Gospel. Culture. Technology. Music.

Category: Politics Page 15 of 19


How Are Statements Like This Not Racist?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtra … ost_1.html

George Lopez, according to this LA Times blog entry, after his show was canceled, is quoted as saying, “TV just became really, really white again.” Let’s turn the tables around and theoretically say that if 24 was canceled and Kiefer Sutherland stated in anger, “TV just became really, really black again,” or “TV just became really, really Mexican again.” Wouldn’t you hear from Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson or the LULAC in about two seconds on MSNBC or CNN about how racist Sutherland is and what a Nazi bigot he is?

Why is it there is no outrage of the same nature as when Imus made his comments and was fired, essentially being silenced? To be consistent with the Imus firing, shouldn’t Lopez be silenced as well in the form of a discrimination lawsuit or something? No, rather what would happen is he would say he was being discriminated against and would sue those attempting to sue him, and probably win! The double-standards in our society seem to be increasing. One guy says something, and gets fired. Another guy can say what he wants without fear of retribution. In fact, he’ll probably somehow make money off of the deal. Racism is alive and well in our society, just in a different form than before. Pay attention here, Lopez’s statement is blatantly racist, and going totally unchecked. That’s the way these things go I guess … just some observations.

It Is Official: Iran is Enriching Uranium on an Industrial Scale Now

http://www.westerfunk.net/archives/terr … ar%20Work/

Of particular interest is the Director General of the IAEA who was quoted in the article as saying: “We believe they pretty much have the knowledge about how to enrich. From now on, it is simply a question of perfecting that knowledge. People will not like to hear it, but that’s a fact.” The reason this is interesting is because he was one of the guys who clashed with the Bush administration about whether or not Iraq was resuming nuclear activity, according to the article. But about Iran he is saying, “People will not like to hear it, but that’s a fact.”

Using God as Your Political Pawn

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070509/ap_ … y_sharpton

It’s great to see that in the political discourse leading up to the presidential election, leaders from both political fronts are using God as their pawn to 1-up the other and gain political ground. I don’t understand why believers here call this a Christian nation. It is just as decadent, wickedly depraved, and sinful as any other country in the world (if not moreso), we’re just a lot more cleaned up about it on the outside in our “civilized” society. Sharpton has no interest in the things of Christ (only politics), and Romney’s a Mormon (believing Christ to be one of many gods). They both have lost the Gospel. Sharpton is using God as a means to defend his liberal, racist political agenda, and Romney is doing the same thing, just in a different manner. Praise God our ultimate hope is not in the conservative or liberal agendas, but is in Christ alone and his political Kingdom, the glory of God being enjoyed by His people forever.

The Doublespeak of the Politically Correct

Here’s a headline from www.drudgereport.com concerning what Sharpton has apparently said about Imus’ racist comments : “SHARPTON VOWS MORE: ‘It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves’… Developing…”
http://www.wten.com/Global/story.asp?S=6361438

The same people who pound into everyone else freedom of speech when their view is at stake and who vow legal action when they feel they are being silenced, are the same people who seek to silence those who differ with their opinions. This no exception. One minute, Sharpton speaks about his and everyone else’s right to say whatever they want, no matter what, and then in the next says we need to have a “discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves”. This is the philosophical dilemma of the moral relativist. Relativism does not work, it cannot logically be sustained, it must contradict itself. And so it does as in this example. As long as you agree with his relativism, he has no problem with you; but as soon as you turn on him and state otherwise in any manner, you must be silenced. And he enforces this with a political vengeance.

For the relativist viewpoint to truthfully stand on this issue of freedom of speech, then Imus must be allowed to say whatever he wants on his own show without fear of being silenced. That does not make it morally right, but he has an opinion, he expressed it, and now he is being silenced by those offended parties involved. Sharpton and his whole entourage are bursting forth with philosophical worldview contradictions. What will happen in our society if the majority agrees that Christians should never witness or “impose” their worldview on others, excluding those they disagree with, and it becomes law? Where does it stop? It doesn’t.

