American Bridge 21st Century is looking to catch politicians acting badly. At least as they see it.
It is very depressing that destroying those that they disagree with, not ideas, is what animates this group. If this is the zeitgeist, then only Jesus Christ can run for office.
2011-07-12
2011-07-10
WWJD
There is a lot of WWJD talk being used to justify policy these days.
While Jesus may not have specified specific tax brackets, He was the first recorded advocate of a progressive income tax.
Obviously, He [Jesus] would take from each according to their ability to pay. That is the clear, Christian, philosophical basis of a progressive income tax.
Jesus Christ's instructions to you could not be more specific. You can follow Christ's path to righteousness or you can follow the path of the damned. The choice is yours.
What would Jesus do this weekend?
In Matthew 25, which is to my recollection, I've only read the Bible four times, but, the only time when the Disciples actually sat down with Jesus and said, "How do we get into heaven?" And He said, "Here's the list. Feed the hungry. Clothe the naked." The modern equivalent would be, you know, house the homeless. "Heal the sick. Visit those unjustly in prison."
Jesus taught we should sell our possessions and give the proceeds to the poor...
Are they advocating for a religious state? One that operates straight from the precepts of Jesus? A theocracy? Christian Sharia law?
Ken Shepherd at NewsBusters does a good job of deconstructing O'Donnell's sermon.
There are a few assumptions that go into these presentations of WWJD that preordain the conclusions drawn by those cited above:
- That Jesus was directing his comments to the state not the individual.
- That the state is the singular method of helping the poor and Christian charity.
- That those who don't think that the government should be the charity arm of the Christian church are mean and selfish.
- It is OK for to judge the motives and eternal salvation of limited government capitalists and the rich.
- There is no room for alternate interpretations.
- The separation of church and state is only meant for 'those other guys.'
...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Those represented in the links above might believe that Jesus mandates that the government be a branch of the church, but this strains credulity since they are all people of the left. Traditionally, those on the left interpret Jefferson's statement to the Danbury Baptists to mean that even a creche cannot be placed in front of a government building or that circumcision is a primitive religious rite that should not be subsidized. Surely, if placing a creche in front of the courthouse next to Santa and his reindeer creates church/state entanglement, using the government to carry out a central doctrine of the Christian church is problematic. In the past, the left was satisfied with merely taking the responsibility away from the church and making it their own without the pretense of religiosity. Apparently that was then and this is now.
In his discussion with Thom Hartmann, Eric Sapp notes that hypocrisy is the only "sin in the New Testament that gets the divine death penalty." One wonders if Mr. O'Donnell will spend 10 minutes Bible thumping to his fellow sojourners on the left about how hard it is to get through the eye of a needle and sure fire methods of avoiding God's wrath, including "Give up everything. Those are the words of Jesus Christ. Give up everything."
It would be the Christian thing to do.
2011-07-08
Debt Reduction
How long would it take to pay down the debt by using corporate jet and oil company tax increases? Charles Krauthammer has done the math.
Ayn Rand and Jesus
Eric Sapp/Thom Hartmann wrestled with the idea of whether one could like anything that Ayn Rand had to say and still be a Christian. It was a discussion aimed at those swing voters who do not have a fixed notion of what they think the role of government should be with respect to charity.
Sapp summed up his thesis by stating:
Conservatives and Christians who gravitate toward the works of Ayn Rand connect with the descriptions of individualism and small government. Sapp and Hartmann's black and white, unnuanced view that one must either take all of Rand's philosophy or none of it is childish. This manner of thought might also prevent Christian progressives from supporting any governmental social programs since such policies fall within the bounds of Marx's teachings.
One would think that these gentlemen of the left would laud the 'big-tent' inclusivity of Christian conservatives that can find some common ground with an unabashed atheist.
Sapp said that he is hoping to engender discussion with the ad campaign by revealing that the fruits and roots of the Republican budget are rotten and not in keeping with Matthew 25 (if fruits are actions, then roots are motives), and that Republican politicized policies are rotten and based on a totally anti Christ message. Surely he doesn't hope that those who see the ad will then vote Republican after considering the anti Christ nature of Republican policies and the evil motives and trickery of those making that policy. He fully intends to persuade those who may have voted Republican to support the Christ centered, kind policies of the left that are in keeping with Matthew 25.
Another subtext in their argument assumes that the vehicle for Christian charity is the government. They offer no Biblical justification for this. It is just assumed.
What is particularly odd about this is that normally those on the political left are hypersensitive to any commingling of church and state. It doesn't seem to bother either of them that the leap from caring for the poor to having the government be the purveyor of that care clearly violates the cherished notion of separation of church and state. If they embrace the idea of the separation of church and state, they should recommend that Christian charity be done by the local churches. If, however, they desire that the government perform this directive of Jesus, then they should acknowledge that they do in fact want to legislate morality and have the government perform their religious duty on behalf of the church.
Sapp and Hartmann must explain how making laws imposing the religious ideals expressed by Jesus either does not establish a religion, or does not prohibit someone from exercising his religious choice (if, for example, his religion does not mandate that he give charity). One suspects that the argument in favor of government imposed religious belief in this case might sound similar to conservative's maintaining that a national day of prayer is not tantamount to government establishing a religion. However, since a day of prayer does not require input from anyone and the imposition of Christian charity mandates the taking of another's earned income, one might expect a more thoroughgoing and rigorous apologetic by Sapp and Hartmann.
However, they might argue that the concept of charity can exist outside of the religious dogma of Christianity and therefore isn't exclusively a religious teaching but rather a universal ideal. Of course, if this is the case for charity, it is also the case for the ideals that religious conservatives identify with in Ayn Rand's writings. Just as an atheist is not compelled to eschew the economic policies of a devoutly religious liberal, a religious conservative does not need to be bullied into abandoning ideas about limited government because the atheist Ayn Rand also shared those beliefs. And the thoughtful person is able to discriminate and is in no way obligated to accept or embrace every idea promulgated by any author. In other words, they are free to eat the hay and leave the sticks.
The throw the baby out with the bathwater approach suggested by Sapp and Hartmann is so inane that it hardly merits a response. But they present it in such a smooth and confident manner that is passes as sophisticated thought. Presented without critical review, this argument will likely persuade some voters who are not secure in their own world view.
Just as honorable liberals can favor a political economy that seeks equalization of wealth through redistributive policies without embracing the uglier aspects of Communism, so a conservative can favor a political economy that seeks competitive markets with minimal government intrusion without embracing the uglier aspects of Objectivism.
Chuck Colson video on Atlas Shrugged
BreakPoint Commentary
American Spectator
Sapp summed up his thesis by stating:
People who say, "well, I'm a Christian and I can follow Ayn Rand." Well, by definition you can't, because Ayn Rand taught you can't follow her and follow Christ.What an amazingly puerile, vacuous and facile statement. To be sure, there are problems with the Objectivist philosophy. Ayn Rand's view of the world relies too heavily on individual integrity to work. There are dark and ugly traits in man that will prevent the absolute capitalism that she envisions. The corrupt and lazy would certainly ruin it for the rest.
Conservatives and Christians who gravitate toward the works of Ayn Rand connect with the descriptions of individualism and small government. Sapp and Hartmann's black and white, unnuanced view that one must either take all of Rand's philosophy or none of it is childish. This manner of thought might also prevent Christian progressives from supporting any governmental social programs since such policies fall within the bounds of Marx's teachings.
One would think that these gentlemen of the left would laud the 'big-tent' inclusivity of Christian conservatives that can find some common ground with an unabashed atheist.
Sapp said that he is hoping to engender discussion with the ad campaign by revealing that the fruits and roots of the Republican budget are rotten and not in keeping with Matthew 25 (if fruits are actions, then roots are motives), and that Republican politicized policies are rotten and based on a totally anti Christ message. Surely he doesn't hope that those who see the ad will then vote Republican after considering the anti Christ nature of Republican policies and the evil motives and trickery of those making that policy. He fully intends to persuade those who may have voted Republican to support the Christ centered, kind policies of the left that are in keeping with Matthew 25.
Another subtext in their argument assumes that the vehicle for Christian charity is the government. They offer no Biblical justification for this. It is just assumed.
What is particularly odd about this is that normally those on the political left are hypersensitive to any commingling of church and state. It doesn't seem to bother either of them that the leap from caring for the poor to having the government be the purveyor of that care clearly violates the cherished notion of separation of church and state. If they embrace the idea of the separation of church and state, they should recommend that Christian charity be done by the local churches. If, however, they desire that the government perform this directive of Jesus, then they should acknowledge that they do in fact want to legislate morality and have the government perform their religious duty on behalf of the church.
Sapp and Hartmann must explain how making laws imposing the religious ideals expressed by Jesus either does not establish a religion, or does not prohibit someone from exercising his religious choice (if, for example, his religion does not mandate that he give charity). One suspects that the argument in favor of government imposed religious belief in this case might sound similar to conservative's maintaining that a national day of prayer is not tantamount to government establishing a religion. However, since a day of prayer does not require input from anyone and the imposition of Christian charity mandates the taking of another's earned income, one might expect a more thoroughgoing and rigorous apologetic by Sapp and Hartmann.
However, they might argue that the concept of charity can exist outside of the religious dogma of Christianity and therefore isn't exclusively a religious teaching but rather a universal ideal. Of course, if this is the case for charity, it is also the case for the ideals that religious conservatives identify with in Ayn Rand's writings. Just as an atheist is not compelled to eschew the economic policies of a devoutly religious liberal, a religious conservative does not need to be bullied into abandoning ideas about limited government because the atheist Ayn Rand also shared those beliefs. And the thoughtful person is able to discriminate and is in no way obligated to accept or embrace every idea promulgated by any author. In other words, they are free to eat the hay and leave the sticks.
The throw the baby out with the bathwater approach suggested by Sapp and Hartmann is so inane that it hardly merits a response. But they present it in such a smooth and confident manner that is passes as sophisticated thought. Presented without critical review, this argument will likely persuade some voters who are not secure in their own world view.
Just as honorable liberals can favor a political economy that seeks equalization of wealth through redistributive policies without embracing the uglier aspects of Communism, so a conservative can favor a political economy that seeks competitive markets with minimal government intrusion without embracing the uglier aspects of Objectivism.
Chuck Colson video on Atlas Shrugged
BreakPoint Commentary
American Spectator
It's touching how liberal, religiously pluralistic groups like Faithful America and American Values Network are suddenly very concerned that Christians specifically remain faithful to the Bible and to Jesus. Their respective boards are populated with activists and clergy not themselves known for careful adherence to Christian orthodoxy.The Atlantic
But calling Ayn Rand "brilliant," as Rush Limbaugh is quoted doing, or labeling yourself "a fan" of her work, like Rand Paul, doesn't mean that you embrace every tenet of her philosophy, never mind her every statement about Jesus Christ or the Christian religion.Eric Sapp in The Huffington Post
It uncovers the heartless GOP and Tea Party wolves who've been parading around in sheep's clothing among the Christian flock, leading them astray.
2011-07-05
2011-07-04
Independence Day
Let the American youth never forget, that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils, and sufferings, and blood of their ancestors; and capacity, if wisely improved, and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to their latest posterity all the substantial blessings of life, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property, religion, and independence.
~Joseph Story
It is unfortunate that Indepedence Day is often reduced to fireworks and barbeques.
America is a collection of humans facing an ideal. No person, and therefore group of people, is perfect. And we will never be perfect. But we establish ideals to guide us and act as guardrails for our behavior. Just because the humans within the system of ideals have stumbled along the way, doesn't mean the system is faulty. Those that are constantly judging the American system by the behavior of some of the participants seem short sighted to me. Complaining that Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite for having written that all men are created equal and yet held slaves in a time when no other system existed seems to miss much of the nuance of the times.
Would they rather that he and the other founders not have made the statement at all, thereby lengthening the emancipation timeline? Or do they expect perfection from everyone at the end of their pointed finger while forgetting that they themselves may fall short of ideals from time to time? Dr. King, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are all imperfect progenitors of the American ideal. So are you and I. It is hard for me to imagine that those that think in this way will ever have a spiritual leader, mentor, or country to which they look up to since they will forever be fixated on the imperfections of those who aspire.
America aspires.
Most nations are formed by tribalism – association by ethnicity or race. In America the association is based on ideas. Look around and try to identify an American by race and you will quickly see the living example of America's motto, E pluribus unum – from many one. Research how cultures that respect familism prosper if you don't think this is huge.
In America, anyone can voluntarily join the country based on shared ideals. Where you come from does not matter. What matters is where you are headed.
What does an American look like?
The American founders established some ideals. Those ideals were good and they are still good to this day. Part of the American ideal says that every human being is precious irrespective of your origins. Tribalism is no longer the criteria for citizenship.
The founders asserted that every human being is created in God's image and therefore is infinitely precious. That their rights come from a creator not from the creation. That some other human is not the grantor of your rights.
This country created something new.
It is easy to forget the ideals or to believe they are something else. Many are busy twisting and bending the ideal into an ugly cousin of itself. Why not allow the ideal to stand? Can we celebrate the ideal while striving to better our fellow man?
Maybe this 'cup half empty' attitude comes as a result of birthright. We forget to teach the next generation about the ideal and how each and every one of us is responsible to lend a hand in making progress toward that ideal. Sometimes I wonder what this country would look like if US citizenship by birth was not allowed for anyone – that each of us had to return to our ethnic tribe and then apply for US citizenship. Would gratitude be more prevalent? Would we be better at imparting patriotism and the American story to the next generations? Would we be more willing to give than receive? Are those who grapple to get in more appreciative?
Do we look a gift horse in the mouth?
America was and is an aberration in the world. America can and does die for other's liberty like nobody else on this planet. America is unique and should be treated as a precious gift to humanity. Each and every American should express gratitude for the luck of being born into it.
America is bigger than you and it is bigger than me. Let's humble ourselves a bit in remembrance of all those that have participated in this idea that is America.
Let's not take for granted the extraordinary experiment that is the United States of America.
2011-07-01
Cigarette Moralizing
Government Selects Graphic Photos to Deter Smokers
Since moralizing is to be foisted on cigarette companies, should photos of naked obese people be put on fast food packaging; horrific crash scenes on cars and alcohol; aborted fetuses at planned parenthood; horribly mamed and disfigured burn victims on your electric bill and at the gas pump; and awful tooth decay on candy an soda?
How can it be legal to force a producer of a legal product to place messages against the use of its products on the packaging? If anti abortion activists pulled this stunt it would be called legislating morality. What is it called when anti-smoking zealots do it? Goodness? And if so, why wouldn't it be called goodness if anti-abortion activists did it?
If morality is defined as principles of right or wrong behavior – and it is – then much of the law is legislated morality. Anti-slavery, abortion, flag burning, choice of light bulbs, taxation, welfare, corporate welfare, same sex marriage, education, environmentalism – the list is endless - are all impositions of morality.
But there are a fair number of people who think that the imposition of their mores is anything but legislating morality. If we ever say "such and such is right (or wrong), there should be a law," we are imposing our moral views on others.
Other than an opinion about the rightness and wrongness of the issue, on what basis does somebody tell another person that they have earned enough money? On what basis other than morality would money in excess of some arbitrary number be taken? And if we should decide to make a person work for the benefit of others because it is virtuous to help our fellow man, at what point does that become immoral? If we demand the work without payment wouldn't that become slavery? Wouldn't that be immoral? Similarly, if I demand payment without working would that not be theft and immoral? And is everything short of slavery moral? Why are minimum wage laws imposed? Why do workers unionize and expend such effort to secure higher wages and benefits? To satisfy their greed? Or because they think it is wrong to deny workers the fruits of their labor? And other than calling to some sense of morality, what does "doesn't pay their fair share" mean? Is fairness a moral concept? So clearly taxation, minimum wages and worker rights laws are legislating morality.
If limiting access to abortion is legislating morality, then limiting access to guns is as well. Whether or not one believes that either is a murderer's tool or an individual's right to choose.
Laws are the codification and imposition of mores on the public at large. Laws dictate our preferences for behavior to our fellow citizens. I am a bit perplexed when those who are busy lobbying for the imposition of their sense of right and wrong deny that they are legislating morality.
Using one accounting of the California cigarette tax as an example, the taxes on a pack of cigarettes were doled out as follows:
$0.10 to the general fund;
$0.02 to the Breast Cancer Research Fund;
$0.25 was divvied up between:
-tobacco-related health education programs and disease research;
-Medical and hospital care and treatment of patients who cannot afford those services, and for whom payment will not be made by any private coverage or federal program;
-and programs for fire prevention; environmental conservation; protection, restoration, enhancement, and maintenance of fish, waterfowl, and wildlife habitat areas; and enhancement of state and local parks and recreation.
$0.50 to programs that encourage proper childhood development, including the development of professional and parental education and training, informed selection of childcare, development and education of childcare providers, and research into the best practices and standards for all programs and services relating to early childhood development.
So by my reckoning, 71.2% of the money is used for non-tobacco related stuff. Some portion of the remaining 28.7% was used for tobacco-related health education programs and disease research – not care and treatment of tobacco related illness. The balance of that 28.7% was used for non-tobacco related stuff (unless some portion of the second item included some smokers that happened to be poor, without health insurance and did not receive any other federal public assistance thereby qualifying for that portion).
Again, there is a moral component here. Every tobacco user is compelled to contribute to these nice programs, but should that be the purpose of this sin tax? Is it moral to saddle tobacco users with a portion of the cost of maintaining fish, waterfowl and wildlife habitat? Especially since lower income people make up a higher percentage of smokers?
The point is that somebody thought it was ok – nay right and proper – nay nay moral – to take a portion of smoker's income to fund state parks. That is the imposition of moral conduct on, at least, the smoking population. (That is, if you agree that spending money on parks is a good thing.) Maybe a more moral position would have been to use all of the money to help defer the medical costs associated with smoking. At least it would have been relevant.
I'm just not certain that this is a right (read: moral) way to get the money for fish. And if the argument is "who cares what the money is used for as long as we use the tax system to eliminate the evil of smoking," then I am even more dubious. If the product is so detrimental, make it illegal. That would be more honorable by my way of thinking than using the tax code to eliminate morally objectionable behaviors. Or apply all of the tax as a user's fee to cover the cost of medical care for smokers.
Do you really want those that you don't agree with using the tax-it-out-of-existence device to go after something you agree with? Or would you rather they use moral suasion and not use the tax code to impose their ideas?
There is nothing wrong with being animated by moral concerns – we should all be. I am just lobbying for telling the truth about our intentions. I want to impose my sense of right and wrong on the political process and so does everybody else.
Many people try to frighten Americans by saying that some want to impose their morality on others. No kidding. All participants in politics want to impose on others as much of their morality as possible. To the degree they have their way, it will be through democratic processes. And one or the other's morality will prevail, and be imposed.
Since moralizing is to be foisted on cigarette companies, should photos of naked obese people be put on fast food packaging; horrific crash scenes on cars and alcohol; aborted fetuses at planned parenthood; horribly mamed and disfigured burn victims on your electric bill and at the gas pump; and awful tooth decay on candy an soda?
How can it be legal to force a producer of a legal product to place messages against the use of its products on the packaging? If anti abortion activists pulled this stunt it would be called legislating morality. What is it called when anti-smoking zealots do it? Goodness? And if so, why wouldn't it be called goodness if anti-abortion activists did it?
If morality is defined as principles of right or wrong behavior – and it is – then much of the law is legislated morality. Anti-slavery, abortion, flag burning, choice of light bulbs, taxation, welfare, corporate welfare, same sex marriage, education, environmentalism – the list is endless - are all impositions of morality.
But there are a fair number of people who think that the imposition of their mores is anything but legislating morality. If we ever say "such and such is right (or wrong), there should be a law," we are imposing our moral views on others.
Other than an opinion about the rightness and wrongness of the issue, on what basis does somebody tell another person that they have earned enough money? On what basis other than morality would money in excess of some arbitrary number be taken? And if we should decide to make a person work for the benefit of others because it is virtuous to help our fellow man, at what point does that become immoral? If we demand the work without payment wouldn't that become slavery? Wouldn't that be immoral? Similarly, if I demand payment without working would that not be theft and immoral? And is everything short of slavery moral? Why are minimum wage laws imposed? Why do workers unionize and expend such effort to secure higher wages and benefits? To satisfy their greed? Or because they think it is wrong to deny workers the fruits of their labor? And other than calling to some sense of morality, what does "doesn't pay their fair share" mean? Is fairness a moral concept? So clearly taxation, minimum wages and worker rights laws are legislating morality.
If limiting access to abortion is legislating morality, then limiting access to guns is as well. Whether or not one believes that either is a murderer's tool or an individual's right to choose.
Laws are the codification and imposition of mores on the public at large. Laws dictate our preferences for behavior to our fellow citizens. I am a bit perplexed when those who are busy lobbying for the imposition of their sense of right and wrong deny that they are legislating morality.
Using one accounting of the California cigarette tax as an example, the taxes on a pack of cigarettes were doled out as follows:
$0.10 to the general fund;
$0.02 to the Breast Cancer Research Fund;
$0.25 was divvied up between:
-tobacco-related health education programs and disease research;
-Medical and hospital care and treatment of patients who cannot afford those services, and for whom payment will not be made by any private coverage or federal program;
-and programs for fire prevention; environmental conservation; protection, restoration, enhancement, and maintenance of fish, waterfowl, and wildlife habitat areas; and enhancement of state and local parks and recreation.
$0.50 to programs that encourage proper childhood development, including the development of professional and parental education and training, informed selection of childcare, development and education of childcare providers, and research into the best practices and standards for all programs and services relating to early childhood development.
So by my reckoning, 71.2% of the money is used for non-tobacco related stuff. Some portion of the remaining 28.7% was used for tobacco-related health education programs and disease research – not care and treatment of tobacco related illness. The balance of that 28.7% was used for non-tobacco related stuff (unless some portion of the second item included some smokers that happened to be poor, without health insurance and did not receive any other federal public assistance thereby qualifying for that portion).
Again, there is a moral component here. Every tobacco user is compelled to contribute to these nice programs, but should that be the purpose of this sin tax? Is it moral to saddle tobacco users with a portion of the cost of maintaining fish, waterfowl and wildlife habitat? Especially since lower income people make up a higher percentage of smokers?
The point is that somebody thought it was ok – nay right and proper – nay nay moral – to take a portion of smoker's income to fund state parks. That is the imposition of moral conduct on, at least, the smoking population. (That is, if you agree that spending money on parks is a good thing.) Maybe a more moral position would have been to use all of the money to help defer the medical costs associated with smoking. At least it would have been relevant.
I'm just not certain that this is a right (read: moral) way to get the money for fish. And if the argument is "who cares what the money is used for as long as we use the tax system to eliminate the evil of smoking," then I am even more dubious. If the product is so detrimental, make it illegal. That would be more honorable by my way of thinking than using the tax code to eliminate morally objectionable behaviors. Or apply all of the tax as a user's fee to cover the cost of medical care for smokers.
Do you really want those that you don't agree with using the tax-it-out-of-existence device to go after something you agree with? Or would you rather they use moral suasion and not use the tax code to impose their ideas?
There is nothing wrong with being animated by moral concerns – we should all be. I am just lobbying for telling the truth about our intentions. I want to impose my sense of right and wrong on the political process and so does everybody else.
Many people try to frighten Americans by saying that some want to impose their morality on others. No kidding. All participants in politics want to impose on others as much of their morality as possible. To the degree they have their way, it will be through democratic processes. And one or the other's morality will prevail, and be imposed.
2011-05-02
Bin Laden, William and Kate
In the past few days we have had two examples of events that illuminate the need for happiness. However, there are many who seem to be in an active campaign against happiness.
Some were cynical about the royal wedding and poo-pooed it as trivial and a waste of money. But why wouldn't we revel in something that is primarily happy and sweet?
There are many reasons to, at the very least, allow ourselves to crack a smile about the wedding. Just witnessing a marriage in Western Europe that invoked God and occurred in a church is somewhat of a rarity that should please many. It was a healthy societal event. And given that most news is awful, this was a brief respite from the constant drumbeat of unpleasant world events. To see a young couple commit to each other in front of millions who wished them well certainly induced happiness in the world.
And for the less emotionally inclined among us, the amount of human excellence that went into this wedding was phenomenal. And the celebration of such handiwork is appropriate. The dress making, the uniforms, the architecture, the ceremony, the music, the voices, the aviation, the horsemanship, the carriage craftsmanship. The best in all of these arenas was on display during the wedding. In a world where beauty has been taken over by the provocative in the arts, this artful demonstration was a breath of fresh air. It was elevating rather than debasing.
Sometimes a cynicism and machismo often stands in the way of enjoying events such as this and many of us (and I include myself) reflexively won't allow ourselves to revel in the moment of such events.
And then along comes a story that appears to be sufficiently manly that those of us less inclined towards ladies' hats can rally around; bin Laden has been killed. With a similar fervor to the fawning media that prattled on and on about Kate's dress, pundits are carefully dissecting every stitch and detail of bin Laden's death.
His death was satisfying. It was necessary. It was punitive. It was vengeance. It was the appropriate application of the death penalty by those in the world who are interested in justice. It was good – good to remove from the earth such an active enemy of goodness and happiness.
Goodness is harder to come by than evil and usually requires the concerted efforts of large portions of the population. Evil can be done in wide swaths by very few people. Consider the evil done to so many families and individuals by bin Laden and his small band of haters. And contrast that to the multi-year effort by so many in the US Armed Forces required to stop one purveyor of evil.
What does all of this talk of happiness and these two wildly different stories have in common? I do not suspect that bin Laden was a happy man. Happy people don't do the sorts of things he did or encouraged.
People are largely the product of what they ingest. This is true nutritionally, emotionally and spiritually. And in general, we are as happy as we allow ourselves to be. So allow yourself and others to ingest the happiness surrounding such apparently trivial events as a royal wedding. Crack a smile.
Then understand that seeing such large scale acts of goodness tells you something about the society from which it comes. There is an underlying happiness that is expressed in the celebration. Those cultures are beacons for goodness in the world and stand in opposition to cultures and philosophies that breed and encourage hate and acts of evil.
Be grateful that you live in a happy culture.
Some were cynical about the royal wedding and poo-pooed it as trivial and a waste of money. But why wouldn't we revel in something that is primarily happy and sweet?
There are many reasons to, at the very least, allow ourselves to crack a smile about the wedding. Just witnessing a marriage in Western Europe that invoked God and occurred in a church is somewhat of a rarity that should please many. It was a healthy societal event. And given that most news is awful, this was a brief respite from the constant drumbeat of unpleasant world events. To see a young couple commit to each other in front of millions who wished them well certainly induced happiness in the world.
And for the less emotionally inclined among us, the amount of human excellence that went into this wedding was phenomenal. And the celebration of such handiwork is appropriate. The dress making, the uniforms, the architecture, the ceremony, the music, the voices, the aviation, the horsemanship, the carriage craftsmanship. The best in all of these arenas was on display during the wedding. In a world where beauty has been taken over by the provocative in the arts, this artful demonstration was a breath of fresh air. It was elevating rather than debasing.
Sometimes a cynicism and machismo often stands in the way of enjoying events such as this and many of us (and I include myself) reflexively won't allow ourselves to revel in the moment of such events.
And then along comes a story that appears to be sufficiently manly that those of us less inclined towards ladies' hats can rally around; bin Laden has been killed. With a similar fervor to the fawning media that prattled on and on about Kate's dress, pundits are carefully dissecting every stitch and detail of bin Laden's death.
His death was satisfying. It was necessary. It was punitive. It was vengeance. It was the appropriate application of the death penalty by those in the world who are interested in justice. It was good – good to remove from the earth such an active enemy of goodness and happiness.
Goodness is harder to come by than evil and usually requires the concerted efforts of large portions of the population. Evil can be done in wide swaths by very few people. Consider the evil done to so many families and individuals by bin Laden and his small band of haters. And contrast that to the multi-year effort by so many in the US Armed Forces required to stop one purveyor of evil.
What does all of this talk of happiness and these two wildly different stories have in common? I do not suspect that bin Laden was a happy man. Happy people don't do the sorts of things he did or encouraged.
People are largely the product of what they ingest. This is true nutritionally, emotionally and spiritually. And in general, we are as happy as we allow ourselves to be. So allow yourself and others to ingest the happiness surrounding such apparently trivial events as a royal wedding. Crack a smile.
Then understand that seeing such large scale acts of goodness tells you something about the society from which it comes. There is an underlying happiness that is expressed in the celebration. Those cultures are beacons for goodness in the world and stand in opposition to cultures and philosophies that breed and encourage hate and acts of evil.
Be grateful that you live in a happy culture.
2011-04-27
2011-04-22
Where Are the Climate Refugees?
GlobalWarming.org article.
Today’s (pre-Earth Day) edition of the Wall Street Journal reports that the 50 million climate refugees did not materialize. In fact, many of the places UNEP supposed would be hardest hit by global warming are rapidly gaining population!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)