Occasionally, I'll see people who tend toward the left side of the political spectrum accuse those on the right of not "doing something" about whatever the cause du jour happens to be. I think that at least some of the confusion comes down to what people mean when they say "doing something". For me (and I suspect many on the right) "doing something" generally involves a measurable cause and effect. So if I "do something" to stop poverty then I would expect that whatever I did would show a direct measurable reduction in poverty in order to claim success. I do realize that sometimes "doing something" involves experimenting with different possible options some of which may not have the desired effect. When that happens, then what? I think that it's relatively safe to generalize in saying that most on the right would say that if your experiment doesn't produce the desired results then you need to try something different or make significant changes to what you are doing. This same mindset doesn't necessarily translate to the political left quite the same way. I think it's safe to say that there have been a number of "doing something" efforts that haven't produced the desired results but are so beloved by the left that to even consider scrapping them is met with cries of doom. For example, how did the whole LBJ war on poverty work out? Or take a look at many major urban school systems which are failing and watch how stubbornly the unions and interest groups fight doing anything except injecting more and more money into a failing school system.
So, what does it mean to be "doing something"? I think that there are a few things that are problematic from a leftist point of view.
1. There is often a sense that if you are not doing what the political left considers the "correct" something, then you are not "doing something.
2. There is often a sense on the left that making a symbolic gesture is "doing something" tangible.
3. There is often a sense on the left that as long as you make the symbolic gesture (think any of the hashtag campaigns) that you have done enough and too many on the left are satisfied with the symbolic.
4. There is often a sense on the left that if "doing something" doesn't involve a government program, that it isn't as valid.
5. There is often a bias from those on the left that predisposes them to believe that those on the right virtually never "do something".
I'm sure that this list can and will grow, but I'll stop here for now and give a couple of examples.
For years, I exclusively hired homeless unemployed men to work for me. I paid above minimum wage and was pretty generous in terms of hours paid versus hours worked. I would argue that I was "doing something" to help with homelessness and unemployment, I'm not so sure the left would agree.
A few years ago a bunch of African girls were kidnapped and sold into sex slavery, there was a very high profile and active Twitter campaign to "save" these girls and by extension to limit sex slavery. I wonder how many of those girls are free now? I know for certain that sex trafficking continues to be a major problem (interestingly I see much more interest from the right than from the left in stopping this horror). So the question must be asked, "Did the Twitter campaign actually "save" anyone?". "Is anyone's life improved because a bunch of people hashatgged something?"
There was a symbolic call for Muslims to embrace the Charter of Medina as a path to lowering the conflict between Muslims and others. Now, I think that any instance of any Muslims publicly doing anything to speak out about the horrors perpetrated by those who share their faith. But, until we actually see some tangible results is it really accurate to suggest that "something" had been done?
Personally I think it boils down to how one views symbolism versus tangible results. Is it possible that symbolic gestures can lead to tangible results, of course. Had the "save our girls" campaign led to either local, regional, or international bodies stepping in to rescue the kidnapped girls and punish the kidnappers, then I say "well done". But when it symbolism doesn't lead to tangible results, then how can one argue that they've "done something"?
One last thought. I'd suggest that if we spent less time criticizing the other side for not "doing anything" and looked at things that are being done without preconceived biases and evaluated things based on real measurable tangible results; that we could support the effective, discard the ineffective, and focus on results, we'd be much better off.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Character
I'm in the midst of an ongoing Bible study about the life of King David. Last week and this week I am leading the part of the study where David actually becomes king of Israel. One of the questions I asked was something like, "What was it about David that qualified him to be king.". The point of the question was to lay out just how inappropriate David was in terms of background and experience to be king. The problem with my question was that I didn't anticipate the one word answer I got, which rendered everything else I had thought irrelevent.
The answer that was so simple that I didn't even think of we was....
CHARACTER
As I have been thinking about it since then, I've had the chance to reflect on the character of some of the folks running for president. I think it's interesting that the two current front runners (Trump and Clinton) both have such significant questions about their character (or lack of) yet somehow manage to remain front runners. On the other hand, the one candidate about whom there is virtually no question about his character languishes in 4th or 5th place, (Ben Carson).
I remember hearing a pastor talk about how the most important thing they look for in hiring staff at their church was character and how they felt like they could teach the job to anyone but couldn't teach character.
So, I guess we're left to contemplate why character seems to mean so little to the US electorate.
The answer that was so simple that I didn't even think of we was....
CHARACTER
As I have been thinking about it since then, I've had the chance to reflect on the character of some of the folks running for president. I think it's interesting that the two current front runners (Trump and Clinton) both have such significant questions about their character (or lack of) yet somehow manage to remain front runners. On the other hand, the one candidate about whom there is virtually no question about his character languishes in 4th or 5th place, (Ben Carson).
I remember hearing a pastor talk about how the most important thing they look for in hiring staff at their church was character and how they felt like they could teach the job to anyone but couldn't teach character.
So, I guess we're left to contemplate why character seems to mean so little to the US electorate.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Symbolic idiocy
"And the way to do that is NOT by killing more Muslims (which as anyone
can tell you, will only fan the flames of hatred and give more
credibility to the extremist few),"
The above claim, (unsupported by facts) was made elsewhere. To be fair many people believe this trope and while I haven't seen any, there may be evidence to support it.
However, it seems that P-BO disagrees.
"For many years, it’s been clear that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay does not advance our national security -- it undermines it. This is not just my opinion. This is the opinion of experts, this is the opinion of many in our military. It’s counterproductive to our fight against terrorists, because they use it as propaganda in their efforts to recruit."
Personally, I have doubts about either of these being a significant motivator. For example the children and developmentally disabled who get "recruited" to strap on suicide vests probably don't understand why someone else being in prison is a reason to blow themselves up.
From what we see locally (from a hotbed of jihadi recruiting) the recruiting videos are more along the lines of brave Muslim warriors slaughtering the infidel masses while waving AK's and swords. Or the ever popular beheading videos.
The problem as I see it with closing Guantanamo is that unless the plan is to just let these guys run free, all that is happening is that they are being transferred to another maximum security facility either in the US or elsewhere.
Apparently the belief is that the reason the Terrorists are upset is not because these guys are in custody, it's because of WHERE they are in custody. So magically once Guantanamo is closed down and these guys are sent to the supermax prison in CO, no one will be upset anymore.
Does anyone really believe that simply changing the location of the detainees will take away whatever it is that they claim is driving recruiting? Really?
It strikes me as one last bit of politically motivated symbolism which has a net effect of absolutely nothing.
Let's get serious, if you wanted to motivate a teen aged young man to go off and mindlessly kill people which do you think is a better recruiting tool?
A. Hey, there are a bunch of dudes in a prison on an island in the Caribbean who have better living conditions than the cave/tent you're in right now and they get free meals, a Koran, and a prayer rug.
B. If you die while killing the infidel you get a guaranteed trip to heaven, 72 virgins (maybe perpetual), fame, and your family gets a big chunk of cash.
Personally B sounds a lot more motivating than A, but I'm not their target audience.
Even if Guantanamo is such a big motivator, won't they just change the voice over to the video and substitute in the name of whatever prison they end up in?
The above claim, (unsupported by facts) was made elsewhere. To be fair many people believe this trope and while I haven't seen any, there may be evidence to support it.
However, it seems that P-BO disagrees.
"For many years, it’s been clear that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay does not advance our national security -- it undermines it. This is not just my opinion. This is the opinion of experts, this is the opinion of many in our military. It’s counterproductive to our fight against terrorists, because they use it as propaganda in their efforts to recruit."
Personally, I have doubts about either of these being a significant motivator. For example the children and developmentally disabled who get "recruited" to strap on suicide vests probably don't understand why someone else being in prison is a reason to blow themselves up.
From what we see locally (from a hotbed of jihadi recruiting) the recruiting videos are more along the lines of brave Muslim warriors slaughtering the infidel masses while waving AK's and swords. Or the ever popular beheading videos.
The problem as I see it with closing Guantanamo is that unless the plan is to just let these guys run free, all that is happening is that they are being transferred to another maximum security facility either in the US or elsewhere.
Apparently the belief is that the reason the Terrorists are upset is not because these guys are in custody, it's because of WHERE they are in custody. So magically once Guantanamo is closed down and these guys are sent to the supermax prison in CO, no one will be upset anymore.
Does anyone really believe that simply changing the location of the detainees will take away whatever it is that they claim is driving recruiting? Really?
It strikes me as one last bit of politically motivated symbolism which has a net effect of absolutely nothing.
Let's get serious, if you wanted to motivate a teen aged young man to go off and mindlessly kill people which do you think is a better recruiting tool?
A. Hey, there are a bunch of dudes in a prison on an island in the Caribbean who have better living conditions than the cave/tent you're in right now and they get free meals, a Koran, and a prayer rug.
B. If you die while killing the infidel you get a guaranteed trip to heaven, 72 virgins (maybe perpetual), fame, and your family gets a big chunk of cash.
Personally B sounds a lot more motivating than A, but I'm not their target audience.
Even if Guantanamo is such a big motivator, won't they just change the voice over to the video and substitute in the name of whatever prison they end up in?
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Reason
Over at The Cripplegate, there is an excellent post on the place of reason in the Christian apologetic. I'm going to post s couple of sections of the post here.
"Reason and Reasoning
Believers who aim to defend their faith make a serious mistake when they imagine…that something like “reason” should displace Christ as the ultimate authority (Lord) in their thinking and argumentation. They also fall into very sloppy and confused thinking due to misunderstanding over the word “reason.”
Christians are often befuddled about “reason,” not knowing whether it is something to embrace or to eschew. This is usually because they do not pinpoint the precise way in which the word is being used. It may very well be the most ambiguous and obscure word in the field of philosophy. On the one hand, reason can be thought of as a tool—man’s intellectual or mental capacity. Taken in this sense, reason is a gift of God to man, indeed part of the divine image. When God bids His people “Come let us reason together” (Isa. 1:18
),
we see that we, like God, are capable of rational thought and
communication. God has given us our mental abilities to serve and
glorify Him. It is part of the greatest commandment of the law that we
should “love the Lord thy God… with all thy mind”"
"Reason Not Ultimate
On the other hand, reason can be thought of as an ultimate and independent authority or standard by which man judges all claims to truth, even God’s. In this sense, reason is a law unto itself, as though man’s mind were self-sufficient, not in need of divine revelation. This attitude commonly leads people to think that they are in a position to think independently, to govern their own lives, and to judge the credibility of God’s word based on their own insight and authority; more dramatically, this attitude deified Reason as the goddess of the French Revolution. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,” as Paul said (Rom. 1:22).
This view of reason does not recognize that God is the source and
precondition of man’s intellectual abilities—that reason does not make
sense apart from the perspective of God’s revelation. It does not
recognize the sovereign and transcendent character of God’s thought:
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are…My thoughts higher
than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:9)."
"Reason as God’s Gift
Should Christians endorse the use of reason? Two equal but opposite mistakes are possible in answering that question. (1) Believers can recognize the appropriateness of using reason, taken as their intellectual faculty, but then slide into endorsing reason as intellectual autonomy. (2) Believers can recognize the inappropriateness of reason as intellectual autonomy, but then mistakenly think this entails rejecting reason as an intellectual faculty. The first group honors God’s gift to man of reasoning ability, but dishonors God through its rationalism. The second group honors God’s ultimate authority and the need for obedience in all aspects of man’s life, but it dishonors God through anti-intellectual pietism."
For the whole thing.
http://thecripplegate.com/bahnsen-on-the-role-of-reason-2/#more-41222
"Reason and Reasoning
Believers who aim to defend their faith make a serious mistake when they imagine…that something like “reason” should displace Christ as the ultimate authority (Lord) in their thinking and argumentation. They also fall into very sloppy and confused thinking due to misunderstanding over the word “reason.”
Christians are often befuddled about “reason,” not knowing whether it is something to embrace or to eschew. This is usually because they do not pinpoint the precise way in which the word is being used. It may very well be the most ambiguous and obscure word in the field of philosophy. On the one hand, reason can be thought of as a tool—man’s intellectual or mental capacity. Taken in this sense, reason is a gift of God to man, indeed part of the divine image. When God bids His people “Come let us reason together” (Isa. 1:18
),
we see that we, like God, are capable of rational thought and
communication. God has given us our mental abilities to serve and
glorify Him. It is part of the greatest commandment of the law that we
should “love the Lord thy God… with all thy mind”""Reason Not Ultimate
On the other hand, reason can be thought of as an ultimate and independent authority or standard by which man judges all claims to truth, even God’s. In this sense, reason is a law unto itself, as though man’s mind were self-sufficient, not in need of divine revelation. This attitude commonly leads people to think that they are in a position to think independently, to govern their own lives, and to judge the credibility of God’s word based on their own insight and authority; more dramatically, this attitude deified Reason as the goddess of the French Revolution. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,” as Paul said (Rom. 1:22
).
This view of reason does not recognize that God is the source and
precondition of man’s intellectual abilities—that reason does not make
sense apart from the perspective of God’s revelation. It does not
recognize the sovereign and transcendent character of God’s thought:
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are…My thoughts higher
than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:9).""Reason as God’s Gift
Should Christians endorse the use of reason? Two equal but opposite mistakes are possible in answering that question. (1) Believers can recognize the appropriateness of using reason, taken as their intellectual faculty, but then slide into endorsing reason as intellectual autonomy. (2) Believers can recognize the inappropriateness of reason as intellectual autonomy, but then mistakenly think this entails rejecting reason as an intellectual faculty. The first group honors God’s gift to man of reasoning ability, but dishonors God through its rationalism. The second group honors God’s ultimate authority and the need for obedience in all aspects of man’s life, but it dishonors God through anti-intellectual pietism."
For the whole thing.
http://thecripplegate.com/bahnsen-on-the-role-of-reason-2/#more-41222
Friday, February 19, 2016
Trump
" If Trump were the GOP nominee, would you vote for him, the Dem or a third party or other option?"
At this point the simple answer is that I just don't know. While I initially supported the idea of someone like Trump running, the reality of the Trump campaign is that I just can't get behind him. There are some general things that he says that I agree with, and the fact that he isn't is politically correct as most politicians. Right now my two biggest problems with Trump are, 1. He is promising to do things that he any rational person knows that he cannot accomplish. 2. I don't think Trump knows how to operate in a situation where he doesn't have the final word.
My personal preference would be that we will see the non viable candidates drop out soon enough that their supporters can coalesce around either Cruz or Rubio so that Trump will start losing primaries. I think that the longer the non viable candidates hang around the harder it will be to stop Trump from building up a significant delegate lead. (Obviously a Trump loss in SC tomorrow would change things somewhat)
But, what happens if Trump gets the GOP nod? There is absolutely no possible circumstance where I could see voting for Hilary or Bernie. Hilary has so many ethical problems that I really can't understand how anyone could actively support her. I realize that the dems have rigged the primary process so as to make it incredibly difficult for anyone to beat her, and that there will be plenty of people who will vote for her no matter what and a bunch more people who will vote for any (liberal) woman simply because she's a woman. My problem with Bernie is much the same as with Trump, although I believe that Bernie truly believes that his positions are the best possible solutions to our country's ills, there is virtually no possible way that anything he proposes would actually be enacted. I believe that a Sanders presidency would be potentially the least effective presidency in the history of the United States. Maybe that wouldn't be that bad now that I think about it.
As far as a third party, I have mixed feelings. Generally a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. Coupling that with Bloomberg is the only potential third party candidate on the horizon would make a me leery of even considering a third party candidate at this point.
So, that's a really long way of saying that it's too early to make any hard and fast commitments in this presidential election season.
At this point the simple answer is that I just don't know. While I initially supported the idea of someone like Trump running, the reality of the Trump campaign is that I just can't get behind him. There are some general things that he says that I agree with, and the fact that he isn't is politically correct as most politicians. Right now my two biggest problems with Trump are, 1. He is promising to do things that he any rational person knows that he cannot accomplish. 2. I don't think Trump knows how to operate in a situation where he doesn't have the final word.
My personal preference would be that we will see the non viable candidates drop out soon enough that their supporters can coalesce around either Cruz or Rubio so that Trump will start losing primaries. I think that the longer the non viable candidates hang around the harder it will be to stop Trump from building up a significant delegate lead. (Obviously a Trump loss in SC tomorrow would change things somewhat)
But, what happens if Trump gets the GOP nod? There is absolutely no possible circumstance where I could see voting for Hilary or Bernie. Hilary has so many ethical problems that I really can't understand how anyone could actively support her. I realize that the dems have rigged the primary process so as to make it incredibly difficult for anyone to beat her, and that there will be plenty of people who will vote for her no matter what and a bunch more people who will vote for any (liberal) woman simply because she's a woman. My problem with Bernie is much the same as with Trump, although I believe that Bernie truly believes that his positions are the best possible solutions to our country's ills, there is virtually no possible way that anything he proposes would actually be enacted. I believe that a Sanders presidency would be potentially the least effective presidency in the history of the United States. Maybe that wouldn't be that bad now that I think about it.
As far as a third party, I have mixed feelings. Generally a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. Coupling that with Bloomberg is the only potential third party candidate on the horizon would make a me leery of even considering a third party candidate at this point.
So, that's a really long way of saying that it's too early to make any hard and fast commitments in this presidential election season.
Friday, February 5, 2016
Facts
Facts seem like a simple concept, they just are. Yet so often people manipulate facts or even reach conclusions that go against the facts.
So has anyone ever...
... looked at the facts and to followed them to a conclusion even when the facts go against your previously held views?
or
... held a position that is contrary to objective fact?
Just curious.
So has anyone ever...
... looked at the facts and to followed them to a conclusion even when the facts go against your previously held views?
or
... held a position that is contrary to objective fact?
Just curious.
Establishment
I'm a little mystified by this rush of presidential candidates to escape being labeled establishment.
Let's look at a few of the folks trying the hardest to escape this.
Hilary Clinton
Since 1979 she's either been married to an elected official, been an elected official, or had a cabinet post . That's 37 years she's been feeding at the public trough. Not to mention her sweet book deal and huge speaking fees. How can anyone even entertain the notion that she's not establishment.
Bernie Sanders
He's held elective office since about 1980 again that's 36 years of feeding at the public trough. I'll grant that he hasn't taken nearly as much advantage of his positions for financial gain as he could have, but still anyone who's been a US senator can hardly seriously claim to be anti establishment.
Trump
I'll just point out that he's admitted giving contributions to politicians on both sides of the aisle to get them do do what he wants them to do, as well as his love of eminent domain. Oh, and anyone who can say, "Well I just got a 1 million dollar loan from my dad...". Enough said.
Cruz
Started as a clerk for a federal judge as well as for a SCOTUS justice, worked in the Bush administration, and is a US senator. I guess you could say that maybe he's kind of JV establishment, but still establishment.
Rubio
Pretty much been either in elective office or academia since 1999, and of course one office is the US senate. Again, maybe JV, but still establishment.
I'm especially shocked that people actually buy this drivel from Bernie or Hilary and how come anyone could possibly think that it's a positive in either case.
No real point here, except I'm getting tired of these establishment types trying to pretend otherwise.
Let's look at a few of the folks trying the hardest to escape this.
Hilary Clinton
Since 1979 she's either been married to an elected official, been an elected official, or had a cabinet post . That's 37 years she's been feeding at the public trough. Not to mention her sweet book deal and huge speaking fees. How can anyone even entertain the notion that she's not establishment.
Bernie Sanders
He's held elective office since about 1980 again that's 36 years of feeding at the public trough. I'll grant that he hasn't taken nearly as much advantage of his positions for financial gain as he could have, but still anyone who's been a US senator can hardly seriously claim to be anti establishment.
Trump
I'll just point out that he's admitted giving contributions to politicians on both sides of the aisle to get them do do what he wants them to do, as well as his love of eminent domain. Oh, and anyone who can say, "Well I just got a 1 million dollar loan from my dad...". Enough said.
Cruz
Started as a clerk for a federal judge as well as for a SCOTUS justice, worked in the Bush administration, and is a US senator. I guess you could say that maybe he's kind of JV establishment, but still establishment.
Rubio
Pretty much been either in elective office or academia since 1999, and of course one office is the US senate. Again, maybe JV, but still establishment.
I'm especially shocked that people actually buy this drivel from Bernie or Hilary and how come anyone could possibly think that it's a positive in either case.
No real point here, except I'm getting tired of these establishment types trying to pretend otherwise.
Pop quiz
With all the Trump blather about Cruz being ineligible to serve as president, it seems like it might be worth revisiting this whole thing. Hence, a little quiz.
Who was the first person to suggest that P-BO was ineligible to be president because of the place of his birth?
Who was the first person to suggest that P-BO was ineligible to be president because of the place of his birth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)