Every viewpoint logically excludes its opposing view. Everyone has a viewpoint whether they admit it or not. Everyone believes in something and believes it is absolute, even the secularist who claims a belief in nothing: that is a belief. If you exist you have some form of a belief about morality. It is inevitable. The moral relativist states that it is morally wrong to say another viewpoint is wrong. So what is this worldviews’ opposing view? Those who state absolute moral truths exist and that other viewpoints are wrong. So in their worldview, anyone who says another viewpoint is wrong is excluded from any conversation with them. They are doing the very thing they believe is morally wrong! Those they disagree with are silenced. What’s an example? Well, the Today Show. This past week, during the whole Imus debacle, they only had far-left liberal democrats appear as guests who adhere to this relativism wholeheartedly. And as a result, every question asked of the guests by the hosts were designed to intensify and solidify the relativist viewpoint on this issue. They excluded those they disagree with by not inviting them on, thus contradicting their own worldview. This is a form of passive exclusion to make it appear as if they are morally neutral when they are just as militant about their worldview as the most far-right fanatic. They just use the means of political power and control over the media to silence individuals instead of weapons and violence.

The only moral relativist that has a made a comment consistent with her own worldview in place during this whole thing was Rosie O’Donnell. http://newsbusters.org/stories/rosie_de … node/11950 She basically is defending Imus’ right to say whatever he wants on his show under the article of freedom of speech. She even says freedom of speech “is not a freedom if you outlaw certain words or thoughts, because then the thought police come and then before you know it, everyone’s in Guantanamo Bay without representation.” Now while she’s taking a jab at conservatives on the war, she has a point that is consistent with her worldview. Does she not?

Relativists position themselves as morally neutral, yet they are anything but that. They believe things are absolutely right and wrong like those who believe certain “truths” are totally wrong. When are people in our society going to see that relativism is a dead-end worldview? It cannot be successfully sustained as truthful, namely because it is absolutely wrong. I guess I’ll be silenced next for saying anything about it now.

My Take on Global Warming

The default response of conservatives seems to be one of ignoring scientific facts simply because global warming appears to be an issue taken on primarily by liberals (and if they don’t fight the liberals at every turn on every issue, they may lose an election in the future, as if that was the end of the world). I think it is highly ignorant of many fellow conservatives to have such a bias that you cast aside scientific data and facts for the sake of political lines. Can we be reasonable together for once? The actual debate in the scientific world over global warming (where it actually matters) has nothing to do with whether or not the Earth itself is warming. The facts are indisputable: the Earth is warming (Read this Senate testimonial from the Director of the National Climatic Data Center, if you want facts; his understanding based on actual numbers is that global warming is caused by both natural occurrences as well as man’s influence). The average global temperature is on an upward trend, and according to computer models, it will continue to increase this century based on many variables input into the equations that calculate these models. No reasonable, scholarly scientist debates whether or not the atmosphere is warming: it is in fact warming, based on mathematical calculations that are indisputable.

But here’s the real question of the debate that not every scientist agrees on: is global warming being caused by man or is it a natural occurrence beyond the realm of our control (that is beyond the realm of being able to do anything about it), or is it both? The debate is not about IF the Earth is warming, but whether or not man is causing the warming through the emission of green-house gases (CO, CO2 and CH4). And I for one, along with many other scientists, including officials at the National Weather Service (what I would deem to be a very reliable source), do not believe man is causing the warming trend as many suppose. Some of them dispute that, however there are many who do not. Is it a mere coincidence all the planets in our solar system are increasing in temperature at around the same pace as the Earth (article)? Hmm, could it be the sun has increased its energy output at a greater rate than anytime in the past 1000 years, thus causing warmer temperatures here as well as on venus, mars, jupiter and all the other planets? Could that be causing a majority of the warming? Seems reasonable to me. And if that’s the case, what in the world are we going to do about it by passing Senate bills that make global warming a national security issue?

Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with reducing pollution through progressive infrastructure changes (world-wide, not just in the U.S.), but that will take some time to migrate everyone off of the current systems we have in place (you cannot do this overnight, or even in a few years). I don’t like breathing in toxic fumes everyday, nor does my asthmatic wife. So please, if we can reduce pollution, by all means, do it. My issue with the global warming craze though is the rashness of it all. In the twinkling of an eye, major companies, government officials, and others in our society are going green at every turn (what that even means as to how “going green” creates effective changes in the atmosphere, how there is a direct correlation to global warming, I have no idea). This just sounds like a marketing ploy to me to get you to buy their products, or vote for them, which is highly deceitful in my opinion.

Global warming is happening, but man may only be contributing to a very small percentage of the actual change in the global temperature. Should we stop polluting? Sure. But how are we going to create effective change at the industrial level, the place it matters the most for the global atmosphere? But even then, total green house gases (CO, CO2 and CH4) account for only 2% of the total of atmospheric gases. And of that, man is contributing a very small amount (something like 2% from what I’ve heard). So instead of being so rash and going from one extreme to another, maybe we should allocate most of our time, money and resources to preventing some of the catastrophes that may result from the indisputable rising temperatures instead of limiting any and everything within our infrastructure that makes our society run. “Going green” in every sector of the economy does not seem very effective. This is the natural tendency of man, to swing from one extreme to another. Again, hear me out in case you missed my position (because that seems to happen to almost every conservative I speak with about this): the Earth IS warming, but man IS PROBABLY NOT causing a majority of it.

