Today is "Reformation Day" in churches that have their roots in the Protestant Reformation. The actual day is next Saturday, October 31, the anniversary of Martin Luther's nailing his "Ninety-five Theses" to the door of the church in Wittenberg, but any churches that observe the anniversary will be doing it today.
Why should they?
The first answer would be Because America is/was a Protestant nation, and it was Protestantism that made America the most prosperous and admired nation in history. Having repudiated its duty to be a Christian (Protestant) nation, America is now bankrupt and despised.
There is a second reason we should observe (though not "celebrate") "Reformation Day." That's because the Protestant Reformation planted the seeds of secularism which are now choking America to death. That post has not yet been written. Please contribute your suggestions for that post in the comments below.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Public Credit?
Paul B. Farrell at MarketWatch.com offers 20 reasons America has lost its soul and collapse is inevitable. I'm always hopeful when someone talks about "soul." But then he says, "Go see Michael Moore's documentary, 'Capitalism: A Love Story.'" Oh well. He explains:
Greed's OK, within limits, like the 10 Commandments. Yes, the soul can thrive around greed, if there are structures and restrictions to keep it from going out of control. But Moore warns: "Capitalism does the opposite of that. It not only doesn't really put any structure or restrictions on it. It encourages it, it rewards" greed, creating bigger, more frequent bubble/bust cycles.
Does he mean the Ten Commandments are good, within limits? Is adultery good "within limits?"
Greed (or "avarice") is one of the "seven deadly sins." It's always wrong, it's never right. But capitalism, as defined by those who defend it, is not based on greed. It's based on productivity and service of consumers. It's the exercise of dominion, for which we were created.
Back in 2002, in the days of Enron and WorldCom, the NewYorkTimes (July 21, 2002) focused on Alan Greenspan’s remarks to the effect that “infectious greed” is responsible for "recent business scandals," and that more government regulation might be needed. Greenspan was obviously no longer a follower of Ayn Rand.
Political philosopher and Ayn Rand expert, Dr. Edward Hudgins notes, “Rand was virtually alone in celebrating the virtues of productive, innovative individuals and the wealth they create. She emphasized that businessmen at their best will first and foremost love their work and the challenge of creating products and services that earn them profits. If that’s greed, it’s to be praised! Rand also singled out for condemnation businessmen who seek money by any means, including fraud, or government handouts and special favors. If that’s greed, it’s to be damned!”
The Atlas Society, Release: Is Greed Good?
Greed, contrary to Michael Moore, is not the cause of the boom/bust cycle. That honor rests with the Federal Reserve.
“THE PRAGMATIC CAPITALIST” responds to the MarketWatch article, asking, Is This the Death of Capitalism? No, he says, but hopes it is the end of "crony capitalism" run by bankers instead of producers. He leads with this quote from Woodrow Wilson:
“A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the Nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men… We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world — no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.”
The first sentence is a fountain of toxic errors. Credit is not necessary for industrialism. It is only necessary for rapid industrialization:
Credit and Rewarding Losers
Production, savings, inheritance and the absence of government confiscation and redistribution of wealth are all that's needed to accumulate capital. Credit is only needed routinely by those who are greedy for that which they have not already earned, or whose parents did not earn it through production and service, and lack the patience to accumulate capital through production and savings.
Relying on credit for day-to-day expenses is an indicator of incompetence or slavery.
The rest of the quotation has been used to attack the Federal Reserve. Wilson wrote these words in 1912, before the Federal Reserve was formed, and the sentiment of the quotation formed the basis for the justification for the Fed, which was sold to Democrats as a “public” guardian of credit.
And how's that working for you?
Greed's OK, within limits, like the 10 Commandments. Yes, the soul can thrive around greed, if there are structures and restrictions to keep it from going out of control. But Moore warns: "Capitalism does the opposite of that. It not only doesn't really put any structure or restrictions on it. It encourages it, it rewards" greed, creating bigger, more frequent bubble/bust cycles.
Does he mean the Ten Commandments are good, within limits? Is adultery good "within limits?"
Greed (or "avarice") is one of the "seven deadly sins." It's always wrong, it's never right. But capitalism, as defined by those who defend it, is not based on greed. It's based on productivity and service of consumers. It's the exercise of dominion, for which we were created.
Back in 2002, in the days of Enron and WorldCom, the NewYorkTimes (July 21, 2002) focused on Alan Greenspan’s remarks to the effect that “infectious greed” is responsible for "recent business scandals," and that more government regulation might be needed. Greenspan was obviously no longer a follower of Ayn Rand.
Political philosopher and Ayn Rand expert, Dr. Edward Hudgins notes, “Rand was virtually alone in celebrating the virtues of productive, innovative individuals and the wealth they create. She emphasized that businessmen at their best will first and foremost love their work and the challenge of creating products and services that earn them profits. If that’s greed, it’s to be praised! Rand also singled out for condemnation businessmen who seek money by any means, including fraud, or government handouts and special favors. If that’s greed, it’s to be damned!”
The Atlas Society, Release: Is Greed Good?
Greed, contrary to Michael Moore, is not the cause of the boom/bust cycle. That honor rests with the Federal Reserve.
“THE PRAGMATIC CAPITALIST” responds to the MarketWatch article, asking, Is This the Death of Capitalism? No, he says, but hopes it is the end of "crony capitalism" run by bankers instead of producers. He leads with this quote from Woodrow Wilson:
“A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the Nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men… We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world — no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.”
The first sentence is a fountain of toxic errors. Credit is not necessary for industrialism. It is only necessary for rapid industrialization:
Credit and Rewarding Losers
Production, savings, inheritance and the absence of government confiscation and redistribution of wealth are all that's needed to accumulate capital. Credit is only needed routinely by those who are greedy for that which they have not already earned, or whose parents did not earn it through production and service, and lack the patience to accumulate capital through production and savings.
Relying on credit for day-to-day expenses is an indicator of incompetence or slavery.
The rest of the quotation has been used to attack the Federal Reserve. Wilson wrote these words in 1912, before the Federal Reserve was formed, and the sentiment of the quotation formed the basis for the justification for the Fed, which was sold to Democrats as a “public” guardian of credit.
And how's that working for you?
Friday, October 23, 2009
Rumsfeld's Report
Glenn Greenwald, writing in Salon, recalls:
In 2004, Donald Rumsfeld directed the Defense Science Board Task Force to review the impact which the administration's policies -- specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- were having on Terrorism and Islamic radicalism. They issued a report in September, 2004 (.pdf) and it vigorously condemned the Bush/Cheney approach as entirely counter-productive, i.e., as worsening the Terrorist threat those policies purportedly sought to reduce.
