Giving away something for nothing doesn't work?

I'm shocked...SHOCKED that "Cash for Clunkers" is going broke after 4 days. Who knew that giving away money for nothing would attract so many takers? Keep in mind that the entity doing this is the government; they CANNOT CREATE REVENUE! They can only redistribute it or curtail spending. Unlike the private sector, they have no mechanism for creating revenue.

The program — aimed at giving at boost to the U.S. auto industry — was supposed to expire at the end of October. But in the one week since it took effect, it appears to have run dry of the $1 billion allocated to it, aides said Thursday.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25638.html


Any predictions on what will happen with government run health care?

Faith-based economics

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/27/new-dem-strategy-on-obamacare-ignore-the-evidence-and-just-trust-us/

When you're congressman comes home

Ask him/her a simple question: Did you read it? Congress' recent tendency to vote before reading legislation gives new meaning to the word "irresponsible."





h/t Matt Lewis

Yes, there's still racism in America

Much ado is being made over the arrest of African-American Harvard professor, Henry Gates and President Obama's subsequent comment that the police acted "stupidly." After reading and listening to the "back and forth" on this issue for a few days, I have a few observations:

Yes, racism still exists in America. It always will. As long as people prejudge based on differences, racism of all stripes will exist. The question is whether or not racism was a part of this occasion, the arrest of a black Harvard professor by a white Cambridge cop. I'd say the evidence suggests that racism has definitely reared its ugly head in this case.

Gates, a tenured professor at a prestigious American university, was attempting to "jimmy" the door to his own home, along with his driver. Apparently, he had forgotten his keys. The police were summoned and Sgt. James Crowley, a white Cambridge police officer answered the call.

Crowley, noticing the "suspects" were already in the home, asked them to exit the house and identify themselves. Gates, according to reports, became irate, feeling that he was being "profiled" and beligerently refused. He was at this point arrested.

Now, let's examine where the racism is present. For the sake of argument, let's work with the long-standing liberal definition of racism, that it constitutes prejudicial treatment or oppression by a majority in power toward a minority.

Gates and Obama apparently want us to hop in the "way-back machine" and pretend Cambridge is stuck in 1964. But that's not the case here. Crowley responded to the scene alone and handled the situation by the book. He was presented with a possible home burglary and asked the suspects to come outside to identify themselves. What else was he supposed to do? Take Gates word that he was the homeowner? Go inside by himself to investigate? No in both cases.

Instead of being grateful that someone in his neighborhood noticed his house being disturbed and that the police responded so quickly, Gates immediately and and beligerently assumed a racist motive. That's what precipitated his arrest. And before we start down the sympathetic "plight of the black man fighting for respect in America" road, let's look at who Gates is:

He's a tenured professor at arguably the most prestigious university in the country. He and his DRIVER were trying to gain entrance into his upscale home in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Recounting his hearing of Obama's comments, Gates had this to say:

"I was having dinner with a friend on the upper East Side in a little private Italian restaurant, and all of a sudden I thought my BlackBerry was going to explode,'' Gates said. A friend called saying "Barack Obama just mentioned you in his news conference.''
"I said, 'Oh my goodness, what did he say?'... 'He said the Cambridge police were stupid and that you were friends'...'I went, My God.' And then the emails...it was like a slot machine. I got 500 emails last night. ''

Not exactly Medgar Evers now is it? And it gets better. Apparently Sgt. Crowley is no ordinary Cambridge cop. He teaches a class, with a black officer, on racial profiling for the Lowell Police Department.

“He’s a very professional police officer and he’s a good role model,” Fleming (Lowell PA director) said. “Former police commissioner Ronny Watson, who is a person of color, hand-picked Sgt. Crowley. ... I presume because he would be the most qualified and most professional. He’s a very good instructor. He gets very high reviews by the students.”

So let's review. An African-American professor accuses a white beat cop of racism. Our African-American president, admitting he did not know all the facts, claimed that the police acted "stupidly" in the situation. There is no doubt in my mind that racism has played a major role in this situation. Both Gates and Obama clearly have used their status and positions of power to unnecessarily scapegoat and criticize a beat cop from a different racial background. Both men prejudged Sgt. Crowley's actions based on the color of his skin.

Yes, racism is still alive and well in America.