Daylight Savings Time Change Was Apparently for Nothing

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlene … amp;rpc=22

The original intent of the change was to save on energy, not to give us an extra hour of light (though that was a benefit, at least to me). But now this article indicates that the supposed drop in energy consumption that would result has not occurred. In fact it appears people are using about the same amount of energy, just in the morning now instead of the evening. It would be nice if the energy department would have done some actual planning before imposing infrastructure-wide changes on the entire nations IT systems. I mean I can’t tell you how many machines I had to update to comply with the new change. And that takes time, and time on the job takes money, and think of how many systems exist in this nation that had to be changed and how many people had to be paid to update them. That’s a lot of money that was spent in vain. Just frustrating, but oh well. Not the end of the world, and besides, I like the extra hour of light in the early part of spring anyway. My point is basically about the planning of our government institutions … and some people really believe more government is the answer to our social issues? Hmmm … let’s take this as an example of how inefficient that would be. I mean consider this type of planning on issues that are a little more important than DST.

Interesting to See How This Turns Out

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/16759271.htm

Iran Failed to Meet the Deadline … Now What?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253742,00.html

Oh wait, I know … let’s make another UN Security Council resolution and set another deadline :] seems to be working so effectively as it is.

Libertarianism: Looking into it a bit

Question and Answer Quotes taken from http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/libertarianism.html

A4. How do libertarians differ from “liberals”?

Once upon a time (in the 1800s), “liberal” and “libertarian” meant the same thing; “liberals” were individualist, distrustful of state power, pro-free-market, and opposed to the entrenched privilege of the feudal and mercantilist system. After 1870, the “liberals” were gradually seduced (primarily by the Fabian socialists) into believing that the state could and should be used to guarantee “social justice”. They largely forgot about individual freedom, especially economic freedom, and nowadays spend most of their time justifying higher taxes, bigger government, and more regulation. Libertarians call this socialism without the brand label and want no part of it.

A5. How do libertarians differ from “conservatives”?

For starters, by not being conservative. Most libertarians have no interest in returning to an idealized past. More generally, libertarians hold no brief for the right wing’s rather overt militarist, racist, sexist, and authoritarian tendencies and reject conservative attempts to “legislate morality” with censorship, drug laws, and obnoxious Bible-thumping. Though libertarians believe in free-enterprise capitalism, we also refuse to stooge for the military-industrial complex as conservatives are wont to do.

————————

It seems to me they really have a point on the latter paragraph, some of the exact same stuff Hendryx himself has said about Christians’ “legislating morality” (particularly in his debate with a self-proclaimed postmodern secularist). All it does is restrain people’s hearts, it doesn’t change them (Keller). The law doesn’t fix dead hearts, the Gospel and preaching God’s grace alone does and can go where the law can’t. Libertarians also reject all of the big-business tendencies of conservatives where monopolies like Exxon can make their billions and hoard it. I’ve always had a huge problem with that, while at the same time having a problem with the redistribution of wealth proposed by liberals (two extremes in my opinion). This seems to be an answer to that by not mingling business with politics and privatizing most services (which I’ve always been for), though I also know that is easier said than done.

Basically it seems their conclusion is that within the context of where we are socially in this day in age, traditional conservative approaches to things just won’t work anymore (which I don’t really disagree with), but they also reject the communist tendencies of modern liberalism which I definitely like. And though on the site they talk about most libertarians supporting abortion rights (which is obviously a big concern for me) there apparently is also a growing trend of libertarians who can’t stand it and find it detestable (infanticide). I think this is definitely worth looking into … I mean though it has flaws (which what fallen human institution doesn’t), it rejects the legalistic hypocrisy of conservatives (legislating morality) and the legalistic social communism of liberals.

OnTheIssues.org

http://www.ontheissues.org/

If you have no clue about the political convictions of upcoming candidates for public offices as well as current leaders in our government and their stance on various issues, this site is very helpful in showing where they stand. For each issue, they use quotations of the candidate/leader so they’re not just shooting in the dark and speculating; this can be very helpful for you to determine who you like based on the issues and not whether he or she is simply a charismatic type of leader who grabs your attention.

Page 15 of 19

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén