb.” Maybe, soon enough, Congress will see the light and allow Americans to continue to have that choice.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
#107 - The Raw Deal That Is The Debt Deal
[The DEAL reached and signed into law today should make every American want to scream and cry. It is NOT a compromise because its only clear what conservatives gave up - SIGNIFICANT spending reductions now and in the future - and less clear what the liberals who made light of a balanced budget amendment (not surprising when they had not eveb proposed a budget themselves for over 2 years) acatually gave up. With this in mind, I offer the following comments from the highly respected Heritage Foundation...]
"And to preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude." - Thomas Jefferson
How Should Conservatives Respond to the Debt Deal?http://www.askheritage.org/how-should-conservatives-respond-to-the-debt-deal/August 2, 2011
My fellow conservatives, Americans are disappointed. They are disappointed that the debate over our debt limit was about the needs of politicians instead of the needs of the country. They are disappointed with a broken government that refuses to fix itself. And they are disappointed that the Budget Control Act that passed the House last night and is likely to pass the Senate today does not make the transformative changes this nation requires.
There are several elements of this plan that are simply UNACCEPTABLE, even when framed inside the narrow political confines that limited a better outcome (i.e., the White House and Senate are still controlled by spend-tax-and-borrow liberals)..
No AAA Reassurance: This plan is insufficient to protect our nation’s AAA credit rating. On Friday, Moody’s stated that neither the Boehner nor Reid proposals would restore our solid credit footing. This plan did not improve upon those. Economists from Barclays Capital in London said of the deal: “Overall, our first impression is that the agreement by itself is unlikely to be sufficient to cause S&P to remove the U.S. from being on ratings watch for possible downgrade.” Ajay Rajadhyaksha, head of U.S. fixed-income strategy at Barclays, was blunter: “The chances of a downgrade after this deal remain substantially high.”
Irresponsible Defense Cuts: There are two rounds of defense cuts that risk our national security. If all are imposed, we will have a trillion dollars less than we need to protect our nation and defend its interests. Despite increased risks from Iran and North Korea and ongoing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, this deal further cripples a defense budget already sized for peacetime and ignores the real problem—runaway entitlement spending.
More Tax Hikes: Yesterday, White House officials took to the airwaves to assure their liberal base that the new “special” committee would recommend tax hikes. This is one White House assurance you can take to the bank. This deal sets the conditions for a massive tax increase from expiring lower rates and committee horse-trading. Even President Obama agreed in December 2010 that raising taxes to discourage job-creating investments in the middle of a recession was a bad idea. It’s still a bad idea.
An Unclear Balanced Budget Approach: Conservatives are united behind the idea that Congress should balance its budget year-in and year-out, but the devil is in the details. The debt limit deal is a missed opportunity to drive spending down toward a balanced budget. Moreover, the debt limit deal does little to advance the cause of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Not all balanced budget amendments are created equal. We need an amendment with proper taxpayer protections so that Congress can’t simply hike taxes to balance the budget.
Punting Responsibility: The American people don’t send politicians to Washington in order to appoint special committees and duck responsibility. They must make tough choices to reform entitlements. We’ve had enough commissions be ignored. This half-Democrat, half-Republican committee will probably deadlock, too (or worse, push a tax hike), so we’ll get little out of it.
These are just some of the problems identified in the $2.5 trillion debt deal. There are others.
[If there is something encouraging to be taken from these months of battle over the debt ceiling is that:] Conservatives put up a good fight for the non-defense spending cuts needed to reduce the size and cost of government. While Senate Democrats sat on their hands for 800-plus days, doing nothing, House conservatives introduced and passed the Ryan budget plan and the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, each of which was a step in the right direction. The debt limit deal is a disappointment, but conservatives have made a real difference. We can be proud of the progress we made changing the dialogue in Washington. Just as with the Ryan budget plan, we are talking in terms of spending cuts for a smaller, less costly government, not spending increases. Popular opinion is with the conservative philosophy of limited government.
But this debt increase was the highest in history. This is not surprising, given the record spending increases and deficits we’ve witnessed over the past two years. We cannot maintain this course and keep our creditworthiness or create jobs and economic growth.Given the framework we are now living under, and the water that has passed under the proverbial bridge, it is now up to conservatives to:
Pursue Entitlement Reform: Social Security is operating in the red and faces a long-term deficit of nearly $8 trillion. Medicare is the most costly, and least efficient, federal program. Obamacare is simply an abomination that must be repealed. Congress must move to make significant reforms to entitlement programs. We can no longer accept weak recommendations and a lack of political courage. There can be no more budget-related debates in Washington that ignore this looming and preventable crisis.
Pursue Revenue-Neutral Tax Reform: The current tax system is too complex and penalizes productive work. Lawmakers see job creators and entrepreneurs as easy targets to soak so that they can spend more. It’s a terrible cycle that is costly to our economy. The committee set up by the debt framework should take up tax “reform” rather than simply tax “hikes.” Creating a simple, flatter system that protects low-income workers, encourages investment, and fuels business growth would be a major step on the road to economic recovery.
Maintain a Strong Military to Defend America: With nearly a trillion dollars in cuts to our military on the table during a period of heightened risk and global operations, it is imperative that Congress ensure that these cuts do not eliminate badly needed resources for our fighting men and women and that they have the best equipment and technology to keep America safe. As Heritage Vice President Kim Holmes stated: “America is different from other countries for a lot of reasons, but surely one of the biggest is that we are masters of our fate. We are fortunate to have an armed force that not only defends us but keeps us from being at the mercy of other countries, many of whom wish us ill.”
Get Serious About Spending and Regulation: Washington has a unique way of taking one step forward and three steps back. We must remain vigilant about preventing new spending and regulations that hinder economic growth, stifle job creation, and grow the federal government.
To drive spending down toward a balanced budget, reduce the share of the economy devoted to public debt, preserve America’s ability to protect the nation, and shift to a job-creating tax system without raising taxes, The Heritage Foundation has published “Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut Spending, and Restore Prosperity.” The Heritage plan does what Congress should have done and failed to do. Conservatives: Continue to fight for what is right for America. Onward!
Edwin J. Feulner
President, The Heritage Foundation [emphases mine]
"And to preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude." - Thomas Jefferson
How Should Conservatives Respond to the Debt Deal?http://www.askheritage.org/how-should-conservatives-respond-to-the-debt-deal/August 2, 2011
My fellow conservatives, Americans are disappointed. They are disappointed that the debate over our debt limit was about the needs of politicians instead of the needs of the country. They are disappointed with a broken government that refuses to fix itself. And they are disappointed that the Budget Control Act that passed the House last night and is likely to pass the Senate today does not make the transformative changes this nation requires.
There are several elements of this plan that are simply UNACCEPTABLE, even when framed inside the narrow political confines that limited a better outcome (i.e., the White House and Senate are still controlled by spend-tax-and-borrow liberals)..
No AAA Reassurance: This plan is insufficient to protect our nation’s AAA credit rating. On Friday, Moody’s stated that neither the Boehner nor Reid proposals would restore our solid credit footing. This plan did not improve upon those. Economists from Barclays Capital in London said of the deal: “Overall, our first impression is that the agreement by itself is unlikely to be sufficient to cause S&P to remove the U.S. from being on ratings watch for possible downgrade.” Ajay Rajadhyaksha, head of U.S. fixed-income strategy at Barclays, was blunter: “The chances of a downgrade after this deal remain substantially high.”
Irresponsible Defense Cuts: There are two rounds of defense cuts that risk our national security. If all are imposed, we will have a trillion dollars less than we need to protect our nation and defend its interests. Despite increased risks from Iran and North Korea and ongoing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, this deal further cripples a defense budget already sized for peacetime and ignores the real problem—runaway entitlement spending.
More Tax Hikes: Yesterday, White House officials took to the airwaves to assure their liberal base that the new “special” committee would recommend tax hikes. This is one White House assurance you can take to the bank. This deal sets the conditions for a massive tax increase from expiring lower rates and committee horse-trading. Even President Obama agreed in December 2010 that raising taxes to discourage job-creating investments in the middle of a recession was a bad idea. It’s still a bad idea.
An Unclear Balanced Budget Approach: Conservatives are united behind the idea that Congress should balance its budget year-in and year-out, but the devil is in the details. The debt limit deal is a missed opportunity to drive spending down toward a balanced budget. Moreover, the debt limit deal does little to advance the cause of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Not all balanced budget amendments are created equal. We need an amendment with proper taxpayer protections so that Congress can’t simply hike taxes to balance the budget.
Punting Responsibility: The American people don’t send politicians to Washington in order to appoint special committees and duck responsibility. They must make tough choices to reform entitlements. We’ve had enough commissions be ignored. This half-Democrat, half-Republican committee will probably deadlock, too (or worse, push a tax hike), so we’ll get little out of it.
These are just some of the problems identified in the $2.5 trillion debt deal. There are others.
[If there is something encouraging to be taken from these months of battle over the debt ceiling is that:] Conservatives put up a good fight for the non-defense spending cuts needed to reduce the size and cost of government. While Senate Democrats sat on their hands for 800-plus days, doing nothing, House conservatives introduced and passed the Ryan budget plan and the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, each of which was a step in the right direction. The debt limit deal is a disappointment, but conservatives have made a real difference. We can be proud of the progress we made changing the dialogue in Washington. Just as with the Ryan budget plan, we are talking in terms of spending cuts for a smaller, less costly government, not spending increases. Popular opinion is with the conservative philosophy of limited government.
But this debt increase was the highest in history. This is not surprising, given the record spending increases and deficits we’ve witnessed over the past two years. We cannot maintain this course and keep our creditworthiness or create jobs and economic growth.Given the framework we are now living under, and the water that has passed under the proverbial bridge, it is now up to conservatives to:
Pursue Entitlement Reform: Social Security is operating in the red and faces a long-term deficit of nearly $8 trillion. Medicare is the most costly, and least efficient, federal program. Obamacare is simply an abomination that must be repealed. Congress must move to make significant reforms to entitlement programs. We can no longer accept weak recommendations and a lack of political courage. There can be no more budget-related debates in Washington that ignore this looming and preventable crisis.
Pursue Revenue-Neutral Tax Reform: The current tax system is too complex and penalizes productive work. Lawmakers see job creators and entrepreneurs as easy targets to soak so that they can spend more. It’s a terrible cycle that is costly to our economy. The committee set up by the debt framework should take up tax “reform” rather than simply tax “hikes.” Creating a simple, flatter system that protects low-income workers, encourages investment, and fuels business growth would be a major step on the road to economic recovery.
Maintain a Strong Military to Defend America: With nearly a trillion dollars in cuts to our military on the table during a period of heightened risk and global operations, it is imperative that Congress ensure that these cuts do not eliminate badly needed resources for our fighting men and women and that they have the best equipment and technology to keep America safe. As Heritage Vice President Kim Holmes stated: “America is different from other countries for a lot of reasons, but surely one of the biggest is that we are masters of our fate. We are fortunate to have an armed force that not only defends us but keeps us from being at the mercy of other countries, many of whom wish us ill.”
Get Serious About Spending and Regulation: Washington has a unique way of taking one step forward and three steps back. We must remain vigilant about preventing new spending and regulations that hinder economic growth, stifle job creation, and grow the federal government.
To drive spending down toward a balanced budget, reduce the share of the economy devoted to public debt, preserve America’s ability to protect the nation, and shift to a job-creating tax system without raising taxes, The Heritage Foundation has published “Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut Spending, and Restore Prosperity.” The Heritage plan does what Congress should have done and failed to do. Conservatives: Continue to fight for what is right for America. Onward!
Edwin J. Feulner
President, The Heritage Foundation [emphases mine]
Sunday, July 31, 2011
#106 - Sunday Special: A Fool's Tower
Debt, Default, and Worldview, By: Chuck Colson| July 28, 2011 http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/17549
Our worldview determines how we live -- and how we manage our fiscal affairs as individuals and a nation.
The clock is ticking. The United States is on the verge of default. Congress and the president seem unable to come together and find an agreement avoiding an economic catastrophe. How in the world did we get into this fix? Well, it didn’t happen overnight. It’s been coming for a generation. For years, fiscal conservatives have warned about the dangers of out-of-control borrowing and spending, but current and previous presidents and congresses have ignored them, rolling up a massive national debt.
The bigger question is why did the American people stand for this? The answer is painfully clear. Because the people themselves were busy borrowing and spending like fiends. Americans as a rule used to be a frugal people. They believed in the Protestant work ethic — an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay, save for a rainy day, don’t go deep into debt. But something changed, and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman — whom I respect though often disagree with — hit the nail on the head.“The generation that came of age in the last 50 years,” he writes, “will be remembered most for the incredible bounty and freedom it received from its parents and the incredible debt burden and constraints it left on its kids.” Friedman calls this the “clash of generations.” The greatest generation scrimped and saved; their kids, the boomers, went on a big shopping binge.
This is what happens when a false worldview comes home to roost. Remember that it was in the 1960s that existentialism and relativism took over college campuses. If there truly were no God and life were devoid of meaning, well, live it up while you can. Throw off the burden of moral restraints, of civic duty and responsibility. Find fulfillment in pleasure and self-actualization; not in service to others or in building a good and just society. Thus was ushered in what Christopher Lasch called the age of narcissism. There’s only one problem with the existentialist/relativistic worldview and the self-centeredness it breeds: It doesn’t work. It doesn’t foster the self-discipline, prudence, and moral character that individuals and societies need in order to flourish.
No wonder then, according to the Department of Commerce, when adjusting for inflation Americans spent more than they earned in most months from 2000 through 2008. Even without adjusting for inflation, monthly personal saving was usually less than three percent. This means people were borrowing more than they could repay.
Jesus asked the right question. Who would set out to build a tower who did not “first sit down and estimate the cost” (Luke 14:28). Actually, we’re worse off than that. We borrowed heavily to build the tower, only to find out now it is about to be repossessed! Not all the news is bad, though. Since 2008, Americans have awakened to reality and begun to spend less and save more. We’ve put off that vacation, coaxed a few thousand more miles out of the old car. We’ve tightened our belts. Now it’s time to make sure the government does the same.
Are folks beginning to figure out that we’ve been building a tower on a false worldview? That chasing self-fulfillment and living for the moment lead inevitably to moral and economic poverty? Well, we’ll see. But it’s a fair question, and we, the Church, must raise it again and again. For our good and for the good of all.
Further Reading and Information
The Clash of Generations, Thomas L. Friedman | New York Times | July 16, 2011
The Culture of Narcissism, Christopher Lasch | W. W. Norton & Co. | 1991
Wake Up and Smell the Corruption!,Chuck Colson | Two-Minute Warning |July 25, 2011
Nothing Like It Before,Chuck Colson | BreakPoint.org | July 27, 2011
Chuck personally invites you to become a charter member of the Colson Center for Christian worldview. This is where we equip Christians to effectively engage and impact our culture. Go to Join Colson.com to learn more.
Our worldview determines how we live -- and how we manage our fiscal affairs as individuals and a nation.
The clock is ticking. The United States is on the verge of default. Congress and the president seem unable to come together and find an agreement avoiding an economic catastrophe. How in the world did we get into this fix? Well, it didn’t happen overnight. It’s been coming for a generation. For years, fiscal conservatives have warned about the dangers of out-of-control borrowing and spending, but current and previous presidents and congresses have ignored them, rolling up a massive national debt.
The bigger question is why did the American people stand for this? The answer is painfully clear. Because the people themselves were busy borrowing and spending like fiends. Americans as a rule used to be a frugal people. They believed in the Protestant work ethic — an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay, save for a rainy day, don’t go deep into debt. But something changed, and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman — whom I respect though often disagree with — hit the nail on the head.“The generation that came of age in the last 50 years,” he writes, “will be remembered most for the incredible bounty and freedom it received from its parents and the incredible debt burden and constraints it left on its kids.” Friedman calls this the “clash of generations.” The greatest generation scrimped and saved; their kids, the boomers, went on a big shopping binge.
This is what happens when a false worldview comes home to roost. Remember that it was in the 1960s that existentialism and relativism took over college campuses. If there truly were no God and life were devoid of meaning, well, live it up while you can. Throw off the burden of moral restraints, of civic duty and responsibility. Find fulfillment in pleasure and self-actualization; not in service to others or in building a good and just society. Thus was ushered in what Christopher Lasch called the age of narcissism. There’s only one problem with the existentialist/relativistic worldview and the self-centeredness it breeds: It doesn’t work. It doesn’t foster the self-discipline, prudence, and moral character that individuals and societies need in order to flourish.
No wonder then, according to the Department of Commerce, when adjusting for inflation Americans spent more than they earned in most months from 2000 through 2008. Even without adjusting for inflation, monthly personal saving was usually less than three percent. This means people were borrowing more than they could repay.
Jesus asked the right question. Who would set out to build a tower who did not “first sit down and estimate the cost” (Luke 14:28). Actually, we’re worse off than that. We borrowed heavily to build the tower, only to find out now it is about to be repossessed! Not all the news is bad, though. Since 2008, Americans have awakened to reality and begun to spend less and save more. We’ve put off that vacation, coaxed a few thousand more miles out of the old car. We’ve tightened our belts. Now it’s time to make sure the government does the same.
Are folks beginning to figure out that we’ve been building a tower on a false worldview? That chasing self-fulfillment and living for the moment lead inevitably to moral and economic poverty? Well, we’ll see. But it’s a fair question, and we, the Church, must raise it again and again. For our good and for the good of all.
Further Reading and Information
The Clash of Generations, Thomas L. Friedman | New York Times | July 16, 2011
The Culture of Narcissism, Christopher Lasch | W. W. Norton & Co. | 1991
Wake Up and Smell the Corruption!,Chuck Colson | Two-Minute Warning |July 25, 2011
Nothing Like It Before,Chuck Colson | BreakPoint.org | July 27, 2011
Chuck personally invites you to become a charter member of the Colson Center for Christian worldview. This is where we equip Christians to effectively engage and impact our culture. Go to Join Colson.com to learn more.
Friday, July 29, 2011
#105 -The Terror of Evil and Sin
[As I post this, the tension over the negotiations in Congress to deal with our out of control national debt and the debt ceiling intensifies. It goes without saying that we each need to be earnestly praying that our leaders will have the wisdom and courage to do what is right and best for our economy, and not merely settle for some compromise that will do nothing to address the systemic problem of government overspending. But before we get any further from the evil experienced in Norway last week, I would like to share this Christian worldview perspective on what happened. - Stan]
The Tragedy in Norway - By: Chuck Colson| July 26, 2011
What ever can explain the horrible events that took place in Oslo? The answer is hard for moderns to accept.
Norway is one of the most beautiful places on earth. A Nordic paradise of fjords, coastline, glaciers, forests. Norwegians are rightfully proud of their prosperous, peaceful society. Well, today, Norway is in a state of absolute, total shock in the aftermath of one of the most cold-blooded, heartless acts of terrorism since 9/11. The Norwegians are desperately trying to explain this senseless slaughter. The killer has been described as a right-wing extremist, a fundamentalist Christian, an anti-immigrant fanatic, and mentally ill. Most likely, in my opinion, a fascist.
But here are two root causes of this horrible act that few in Norway, or the rest of the Western world for that matter, will acknowledge: Evil and sin. You see, Norway is one of the most secular countries in Western Europe. Hardly a shred left of the Christian faith that once dominated the country.
So, without that Christian understanding of fallen human nature, the people of Norway are left in mourning, but without an explanation for the horror that has befallen them.
I can’t help but think of a visit I made to a maximum-security prison outside of Oslo back in the 1980s. I tell this story in my book How Now Shall We Live? I was greeted by the warden, who was a psychiatrist. She gave me a tour of the place, which seemed more like a laboratory than a prison. We met so many other psychiatrists that I asked the warden how many of the inmates here were mental cases.
She replied, “All of them, of course.” I was stunned. Really? “Well,” she said, “anyone who commits a violent crime is obviously mentally unbalanced.” This was the ultimate expression of the therapeutic model. People, the reasoning goes, are basically good, so anyone who could do something so terrible as this must be mentally ill. And the solution is therapy. It is a tragically flawed and inaccurate view of human nature. And, as I learned just a few days later, a very dangerous one.
During that visit I preached the Gospel to the prisoners. They were completely numb to the message. But as I was leaving, a young correctional officer, a Christian, came up to me. She said she had prayed for someone to confront the prisoners with the message of sin and salvation. She was frustrated by the corrections system in Norway, where there was no concept of personal responsibility, and therefore no reason for prisoners to seek personal transformation. Only days later, I learned the tragic news: The young officer I had met was assigned to escort an inmate out to see a movie as part of his therapy. On the way back to prison, he murdered her.
The point is this: when we attempt to explain away moral evil, we will fail to constrain it. We cannot account for human behavior without recognizing that we are fallen creatures prone to sin.As a sad footnote to the Oslo tragedy, the maximum sentence a criminal can receive in Norway is 21 years. Thus, barring some extraordinary event, the Oslo terrorist will back on the streets in 2032. An Oslo police spokesperson put it this way: “What the world needs to understand about Norway, is that this incident represents our loss of innocence, because we’ve been a very safe country to live in until now.” She then added: “There’s been no reason to keep people in prison for life.”
But there has been and always will be. It’s called sin.
Further Reading and Information
How Now Shall We Live? Charles W. Colson & Nancy R. Pearcey | Tyndale House Publisher | 1999
Norway terror suspect could get more than the maximum sentencePeter O'Neil | National Post | July 24, 2011
The Tragedy in Norway - By: Chuck Colson| July 26, 2011
What ever can explain the horrible events that took place in Oslo? The answer is hard for moderns to accept.
Norway is one of the most beautiful places on earth. A Nordic paradise of fjords, coastline, glaciers, forests. Norwegians are rightfully proud of their prosperous, peaceful society. Well, today, Norway is in a state of absolute, total shock in the aftermath of one of the most cold-blooded, heartless acts of terrorism since 9/11. The Norwegians are desperately trying to explain this senseless slaughter. The killer has been described as a right-wing extremist, a fundamentalist Christian, an anti-immigrant fanatic, and mentally ill. Most likely, in my opinion, a fascist.
But here are two root causes of this horrible act that few in Norway, or the rest of the Western world for that matter, will acknowledge: Evil and sin. You see, Norway is one of the most secular countries in Western Europe. Hardly a shred left of the Christian faith that once dominated the country.
So, without that Christian understanding of fallen human nature, the people of Norway are left in mourning, but without an explanation for the horror that has befallen them.
I can’t help but think of a visit I made to a maximum-security prison outside of Oslo back in the 1980s. I tell this story in my book How Now Shall We Live? I was greeted by the warden, who was a psychiatrist. She gave me a tour of the place, which seemed more like a laboratory than a prison. We met so many other psychiatrists that I asked the warden how many of the inmates here were mental cases.
She replied, “All of them, of course.” I was stunned. Really? “Well,” she said, “anyone who commits a violent crime is obviously mentally unbalanced.” This was the ultimate expression of the therapeutic model. People, the reasoning goes, are basically good, so anyone who could do something so terrible as this must be mentally ill. And the solution is therapy. It is a tragically flawed and inaccurate view of human nature. And, as I learned just a few days later, a very dangerous one.
During that visit I preached the Gospel to the prisoners. They were completely numb to the message. But as I was leaving, a young correctional officer, a Christian, came up to me. She said she had prayed for someone to confront the prisoners with the message of sin and salvation. She was frustrated by the corrections system in Norway, where there was no concept of personal responsibility, and therefore no reason for prisoners to seek personal transformation. Only days later, I learned the tragic news: The young officer I had met was assigned to escort an inmate out to see a movie as part of his therapy. On the way back to prison, he murdered her.
The point is this: when we attempt to explain away moral evil, we will fail to constrain it. We cannot account for human behavior without recognizing that we are fallen creatures prone to sin.As a sad footnote to the Oslo tragedy, the maximum sentence a criminal can receive in Norway is 21 years. Thus, barring some extraordinary event, the Oslo terrorist will back on the streets in 2032. An Oslo police spokesperson put it this way: “What the world needs to understand about Norway, is that this incident represents our loss of innocence, because we’ve been a very safe country to live in until now.” She then added: “There’s been no reason to keep people in prison for life.”
But there has been and always will be. It’s called sin.
Further Reading and Information
How Now Shall We Live? Charles W. Colson & Nancy R. Pearcey | Tyndale House Publisher | 1999
Norway terror suspect could get more than the maximum sentencePeter O'Neil | National Post | July 24, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
#104 - Seven Reasons Why August 2 Isn’t the End of the World
Posted by Dean Clancy, Redstate.com, July 18, 2011
Washington is currently borrowing about 43 cents out of every dollar it spends, and is close to maxing out its credit limit. Current law says Uncle Sam cannot borrow more than $14.3 trillion. A few months back, the Obama Administration demanded that Congress increase the national credit line by $2.5 trillion by May 16, or else, it warned, the United States would default on its debts, causing an “economic Armageddon.” ($2.5 trillion is just enough to aver the need for another debt hike until after the 2012 election.) When May 16 came and went, and nothing happened, the Obama team set a new “Armageddon” date: August 2.
Unfortunately, a lot of folks in Washington and Wall Street – including some who should know better — seem to be taking this new deadline at face value. While it’s true that, at some point, the government will hit the ceiling and have to reduce spending by about 40 percent, exactly when that day will arrive, nobody knows for sure. And don’t believe anyone who tells you he does know. “No man knows the day or the hour.” Maxed Out Day could be August 2. It could be August 22. Or it could be in September. The exact date really depends on whether the President is willing to tap certain reserves available to him, or decides to force a political crisis.
I cannot tell you when Maxed Out Day will be. But I can – and will — prove to you that August 2 doesn’t have to be it. Before I do so, here are three key numbers to remember: 1) We are projected to take in between $170 billion and $200 billion in August, in revenues. 2) We will likely spend about $300 billion in August. 3) Therefore, we face a gap of somewhere between $100 billion and $130 billion.
So what will happen, come the August 2 deadline?
1.The U.S. will still be able to pay its creditors (i.e., it won’t default). There’s no reason why the government needs to stop paying its creditors. Ever. Debt service payments (interest on the national debt) will only cost $30 billion in August. As I’ve noted, we will take in $170-200 billion.
2.Social Security checks will still go out. On July 12, President Obama suggested that, come August 2, he might not be able to send out the 50 million Social Security checks slated to go out in August. But since those checks only cost $50 billion, compared to $170-200 billion coming in, there will obviously be sufficient funds to mail them.
3.Medicare and Medicaid payments will go out as usual. Experts predict we’ll owe about $50 billion to doctors and hospitals. Well, with $170-200 billion coming in, granny will get her health care, just like always.
4.Veterans and active-duty military personnel will get paid. Paying our veterans will cost about $3 billion. Ditto our soldiers in uniform. That $6 billion is chump change by DC standards.
So that’s a total bill of $136 billion, easily covered by the $170-200 billion we’ll take in. Of course, we won’t be able to afford everything the government currently spends on. The Departments of HUD, Transportation, Commerce, Energy, and Education, for example, may have to take a pause while Congress works out a deal with the President. But is that really “the end of the world”?
Earlier, I mentioned the reserve funds the President can tap. As the Senate Finance Committee Republican staff helpfully point out:
5. The Treasury Department has $5 billion sitting idle in an account at the Federal Reserve. It can tap this account any time.
6. Treasury has close to $100 billion in mortgage-backed securities it can sell. It bought these securities during the financial crisis to bail out housing markets. Just last month, it sold $10.6 billion worth.
Finally, there’s a seventh reason why August 2 needn’t be anything more than another pleasant summer day in America.
7. Congress can pass the Cut Cap Balance Act (H.R.2560). This bill would give President Obama his $2.5 trillion debt increase — in exchange for three things: 1) $111 billion in cuts this coming year, 2) tight spending caps for the coming decade, and 3) congressional approval of a strong Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. By strong, I mean one that makes it much harder for Congress to spend more than a fixed share of the economy, raise taxes, or add to the debt.
[The Cut Cap Balance Act was passed by the House but defeated in the Senate, where it was supported by all Republicans and no Democrats. It would have made this the last debt ceiling hike, ever. Unfortunately, President Obama ... threatened to veto it.] ...
Dean Clancy is FreedomWorks’ Legislative Counsel and Vice President, Health Care Policy. http://www.redstate.com/deanclancy/2011/07/18/seven-reasons-why-august-2-isnt-the-end-of-the-world/
Washington is currently borrowing about 43 cents out of every dollar it spends, and is close to maxing out its credit limit. Current law says Uncle Sam cannot borrow more than $14.3 trillion. A few months back, the Obama Administration demanded that Congress increase the national credit line by $2.5 trillion by May 16, or else, it warned, the United States would default on its debts, causing an “economic Armageddon.” ($2.5 trillion is just enough to aver the need for another debt hike until after the 2012 election.) When May 16 came and went, and nothing happened, the Obama team set a new “Armageddon” date: August 2.
Unfortunately, a lot of folks in Washington and Wall Street – including some who should know better — seem to be taking this new deadline at face value. While it’s true that, at some point, the government will hit the ceiling and have to reduce spending by about 40 percent, exactly when that day will arrive, nobody knows for sure. And don’t believe anyone who tells you he does know. “No man knows the day or the hour.” Maxed Out Day could be August 2. It could be August 22. Or it could be in September. The exact date really depends on whether the President is willing to tap certain reserves available to him, or decides to force a political crisis.
I cannot tell you when Maxed Out Day will be. But I can – and will — prove to you that August 2 doesn’t have to be it. Before I do so, here are three key numbers to remember: 1) We are projected to take in between $170 billion and $200 billion in August, in revenues. 2) We will likely spend about $300 billion in August. 3) Therefore, we face a gap of somewhere between $100 billion and $130 billion.
So what will happen, come the August 2 deadline?
1.The U.S. will still be able to pay its creditors (i.e., it won’t default). There’s no reason why the government needs to stop paying its creditors. Ever. Debt service payments (interest on the national debt) will only cost $30 billion in August. As I’ve noted, we will take in $170-200 billion.
2.Social Security checks will still go out. On July 12, President Obama suggested that, come August 2, he might not be able to send out the 50 million Social Security checks slated to go out in August. But since those checks only cost $50 billion, compared to $170-200 billion coming in, there will obviously be sufficient funds to mail them.
3.Medicare and Medicaid payments will go out as usual. Experts predict we’ll owe about $50 billion to doctors and hospitals. Well, with $170-200 billion coming in, granny will get her health care, just like always.
4.Veterans and active-duty military personnel will get paid. Paying our veterans will cost about $3 billion. Ditto our soldiers in uniform. That $6 billion is chump change by DC standards.
So that’s a total bill of $136 billion, easily covered by the $170-200 billion we’ll take in. Of course, we won’t be able to afford everything the government currently spends on. The Departments of HUD, Transportation, Commerce, Energy, and Education, for example, may have to take a pause while Congress works out a deal with the President. But is that really “the end of the world”?
Earlier, I mentioned the reserve funds the President can tap. As the Senate Finance Committee Republican staff helpfully point out:
5. The Treasury Department has $5 billion sitting idle in an account at the Federal Reserve. It can tap this account any time.
6. Treasury has close to $100 billion in mortgage-backed securities it can sell. It bought these securities during the financial crisis to bail out housing markets. Just last month, it sold $10.6 billion worth.
Finally, there’s a seventh reason why August 2 needn’t be anything more than another pleasant summer day in America.
7. Congress can pass the Cut Cap Balance Act (H.R.2560). This bill would give President Obama his $2.5 trillion debt increase — in exchange for three things: 1) $111 billion in cuts this coming year, 2) tight spending caps for the coming decade, and 3) congressional approval of a strong Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. By strong, I mean one that makes it much harder for Congress to spend more than a fixed share of the economy, raise taxes, or add to the debt.
[The Cut Cap Balance Act was passed by the House but defeated in the Senate, where it was supported by all Republicans and no Democrats. It would have made this the last debt ceiling hike, ever. Unfortunately, President Obama ... threatened to veto it.] ...
Dean Clancy is FreedomWorks’ Legislative Counsel and Vice President, Health Care Policy. http://www.redstate.com/deanclancy/2011/07/18/seven-reasons-why-august-2-isnt-the-end-of-the-world/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