New game to play during Obama press conferences

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDYzZGIxNGI5MjA1MjI3ZDMyNjJkYjExMzk4MDliZGM=

Pendulum Swings Part II: The Swing to the Left

The Church is not immune from its human frailties, one of which is reactionary behavior in response to a problem. Yesterday, we discussed some of the divisive issues behind those who are mired in a such a conservative position, they refuse to even consider change and label those who engage in healthy change based on their presuppositions. Today, let's take a look at the other extreme: those who have grown dissatisfied with the status quo and have taken up an opposite extreme as their opposition.

Simple reason should readily tell us that merely taking up opposition to one position does not lead to the truth, yet our human nature often leads us into this state which I have labeled "rebels without a clue." We see it in generation after generation of youth. Dissatisfied or disillusioned with their parents' way of life, they take up camp on the opposite shore, reactively opposing the established positions. Of course they don't examine whether or not these new positions are any more or less desirable than those of their parents. Whatever doesn't look like the old must be better. This is fallacious on its face.

The church has engaged in this practice for centuries now. While the objections to a variety of scriptural inconsistencies over the years have been valid, the solutions have often emulated those of the reactive child. In the process, we've often "thrown the baby out with the bathwater."

In contrast, look at the model of change proposed by Jesus. Faced with the Pharisees' bastardization of Mosaic Law, Jesus proposed not a reactive flight from their ways, but a "radical reunion" based on the core truths expressed in God's law. The Pharisees constantly tried to trap Jesus with legal conundrums. Jesus never rejected the Law; He reminded His audience of their departure from the spirit behind its existence. This can best be seen when Jesus was asked which law was most important. Rather than reactively opposing the Pharisees, Jesus went back to the core of the truth handed down by the Father: "Love the Lord your God, and love your neighbor as yourself. On these two principles rest all the other commandments." (Luke 10:27) Moreover, Jesus went out of His way to let His audience know that He was not proposing reactive change in Matthew 5:18:

For truly, I say to you,until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

In our search for His truth, we must be careful not just to get "stuck" in traditions, stubbornly refusing change. But we must also not simply bounce like pinballs, reacting to inaccuracies, both real and perceived. We must study the scripture and focus on the core message of the gospel. Then we can evaluate our practices in a mature, Christlike fashion. This will bring us closer to Him and to one another.

Pendulum Swings

During my recent "vacation," I had the occasion to read two books which illustrate the extremes which promote dissonance within the Body of Christ in our contemporary culture. David Miller's Piloting the Straits attempts to address "change" occurring within the churches of Christ and how conscientious Christians, in his estimation, must fight those changes. Though published in 1996, the issues Miller confronts are still highly conflictual today. The other book was unChristian by David Kinnaman. Kinnaman, from the Barna group, Christendom's answer to the Gallup organization, looks at market research data to examine why younger generations are leaving Christianity and not coming back. This book, published in 2007, causes the reader to come to grips with some hard realities regarding how Christians are perceived by outsiders.

One of the major pieces of feedback cited in Kinnaman's book is the perception that Christians "devour their own." That perception is borne out by the data shown in his book, but also is evident in Miller's approach to change in the church. The essence of Miller's argument is to contend that deviation from church of Christ "orthodoxy" is heresy and that such agents of change are motivated by ungodly desires and should be combated and resisted. In the course of making his arguments, Miller claims a highly logical ground. Indeed, Miller's work is full of references, scriptural citations, direct quotations, and syllogistic reasoning. Unfortunately, the great majority of Miller's arguments are fallacious as they begin with two false assumptions that provide the foundation of his resistance to change:

1. Miller assumes that "necessary inference" is on par with scriptural commands and direct examples. This is patently false. Inferences, by their very nature, are human interpretations, and thus subject to debate and disagreement. That Miller would elevate his own inferences to be on the same level with direct commands and examples from Jesus is the height of arrogance.

2. Miller assumes that those who share his opinions are motivated by pure and holy means, while those who differ with him are motivated by selfish and ungodly desires. In fact, Miller devotes an entire section of his book to detailing these evil desires. That Miller professes to be able to judge the hearts of people is again highly arrogant on his part. And once again, these false assumptions are the basis for his syllogisms in the rest of his book.

Especially disturbing is Miller's insistence that promoting change is tantamount to promoting division. This false equivalence enables Miller to proclaim that his faction is preserving the unity of the true church, while the agents of change are bringing division. Hence, there is no need to examine the nature of the proposed changes. We must merely reject change out of hand as being divisive.

This attitude, unfortunately, is all too prevalent within the Church. It has brought fractures to the Body and greatly hampers our ability to serve the world that so desperately needs our unified efforts.

In succeeding posts, I'll examine the other side of the pendulum swing and how it also brings division as well as attempt to look at some of the particular issues still combating the church.