The Report's conclusion:
"Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies ... [which have] not led to democracy ... but only more chaos and suffering."
Other conclusions reported by Greenwald deserve your attention.
We have forgotten America's original foreign policy:
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible."
— Washington, Farewell Address (1796) [Washington’s emphasis]
I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one] which ought to shape its administration,…peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
— Jefferson, First Inaugural Address (1801)
Even more important than government "isolationism," is voluntarist intervention:
“If American Christians simply gave a tithe rather than the current one-quarter of a tithe, there would be enough private Christian dollars to provide basic health care and education to all the poor of the earth. And we would still have an extra $60-70 billion left over for evangelism around the world.”
Book Review: The Scandal Of The Evangelical Conscience - Acton Institute PowerBlog
A massive missionary outreach of charity and libertarian evangelism would win the hearts of the Muslim world, rather than create terrorists. But this action (required of Christians regardless of the pragmatic foreign policy benefits) would not buttress the power of neoconservatives and state-supported oil companies. So don't expect the mainstream media to promote the idea.
In 2004, Donald Rumsfeld directed the Defense Science Board Task Force to review the impact which the administration's policies -- specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- were having on Terrorism and Islamic radicalism. They issued a report in September, 2004 (.pdf) and it vigorously condemned the Bush/Cheney approach as entirely counter-productive, i.e., as worsening the Terrorist threat those policies purportedly sought to reduce.
The Report's conclusion:
"Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies ... [which have] not led to democracy ... but only more chaos and suffering."
Other conclusions reported by Greenwald deserve your attention.
We have forgotten America's original foreign policy:
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible."
— Washington, Farewell Address (1796) [Washington’s emphasis]
I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one] which ought to shape its administration,…peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
— Jefferson, First Inaugural Address (1801)
Even more important than government "isolationism," is voluntarist intervention:
“If American Christians simply gave a tithe rather than the current one-quarter of a tithe, there would be enough private Christian dollars to provide basic health care and education to all the poor of the earth. And we would still have an extra $60-70 billion left over for evangelism around the world.”
Book Review: The Scandal Of The Evangelical Conscience - Acton Institute PowerBlog
A massive missionary outreach of charity and libertarian evangelism would win the hearts of the Muslim world, rather than create terrorists. But this action (required of Christians regardless of the pragmatic foreign policy benefits) would not buttress the power of neoconservatives and state-supported oil companies. So don't expect the mainstream media to promote the idea.
Drudge and the Dollar
The Drudge Report has seen its fair share of links to reports on the decline of the Dollar. Some have speculated that Drudge is even causing part of that decline by his relentless coverage of the Dollar's woes:
Zeroing in on the dollar’s decline – Ah ha! It’s all Drudge’s Fault! « Commodity Trade Alert .com
Is Drudge working with George Soros to destroy the Dollar and establish a new global currency? Not intentionally, one would think.
The Dollar's greatest enemy is not "conspirators" like Soros, it's knowledge of economics and informed traders. The Dollar is not like a patient with cancer. The Dollar is the cancer. Wise investors do not invest in cancer.
Killing the cancer will be very traumatic for "the body politic." But economic health is on the other side.
Drudge is helping our grandchildren by helping to destroy the Dollar -- as long as the forces that destroy the Dollar also work to prevent replacing it with a global fiat currency.
God and Gold
There is a connection between a nation banning God from public schools, and banning gold from public currency. Few want to admit it. F. William Engdahl writes:
The problem for the US power elites around Wall Street and in Washington is the fact that they are now in the deepest financial crisis in their history. That crisis is clear to the entire world and the world is acting on a basis of self-survival. The US elites have lost what in Chinese imperial history is known as the Mandate of Heaven. That mandate is given a ruler or ruling elite provided they rule their people justly and fairly. When they rule tyrannically and as despots, oppressing and abusing their people, they lose that Mandate of Heaven.
"America's Phoney War in Afghanistan," GlobalResearch.ca
Now, really, who cares about the superstitious ideas of "Chinese imperial history?" But in a secular nation like ours, it seems so much more sophisticated and credible to refer to this exotic tradition rather than quoting the discredited Christian worldview of America's Founding Fathers:
[W]e ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained . . . .
George Washington, "Inaugural Address," April 30, 1789
Fractional reserve banking robs the poor. Paper money is unconstitutional and violates more than one of the Ten Commandments (e.g., "Thou shalt not steal").
Heaven is no longer smiling on America.
Zeroing in on the dollar’s decline – Ah ha! It’s all Drudge’s Fault! « Commodity Trade Alert .com
Is Drudge working with George Soros to destroy the Dollar and establish a new global currency? Not intentionally, one would think.
The Dollar's greatest enemy is not "conspirators" like Soros, it's knowledge of economics and informed traders. The Dollar is not like a patient with cancer. The Dollar is the cancer. Wise investors do not invest in cancer.
Killing the cancer will be very traumatic for "the body politic." But economic health is on the other side.
Drudge is helping our grandchildren by helping to destroy the Dollar -- as long as the forces that destroy the Dollar also work to prevent replacing it with a global fiat currency.
God and Gold
There is a connection between a nation banning God from public schools, and banning gold from public currency. Few want to admit it. F. William Engdahl writes:
The problem for the US power elites around Wall Street and in Washington is the fact that they are now in the deepest financial crisis in their history. That crisis is clear to the entire world and the world is acting on a basis of self-survival. The US elites have lost what in Chinese imperial history is known as the Mandate of Heaven. That mandate is given a ruler or ruling elite provided they rule their people justly and fairly. When they rule tyrannically and as despots, oppressing and abusing their people, they lose that Mandate of Heaven.
"America's Phoney War in Afghanistan," GlobalResearch.ca
Now, really, who cares about the superstitious ideas of "Chinese imperial history?" But in a secular nation like ours, it seems so much more sophisticated and credible to refer to this exotic tradition rather than quoting the discredited Christian worldview of America's Founding Fathers:
[W]e ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained . . . .
George Washington, "Inaugural Address," April 30, 1789
Fractional reserve banking robs the poor. Paper money is unconstitutional and violates more than one of the Ten Commandments (e.g., "Thou shalt not steal").
Heaven is no longer smiling on America.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Gas: $400.00/gallon
TheHill.com is reporting that the Pentagon pays $400.00 for every gallon of gas used in the war in Afghanistan.
But it's obviously worth every penny. Think about how the outcome of the war in Afghanistan is going to affect you personally: your job, your retirement, and your children's test scores in school.
It isn't easy getting gas to Kabul. But if we don't accomplish President Obama's objectives in Afghanistan, you can easily see all the many ways that will impact crime in your neighborhood, and the quality of medical care for you and your family. I mean, just think about it.
Take your time.
If you run out of space, use the next blog.
But it's obviously worth every penny. Think about how the outcome of the war in Afghanistan is going to affect you personally: your job, your retirement, and your children's test scores in school.
It isn't easy getting gas to Kabul. But if we don't accomplish President Obama's objectives in Afghanistan, you can easily see all the many ways that will impact crime in your neighborhood, and the quality of medical care for you and your family. I mean, just think about it.
Take your time.
If you run out of space, use the next blog.
Atheists Suck at Being Atheists
Pastor and "Weird Guy" Douglas Wilson raises an interesting argument in the Huffington Post:
From the perspective of a Christian, the refusal of an atheist to be a Christian is dismaying, but it is at least intelligible. But what is really disconcerting is the failure of atheists to be atheists. That is the thing that cries out for further exploration.
We can understand a cook who sets out to prepare a reduction sauce, having it simmer on the stove for three days. But what we shouldn't get is the announcement afterwards that he has prepared us a soufflé. The atheistic worldview is nothing if not inherently reductionistic, whether this is admitted or not. Everything that happens is a chance-driven rattle-jattle jumble in the great concourse of atoms that we call time. Time and chance acting on matter have brought about, in equally aimless fashion, the 1927 New York Yankees, yesterday's foam on a New Jersey beach, Princess Di, the arrangement of pebbles on the back side of the moon, the music of John Cage, the Fourth Crusade, and the current gaggle representing us all in Congress.
If the universe actually is what the materialistic atheist claims it is, then certain things follow from that presupposition. The argument is simple to follow, and is frequently accepted by the sophomore presidents of atheist/agnostic clubs at a university near you, but it is rare for a well-published atheistic leader to acknowledge the force of the argument. To acknowledge openly the corrosive relativism that atheism necessarily entails would do nothing but get the chimps jumping in the red states. To swallow the reduction would present serious public relations problems, and drive Fox News ratings up even further. Who needs that?
So if the universe is what the atheist maintains it is, then this determines what sort of account we must give for the nature of everything -- and this includes the atheist's thought processes, ethical convictions, and aesthetic appreciations. If you were to shake up two bottles of pop and place them on a table to fizz over, you could not fill up an auditorium with people who came to watch them debate. This is because they are not debating; they are just fizzing. If you were to shake up one bottle of pop, and show it film footage of some genocidal atrocity, the reaction you would get is not moral outrage, but rather more fizzing. And if you were to shake it really hard by means of art school, and place it in front of Michelangelo's David, or the Rose Window of Chartres Cathedral, the results would not really be aesthetic appreciation, but more fizzing still.
If the atheist is right, then I am not a Christian because I have mistaken beliefs, but am rather a Christian because that is what these chemicals would always do in this arrangement and at this temperature. The problem is that this atheistic assumption does the very same thing to the atheist's case for atheism. The atheist gives us an account of all things which makes it impossible for us to believe that any account of all things could possibly be true. But no account of things can be tenable unless it provides us with the preconditions that make it possible for our "accounting" to represent genuine insight. Atheism fails to do this, and the failure is a spectacular one. Nor does atheism allow us to have any fixed ethical standard, or the possibility of beauty.
It does no good to appeal to the discoveries made by science and reason, for one of the things that reason has apparently brought us is atheism. Right? And not content to let sleeping dogs lie, reason also brings us the inexorable consequences of atheism, which includes the unpalatable but necessary conclusion that random neuron firings do not amount to any "truth" that corresponds to anything outside our heads. This, ironically enough, includes atheism, and so we find ourselves falling out of the tree, saw in one hand and branch in the other.
Contrast this with the Christian gospel -- God the Father is the Maker of heaven and earth. He sent His Son to be born one of us; this Son died on gibbet for our sins, as the ultimate and final human sacrifice, and He rose from the dead on the third day following. Having ascended into Heaven and taken His place at the right hand of His Father, He sent His Holy Spirit into the world in order to transform it, a process that is still ongoing. Now obviously, this is a message that can be believed or disbelieved. But the reason for mentioning it here includes the important point that such a set of convictions makes it possible for us to believe that reason can be trusted, that goodness does not change with the evolutionary times, and that beauty is grounded in the very heart of God. Someone who believes these things doesn't believe that we are just fizzing.
You can deny that this God exists, of course, and you can throw the whole cosmos into that pan of reduction sauce. And you can keep the heat on by publishing one atheist missive after another. But what you should not be allowed to do is cook the whole thing bone dry and call the crust on the bottom an example of the "numinous" or "transcendent." Calling it that provides us with no reason to believe it -- and numerous reasons not to.
In response, atheist Christopher Hitchens
basically says, "Nobody can force me to think about this."
From the perspective of a Christian, the refusal of an atheist to be a Christian is dismaying, but it is at least intelligible. But what is really disconcerting is the failure of atheists to be atheists. That is the thing that cries out for further exploration.
We can understand a cook who sets out to prepare a reduction sauce, having it simmer on the stove for three days. But what we shouldn't get is the announcement afterwards that he has prepared us a soufflé. The atheistic worldview is nothing if not inherently reductionistic, whether this is admitted or not. Everything that happens is a chance-driven rattle-jattle jumble in the great concourse of atoms that we call time. Time and chance acting on matter have brought about, in equally aimless fashion, the 1927 New York Yankees, yesterday's foam on a New Jersey beach, Princess Di, the arrangement of pebbles on the back side of the moon, the music of John Cage, the Fourth Crusade, and the current gaggle representing us all in Congress.
If the universe actually is what the materialistic atheist claims it is, then certain things follow from that presupposition. The argument is simple to follow, and is frequently accepted by the sophomore presidents of atheist/agnostic clubs at a university near you, but it is rare for a well-published atheistic leader to acknowledge the force of the argument. To acknowledge openly the corrosive relativism that atheism necessarily entails would do nothing but get the chimps jumping in the red states. To swallow the reduction would present serious public relations problems, and drive Fox News ratings up even further. Who needs that?
So if the universe is what the atheist maintains it is, then this determines what sort of account we must give for the nature of everything -- and this includes the atheist's thought processes, ethical convictions, and aesthetic appreciations. If you were to shake up two bottles of pop and place them on a table to fizz over, you could not fill up an auditorium with people who came to watch them debate. This is because they are not debating; they are just fizzing. If you were to shake up one bottle of pop, and show it film footage of some genocidal atrocity, the reaction you would get is not moral outrage, but rather more fizzing. And if you were to shake it really hard by means of art school, and place it in front of Michelangelo's David, or the Rose Window of Chartres Cathedral, the results would not really be aesthetic appreciation, but more fizzing still.
If the atheist is right, then I am not a Christian because I have mistaken beliefs, but am rather a Christian because that is what these chemicals would always do in this arrangement and at this temperature. The problem is that this atheistic assumption does the very same thing to the atheist's case for atheism. The atheist gives us an account of all things which makes it impossible for us to believe that any account of all things could possibly be true. But no account of things can be tenable unless it provides us with the preconditions that make it possible for our "accounting" to represent genuine insight. Atheism fails to do this, and the failure is a spectacular one. Nor does atheism allow us to have any fixed ethical standard, or the possibility of beauty.
It does no good to appeal to the discoveries made by science and reason, for one of the things that reason has apparently brought us is atheism. Right? And not content to let sleeping dogs lie, reason also brings us the inexorable consequences of atheism, which includes the unpalatable but necessary conclusion that random neuron firings do not amount to any "truth" that corresponds to anything outside our heads. This, ironically enough, includes atheism, and so we find ourselves falling out of the tree, saw in one hand and branch in the other.
Contrast this with the Christian gospel -- God the Father is the Maker of heaven and earth. He sent His Son to be born one of us; this Son died on gibbet for our sins, as the ultimate and final human sacrifice, and He rose from the dead on the third day following. Having ascended into Heaven and taken His place at the right hand of His Father, He sent His Holy Spirit into the world in order to transform it, a process that is still ongoing. Now obviously, this is a message that can be believed or disbelieved. But the reason for mentioning it here includes the important point that such a set of convictions makes it possible for us to believe that reason can be trusted, that goodness does not change with the evolutionary times, and that beauty is grounded in the very heart of God. Someone who believes these things doesn't believe that we are just fizzing.
You can deny that this God exists, of course, and you can throw the whole cosmos into that pan of reduction sauce. And you can keep the heat on by publishing one atheist missive after another. But what you should not be allowed to do is cook the whole thing bone dry and call the crust on the bottom an example of the "numinous" or "transcendent." Calling it that provides us with no reason to believe it -- and numerous reasons not to.
In response, atheist Christopher Hitchens
basically says, "Nobody can force me to think about this."
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Singleness
I generally like Dr. James Dobson and his "Focus on the Family" radio show. He had an interesting guest this past week. I tried posting the following comment on her blog, Radical Womanhood, a post called, "The Conversation Continues." The blog software told me, "We're sorry, we cannot accept this data." I don't think it was human moderation, but I didn't expect my comment to pass that either, since the webpage I linked to behind my name was this one.
You should read that post before reading my comment:
I was in and out of the room and heard only a couple of lines from the Focus show, but what I heard made me resolve to listen to the whole show later online. I had no idea who the guest was at that time.
I hadn't made time to listen to the show when a friend told me to check out "ali's african adventures," and as I was looking for that blog, I found a reference to it on your blog, and discovered who was on Dr. Dobson's show. Now I was finally motivated to actually listen to the show. It was very thought-provoking.
After reading "Ali's African Adventure," it's hard for me to agree with Dr. Grudem's claim that nobody over 50 "has not had a significant trial or affliction." As I see it, there are a billion people on earth who live in perpetual "trial or affliction." I would go crazy if "Scotty" were to "beam me" into their world. Americans are the most pampered people on earth. I can't say I've ever been tried or afflicted.
Maybe "trials and afflictions" are the result of marriage and family, and the fact that I have never been married explains why I have not experienced any trials, and is proof that I'm just lazy and irresponsible to have avoided these duties. That could be. I don't know exactly why I have never married (Jeremiah 17:9). Your three days on Focus and your blog are helping me find answers.
You should read that post before reading my comment:
I was in and out of the room and heard only a couple of lines from the Focus show, but what I heard made me resolve to listen to the whole show later online. I had no idea who the guest was at that time.
I hadn't made time to listen to the show when a friend told me to check out "ali's african adventures," and as I was looking for that blog, I found a reference to it on your blog, and discovered who was on Dr. Dobson's show. Now I was finally motivated to actually listen to the show. It was very thought-provoking.
After reading "Ali's African Adventure," it's hard for me to agree with Dr. Grudem's claim that nobody over 50 "has not had a significant trial or affliction." As I see it, there are a billion people on earth who live in perpetual "trial or affliction." I would go crazy if "Scotty" were to "beam me" into their world. Americans are the most pampered people on earth. I can't say I've ever been tried or afflicted.
Maybe "trials and afflictions" are the result of marriage and family, and the fact that I have never been married explains why I have not experienced any trials, and is proof that I'm just lazy and irresponsible to have avoided these duties. That could be. I don't know exactly why I have never married (Jeremiah 17:9). Your three days on Focus and your blog are helping me find answers.
Rush is Wrong
Rush Limbaugh criticizes the awarding of the Nobel Prize for Peace to Barack Obama:
"The intent of the committee is to neuter the United States of America. They've done it by rewarding a pacifist."
Laurence M. Vance explains why Obama is no pacifist, and why Obama is not "destroying your country as a superpower" and "emasculating this country," as Rush Limbaugh claims.
We can talk about this at the Ozarks Virtual Town Hall this morning.
"The intent of the committee is to neuter the United States of America. They've done it by rewarding a pacifist."
Laurence M. Vance explains why Obama is no pacifist, and why Obama is not "destroying your country as a superpower" and "emasculating this country," as Rush Limbaugh claims.
We can talk about this at the Ozarks Virtual Town Hall this morning.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Wall Street Bailout Benefits
What part has Nobel Peace Prize-winning President Barack Obama played in the greatest war in the 20th century?
Smallpox was the greatest killer of man ever known. Dr. Matt Bivens looks at the 20th century and notes:
if you tally the worldwide death tolls for World Wars I and II, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the Iran-Iraq war and the Mexican Revolution, the civil wars in China and Russia and Spain, and all the other wars of the last century, from Afghanistan to Zaire, the total is less than one-third of the smallpox death toll.
And that's just a single 100-year period, for a disease that disfigured Egyptian pharaohs, allied with Hernando Cortes to rout the Aztecs, left a young George Washington scarred, later stalked his Continental Army, and left Abraham Lincoln pale, weak, and dizzy as he delivered his Gettysburg Address.
And yet, in the 1960s, smallpox was targeted by visionary public health experts - and in just 10 years it was gone. An excellent new book by DA Henderson, the doctor who led the effort, tells the story: Smallpox - the Death of a Disease: The Inside Story of Eradicating a Worldwide Killer
.
According to the World Health Association, the total cost of the 10-year campaign to eradicate smallpox from the world was $300 million. An investment of one dollar given by each American, each dollar saving one human life.
According to Bivens, "The price paid to defeat humanity's greatest foe wouldn't cover a 24-hour day of Iraqi combat operations." The cost of the war in Afghanistan will soon be 1,000 times greater than the cost of preventing hundreds of millions of smallpox deaths. The amount of money given to Wall Street banks in the last year is about 10,000 times greater.
Dr. Bivens notes that volunteers from the Rotary Club have spearheaded the effort to eradicate polio from its remaining global outposts. The hundreds of millions of dollars raised by Rotarians for this anti-polio project came from voluntary donations. The amount "wouldn't cover the bonus pool for the executives of the insurance company AIG after its great meltdown," Bivens reminds us; a figure forcibly extorted from us by the government.
Who brings war? Who brings peace?
Who creates wealth? Who destroys wealth?
The amount of good done by voluntary associations must be weighed against the evil, violence, and destruction committed by governments. The pocket change of costs borne by voluntary donations to save so many lives must be weighed against the trillions in costs extorted by government force to kill the innocent and redistribute wealth to the guilty.
James Madison, "Father of the Constitution," is quoted as saying,
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God.
What if a spiritual revival brought about a conviction in a majority of people to govern themselves according to the Ten Commandments. No more stealing ("taxation"), no more killing ("national security"), no initiation of force against the innocent.
What would happen if we set out to eradicate violations of the Ten Commandments the way the Rotarians set their sights on polio?
What if a majority of voters voted against a killer disease we inflict on ourselves?
Would humanity really "collapse into anarchy" if we closed down all governments and told politicians and bureaucrats to go home and get a job creating goods and services that consumers would voluntarily pay for?
Smallpox was the greatest killer of man ever known. Dr. Matt Bivens looks at the 20th century and notes:
if you tally the worldwide death tolls for World Wars I and II, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the Iran-Iraq war and the Mexican Revolution, the civil wars in China and Russia and Spain, and all the other wars of the last century, from Afghanistan to Zaire, the total is less than one-third of the smallpox death toll.
And that's just a single 100-year period, for a disease that disfigured Egyptian pharaohs, allied with Hernando Cortes to rout the Aztecs, left a young George Washington scarred, later stalked his Continental Army, and left Abraham Lincoln pale, weak, and dizzy as he delivered his Gettysburg Address.
And yet, in the 1960s, smallpox was targeted by visionary public health experts - and in just 10 years it was gone. An excellent new book by DA Henderson, the doctor who led the effort, tells the story: Smallpox - the Death of a Disease: The Inside Story of Eradicating a Worldwide Killer
.According to the World Health Association, the total cost of the 10-year campaign to eradicate smallpox from the world was $300 million. An investment of one dollar given by each American, each dollar saving one human life.
According to Bivens, "The price paid to defeat humanity's greatest foe wouldn't cover a 24-hour day of Iraqi combat operations." The cost of the war in Afghanistan will soon be 1,000 times greater than the cost of preventing hundreds of millions of smallpox deaths. The amount of money given to Wall Street banks in the last year is about 10,000 times greater.
Dr. Bivens notes that volunteers from the Rotary Club have spearheaded the effort to eradicate polio from its remaining global outposts. The hundreds of millions of dollars raised by Rotarians for this anti-polio project came from voluntary donations. The amount "wouldn't cover the bonus pool for the executives of the insurance company AIG after its great meltdown," Bivens reminds us; a figure forcibly extorted from us by the government.
Who brings war? Who brings peace?
Who creates wealth? Who destroys wealth?
The amount of good done by voluntary associations must be weighed against the evil, violence, and destruction committed by governments. The pocket change of costs borne by voluntary donations to save so many lives must be weighed against the trillions in costs extorted by government force to kill the innocent and redistribute wealth to the guilty.
James Madison, "Father of the Constitution," is quoted as saying,
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God.
What if a spiritual revival brought about a conviction in a majority of people to govern themselves according to the Ten Commandments. No more stealing ("taxation"), no more killing ("national security"), no initiation of force against the innocent.
What would happen if we set out to eradicate violations of the Ten Commandments the way the Rotarians set their sights on polio?
What if a majority of voters voted against a killer disease we inflict on ourselves?
Would humanity really "collapse into anarchy" if we closed down all governments and told politicians and bureaucrats to go home and get a job creating goods and services that consumers would voluntarily pay for?
Monday, October 12, 2009
Columbus Day, 2009
Columbus is a hero, not because he beat the Chinese or the Norse, but because you and I, if we were sent back in time, wouldn't have stepped foot on his boat 500 years ago if we were told he was just another sailor leaving a western European port, hoping to hit land on the other side of the world, and not likely to do so for at least 30 days.
And had we gone with him, we would not want to have stayed with him. We would not have wanted to live for any length of time in the New-but-terribly-uncivilized-World as Columbus attempted to bring the natives under the flag of Spain and western civilization.
Most people today consider the savages "noble" and Columbus an "oppressor" because he believed his religion was true and the native superstitions false. One of the links below says Columbus was a true "religious radical."
Columbus was born and raised in an age that believed governments were divinely ordained. Columbus and his age were wrong. But today's atheistic government commits more atrocities than Columbus is even rumored to have committed. More people are imprisoned for non-violent offenses by secular governments in the U.S. than Columbus may have conscripted for service in his government.
Eventually, though late in life, Columbus began to see that governing was contrary to his Christian faith. He renounced the uniform of the Admiral and wore the more humble attire of a Franciscan monk. (Last year I said "Minorite." This year I'm following the entry at Wikipedia. The picture drawn by historians of no other figure is as utterly contradictory -- in both details and the big picture -- as Columbus'.)
I still believe that Christian civilization is better than savagery -- or the Harvard-credentialed New World Order.
Columbus Day 2007 nearly 50 fascinating links.
Columbus Day 2008
Christopher Columbus Institute for Discovery and Exploration™
American Creation: The "Lost Tribes" in the "New World"
Dissenting views:
American Creation: Should We Celebrate Columbus Day? Notes one historian's report that Columbus wanted to convert the American natives to Christianity so that they could help fight the Muslims.
A commenter adds, Converting the savages to Christianity was certainly a noble goal for any believer then or now, and the sword of Islam was definitely a real concern, and was no doubt feared just as much as world domination by Nazism or Communism were in the past century.
And had we gone with him, we would not want to have stayed with him. We would not have wanted to live for any length of time in the New-but-terribly-uncivilized-World as Columbus attempted to bring the natives under the flag of Spain and western civilization.
Most people today consider the savages "noble" and Columbus an "oppressor" because he believed his religion was true and the native superstitions false. One of the links below says Columbus was a true "religious radical."
Columbus was born and raised in an age that believed governments were divinely ordained. Columbus and his age were wrong. But today's atheistic government commits more atrocities than Columbus is even rumored to have committed. More people are imprisoned for non-violent offenses by secular governments in the U.S. than Columbus may have conscripted for service in his government.
Eventually, though late in life, Columbus began to see that governing was contrary to his Christian faith. He renounced the uniform of the Admiral and wore the more humble attire of a Franciscan monk. (Last year I said "Minorite." This year I'm following the entry at Wikipedia. The picture drawn by historians of no other figure is as utterly contradictory -- in both details and the big picture -- as Columbus'.)
I still believe that Christian civilization is better than savagery -- or the Harvard-credentialed New World Order.
Columbus Day 2007 nearly 50 fascinating links.
Columbus Day 2008
Christopher Columbus Institute for Discovery and Exploration™
American Creation: The "Lost Tribes" in the "New World"
Dissenting views:
American Creation: Should We Celebrate Columbus Day? Notes one historian's report that Columbus wanted to convert the American natives to Christianity so that they could help fight the Muslims.
A commenter adds, Converting the savages to Christianity was certainly a noble goal for any believer then or now, and the sword of Islam was definitely a real concern, and was no doubt feared just as much as world domination by Nazism or Communism were in the past century.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
He was "Disappeared"
An unmarked car drives up to a crowd of urban protesters. Soldiers wearing jungle camouflage emerge, grab a protester, stuff him into the car, and drive away.
Guatemala?
China?
North Korea?
Iran?
Nope.
Pittsburgh.
Is there any other conceivable purpose of the military camouflage than intimidation of those exercising First Amendment rights?
Scenes From a Crackdown - Reason Magazine
Praetorian Presumptions Pro Libertate
Guatemala?
China?
North Korea?
Iran?
Nope.
Pittsburgh.
Is there any other conceivable purpose of the military camouflage than intimidation of those exercising First Amendment rights?
Scenes From a Crackdown - Reason Magazine
Praetorian Presumptions Pro Libertate
Saturday, October 03, 2009
The Myth of "Consensual" Sex
(The links in this post are not necessarily family-friendly.)
Like all good libertarians, I believe that homosexuality and selling heroin to children should be "legalized."
By "legalized," I mean these pathetic people should not be locked up with some psychopath in the hell-hole called "a federal prison cell" to be beaten for 5-10 years.
Like all good Christians, I believe these practices should be eradicated from the face of the earth.
Some will accuse me of being "homophobic" and engaging in "hate speech" for having such strong opinions about what "consenting adults" might do or should not do.
American law used to prohibit incest and homosexuality. Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989, Ohio only targets parental figures, and New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older. The law still generally says that a child cannot "consent" to sex, and the law used to presume that even an adult cannot legally "consent" to acts which violate "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
A Christian libertarian can oppose laws which "punish" such acts, and still oppose the commission of such acts. Acts which violate the laws of the Creator de-humanize us. Those who seek the "freedom" to commit such acts, claiming such acts are "consensual," de-personalize and de-humanize the concepts of "consent" and "freedom."
Consider the recent sordid revelations of MacKenzie Phillips.
Her father was John Phillips. Blogger "dk" reminds us that John Phillips was the “founder of The Mamas And The Papas and writer of such memorable songs as ‘California Dreamin’, ‘Monday, Monday’ and ‘San Francisco (Be Sure To Wear Flowers In Your Hair).’”
Yes, wear flowers, not a suit and tie, and don't work more than one day a week, because you're "free," and not a "corporate slave." "dk" looks behind the flowers:
Phillips created a handful of anthems that came to define their times. As co-organizer and co-producer of the Monterey Pop Festival, he helped birth the concept of the rock festival.
Along the way Phillips made loads of money, paid cash for Jeanette McDonald’s Bel-Air mansion, bought His-&-Hers Jaguar XKEs for himself and wife Michelle, and snorted a small mountain of cocaine. His was a remarkable journey and a fantastically gruesome tale of addiction and excess.
Am I being too critical to think that someone who buys "His-&-Hers Jaguar XKEs" is a slave to corporate status symbols?
But it's more than being a pawn of corporate execs wearing suits and ties. It's opening a door to a false religion and empty promises of pseudo-salvation, southern-California style:
The introduction of harder drugs was also an open door to some scary people who began to take advantage of the naive, welcoming spirit of the times. One such oddball, named Charles Manson, insinuated himself in Beach Boy Dennis Wilson’s mansion, while peddling his own songs around town and building up a cult of impressionable young hippies.
But until daddy takes our T-Bird™ away (or our XKE), we're "free." As "dk" puts it:
At the end of it all we pass through the Holland Tunnel, and the open road unwinds ever hopeful, promising salvation and the cleansing of sins in exchange for a few gallons of gasoline.
Just like the clergy of "organized religion," the wealthy high priests of the religion of California consent and freedom were hypocrites. Even they could not practice what they preached.
The peace & love vibe that surrounded Laurel Canyon was shattered by two developments that began to take root in 1969 – the introduction of cocaine as the drug of choice, and with it, the emergence of nefarious characters with dark intentions who began showing up on the fringe of the community.
This past week has seen the extradition of motion picture director Roman Polanski on charges of drugging and raping a 13-year old girl. John Phillips had been invited to the home of Polanski on the night the Manson Family murdered Polanksi's wife, Sharon Tate, and Phillips
later found himself on the defense’s witness list for the Manson trial. Before the truth emerged, Tate’s husband Roman Polanski believed that Phillips had something to do with the killings and, according to Phillips, held a meat cleaver to his throat while urging him to confess to the crimes.
In the months between the murders and the arrest of Manson, a deep, almost hysterical paranoia settled over Laurel Canyon. “The Manson killings just destroyed us,” said Mamas & Papas producer Lou Adler. “I mean, everyone was looking at everyone else, not quite sure who was in that house and who knew about it. It was a very paranoid time, and the easiest thing to do was to get out of it. Everybody went behind closed doors, and the scene went really quiet.”
A few months later,
The Rolling Stones held their disastrous free concert at Altamont Speedway on December 6, 1969. “As God has been losing his percentage, the Devil has been picking up a lot of that percentage. Things have become very demonic” Phillips told Rolling Stone in 1970.
To spare the reader, we will not include
a more thorough description of:
1) lurid tales of drug use,
2) the demise of the Mamas and Papas,
3) the secret S&M community within Laurel Canyon,
4) the Manson murders and their aftermath, and
5) Manson's connections to the Los Angeles music scene
I'll continue following the blog of "dk," linked above, who provides these details about Phillips' downward spiral:
But his biggest problem ... was his increasing appetite for hard drugs. By the early 70s he was “skin-popping” cocaine through a syringe, scoring heroin on a street corner in Spanish Harlem, snorting lines with his teenage daughter (Laura McKenzie Phillips), and defaulting on every bill in sight. But that was nothing compared to what was yet to come.
As Phillips wrote in his candid 1986 autobiography Papa John: “We couldn’t see it then, but our lives were already out of control. And yet the wake of material destruction we left behind us would later seem calm and glassy compared to the cold, dark, churning river of madness ahead.”
By 1977 Phillips was smuggling heroin and coke through international airports, shooting heroin into infected veins, and trading in fake prescriptions at his local pharmacy to help support his $1,000-a-day habit. “We hired a maid named Versey, an obese, sweet-natured West Indian, to help cook [and] clean. It wasn’t long before she had to scrub jagged streaks of blood from the bathroom walls and ceiling – the gruesome junkie signature scrawled by unclogging used syringes.”
On July 31st, 1980 Phillips was busted by federal agents and later convicted of conspiracy to distribute narcotics. He faced up to 45 years in prison, but received an eight-year suspended sentence and five years of probation. During the trial, Phillips’ defense attorney argued that his “tortured existence during the period of [his] drug addiction … constituted a continuous course of devastating punishment.”
I would go further than the defense attorney and the legal verdict of the justice system, and legalize drugs -- that is, refrain from heaping on further punishment, and be available for genuine rehabilitation and salvation.
During this drug-enslaved decade, Phillips held his daughter captive as a sex slave.
No, that's being "judgmental." That's "hate speech." MacKenzie Phillips says, “Don’t hate my father.” MSNBC.com says "Their long-term sexual relationship eventually became consensual."
"Consensual." Isn't that nice. That means everything is OK. Stop being so intolerant. We're a "diverse" nation.
"Became" consensual seems to imply that at one time it was not.
It began when she was 19, so it's not an age problem. But like Roman Polanksi's victim, she could not consent because she was intoxicated.
“On the eve of my wedding, my father showed up, determined to stop it,” writes Phillips, who was 19 and a heavy drug user at the time. “I had tons of pills, and Dad had tons of everything too. Eventually I passed out on Dad’s bed.”
Had this happened before? I didn’t know. All I can say is it was the first time I was aware of it. For a moment I was in my body, in that horrible truth, and then I slid back into a blackout.”
The MSNBC report says:
Phillips’ life began to spiral out of control.
"Began" to spiral out of control?
In 1980, she was fired from “One Day at a Time” because of her constant drug use. That same year, she went to rehab — with her father. She even toured with him in a band called the New Mamas and the Papas. Her sexual relationship with him had become consensual.
MacKenzie describes this "consensual" relationship as "hell":
“I was a fragment of a person, and my secret isolated me,” she writes.
“One night Dad said, ‘We could just run away to a country where no one would look down on us. There are countries where this is an accepted practice. Maybe Fiji.’
“He was completely delusional. No, I thought, we’re going to hell for this.”
But what if she deceived herself into believing she "liked" it? Wouldn't that have been OK?
We are created in the Image of God. But when we spit in God's face, by "consensual" but treasonous acts against "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," we deface that Image of God in ourselves. We de-personalize ourselves. We become "a fragment of a person" on the inside, even if in public, among friends and fans, we tell them (and ourselves) that we're filled with "pride." Like someone intoxicated, when we "consent" to sin, we lose the rational and human ability to consent meaningfully and truly. When we seek "freedom" from God, we become enslaved. We create our own hell on earth.
I hate hell. This is why I'm a "judgmental" and "hate"-filled libertarian.
Like all good libertarians, I believe that homosexuality and selling heroin to children should be "legalized."
By "legalized," I mean these pathetic people should not be locked up with some psychopath in the hell-hole called "a federal prison cell" to be beaten for 5-10 years.
Like all good Christians, I believe these practices should be eradicated from the face of the earth.
Some will accuse me of being "homophobic" and engaging in "hate speech" for having such strong opinions about what "consenting adults" might do or should not do.
American law used to prohibit incest and homosexuality. Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989, Ohio only targets parental figures, and New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older. The law still generally says that a child cannot "consent" to sex, and the law used to presume that even an adult cannot legally "consent" to acts which violate "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
A Christian libertarian can oppose laws which "punish" such acts, and still oppose the commission of such acts. Acts which violate the laws of the Creator de-humanize us. Those who seek the "freedom" to commit such acts, claiming such acts are "consensual," de-personalize and de-humanize the concepts of "consent" and "freedom."
Consider the recent sordid revelations of MacKenzie Phillips.
Her father was John Phillips. Blogger "dk" reminds us that John Phillips was the “founder of The Mamas And The Papas and writer of such memorable songs as ‘California Dreamin’, ‘Monday, Monday’ and ‘San Francisco (Be Sure To Wear Flowers In Your Hair).’”
Yes, wear flowers, not a suit and tie, and don't work more than one day a week, because you're "free," and not a "corporate slave." "dk" looks behind the flowers:
Phillips created a handful of anthems that came to define their times. As co-organizer and co-producer of the Monterey Pop Festival, he helped birth the concept of the rock festival.
Along the way Phillips made loads of money, paid cash for Jeanette McDonald’s Bel-Air mansion, bought His-&-Hers Jaguar XKEs for himself and wife Michelle, and snorted a small mountain of cocaine. His was a remarkable journey and a fantastically gruesome tale of addiction and excess.
Am I being too critical to think that someone who buys "His-&-Hers Jaguar XKEs" is a slave to corporate status symbols?
But it's more than being a pawn of corporate execs wearing suits and ties. It's opening a door to a false religion and empty promises of pseudo-salvation, southern-California style:
The introduction of harder drugs was also an open door to some scary people who began to take advantage of the naive, welcoming spirit of the times. One such oddball, named Charles Manson, insinuated himself in Beach Boy Dennis Wilson’s mansion, while peddling his own songs around town and building up a cult of impressionable young hippies.
But until daddy takes our T-Bird™ away (or our XKE), we're "free." As "dk" puts it:
At the end of it all we pass through the Holland Tunnel, and the open road unwinds ever hopeful, promising salvation and the cleansing of sins in exchange for a few gallons of gasoline.
Just like the clergy of "organized religion," the wealthy high priests of the religion of California consent and freedom were hypocrites. Even they could not practice what they preached.
The peace & love vibe that surrounded Laurel Canyon was shattered by two developments that began to take root in 1969 – the introduction of cocaine as the drug of choice, and with it, the emergence of nefarious characters with dark intentions who began showing up on the fringe of the community.
This past week has seen the extradition of motion picture director Roman Polanski on charges of drugging and raping a 13-year old girl. John Phillips had been invited to the home of Polanski on the night the Manson Family murdered Polanksi's wife, Sharon Tate, and Phillips
later found himself on the defense’s witness list for the Manson trial. Before the truth emerged, Tate’s husband Roman Polanski believed that Phillips had something to do with the killings and, according to Phillips, held a meat cleaver to his throat while urging him to confess to the crimes.
In the months between the murders and the arrest of Manson, a deep, almost hysterical paranoia settled over Laurel Canyon. “The Manson killings just destroyed us,” said Mamas & Papas producer Lou Adler. “I mean, everyone was looking at everyone else, not quite sure who was in that house and who knew about it. It was a very paranoid time, and the easiest thing to do was to get out of it. Everybody went behind closed doors, and the scene went really quiet.”
A few months later,
The Rolling Stones held their disastrous free concert at Altamont Speedway on December 6, 1969. “As God has been losing his percentage, the Devil has been picking up a lot of that percentage. Things have become very demonic” Phillips told Rolling Stone in 1970.
To spare the reader, we will not include
a more thorough description of:
1) lurid tales of drug use,
2) the demise of the Mamas and Papas,
3) the secret S&M community within Laurel Canyon,
4) the Manson murders and their aftermath, and
5) Manson's connections to the Los Angeles music scene
I'll continue following the blog of "dk," linked above, who provides these details about Phillips' downward spiral:
But his biggest problem ... was his increasing appetite for hard drugs. By the early 70s he was “skin-popping” cocaine through a syringe, scoring heroin on a street corner in Spanish Harlem, snorting lines with his teenage daughter (Laura McKenzie Phillips), and defaulting on every bill in sight. But that was nothing compared to what was yet to come.
As Phillips wrote in his candid 1986 autobiography Papa John: “We couldn’t see it then, but our lives were already out of control. And yet the wake of material destruction we left behind us would later seem calm and glassy compared to the cold, dark, churning river of madness ahead.”
By 1977 Phillips was smuggling heroin and coke through international airports, shooting heroin into infected veins, and trading in fake prescriptions at his local pharmacy to help support his $1,000-a-day habit. “We hired a maid named Versey, an obese, sweet-natured West Indian, to help cook [and] clean. It wasn’t long before she had to scrub jagged streaks of blood from the bathroom walls and ceiling – the gruesome junkie signature scrawled by unclogging used syringes.”
On July 31st, 1980 Phillips was busted by federal agents and later convicted of conspiracy to distribute narcotics. He faced up to 45 years in prison, but received an eight-year suspended sentence and five years of probation. During the trial, Phillips’ defense attorney argued that his “tortured existence during the period of [his] drug addiction … constituted a continuous course of devastating punishment.”
I would go further than the defense attorney and the legal verdict of the justice system, and legalize drugs -- that is, refrain from heaping on further punishment, and be available for genuine rehabilitation and salvation.
During this drug-enslaved decade, Phillips held his daughter captive as a sex slave.
No, that's being "judgmental." That's "hate speech." MacKenzie Phillips says, “Don’t hate my father.” MSNBC.com says "Their long-term sexual relationship eventually became consensual."
"Consensual." Isn't that nice. That means everything is OK. Stop being so intolerant. We're a "diverse" nation.
"Became" consensual seems to imply that at one time it was not.
It began when she was 19, so it's not an age problem. But like Roman Polanksi's victim, she could not consent because she was intoxicated.“On the eve of my wedding, my father showed up, determined to stop it,” writes Phillips, who was 19 and a heavy drug user at the time. “I had tons of pills, and Dad had tons of everything too. Eventually I passed out on Dad’s bed.”
Had this happened before? I didn’t know. All I can say is it was the first time I was aware of it. For a moment I was in my body, in that horrible truth, and then I slid back into a blackout.”
The MSNBC report says:
Phillips’ life began to spiral out of control.
"Began" to spiral out of control?
In 1980, she was fired from “One Day at a Time” because of her constant drug use. That same year, she went to rehab — with her father. She even toured with him in a band called the New Mamas and the Papas. Her sexual relationship with him had become consensual.
MacKenzie describes this "consensual" relationship as "hell":
“I was a fragment of a person, and my secret isolated me,” she writes.
“One night Dad said, ‘We could just run away to a country where no one would look down on us. There are countries where this is an accepted practice. Maybe Fiji.’
“He was completely delusional. No, I thought, we’re going to hell for this.”
But what if she deceived herself into believing she "liked" it? Wouldn't that have been OK?
We are created in the Image of God. But when we spit in God's face, by "consensual" but treasonous acts against "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," we deface that Image of God in ourselves. We de-personalize ourselves. We become "a fragment of a person" on the inside, even if in public, among friends and fans, we tell them (and ourselves) that we're filled with "pride." Like someone intoxicated, when we "consent" to sin, we lose the rational and human ability to consent meaningfully and truly. When we seek "freedom" from God, we become enslaved. We create our own hell on earth.
I hate hell. This is why I'm a "judgmental" and "hate"-filled libertarian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)