Ready to Drive a Smart Car or a Mini Cooper?
Don’t
get me wrong. If you choose to purchase and drive a Smart Car or a
Mini Cooper then by all means please feel free to do so. I believe
everyone should be able to drive the car of their dreams whether it is a
muscle car, a big SUV, a luxury automobile, a study sedan, or whatever
you choose. That’s what freedom is all about, that’s what being an
American is all about, or at least has been about until the current
Administration came along.
Sometimes I think the folks who
populate this Administration have rocks in their heads. What are they
thinking? Why are they so intent on reducing the American standard of
living? Where did they get the idea that because America prospers,
others don’t?
Just the opposite is true. The more America
prospers, the more other countries and other peoples benefit. The
United States is the economic engine of the world and if President Obama
succeeds in lowering our standard of American living, other nations and
people all around the globe will suffer accordingly.
Economics
is not a zero sum game. When two free people decide to exchange their
products with each other, both benefit. When a man who builds rocking
chairs and a man who grows oranges live freely, they can decide to
exchange their products and both benefit. The orange grower who wants a
rocking chair and the rocking chair builder who wants to eat oranges
can freely exchange one for another and both smile and benefit. Dollars
are simply a representation of the many goods and services created and
when I use my dollars to buy oranges or a rocking chair, I’m simply
exchanging the value of the goods and services I create for someone
else’s goods and services. It’s all about freedom.
But when
government intervenes and decides that I can only buy certain oranges or
rocking chairs that meet certain specifications, they diminish my
choices and thus my freedom. Government intervention into the
marketplace always diminishes freedom and makes goods and services more
costly. Always. There are no exceptions.
But let’s get back to Smart Cars and Mini Coopers. In the Monday, June 27th edition of the Wall Street Journal, there was an article on page A3 that caught my attention. Titled, Your Mileage May Vary,
this piece announced the White House proposal that the Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards be increased to 56.2 miles per
gallon by 2025. This is a dumb idea for many reasons, but in my book
the worst part of it is the fact that the government wants to once again
reduce your personal freedom. This government, this Administration,
has zero concern about reducing freedom. They just don’t care.
It
means you won’t be able to choose to buy the car or van or truck you
want. Instead, you will be forced to purchase something like a Smart
Car or a Mini Cooper because that will be all the government will allow
to be produced and purchased. That’s an outrage.
It all springs
from the same dumb liberal idea that a small group of self-styled
intellectuals should decide how you should live instead of you deciding
how you should live. It means no more Corvettes, 400 HP Mustangs, no
Suburbans, no SUVs, and no nice big luxury cars (except for the big
government bosses, of course). Just like the Soviet Union, the
government bosses who create nothing, add nothing, and live off of the
efforts of those who do create and build, will live like princes, while
you and I settle for what they decide we shall have the opportunity to
drive.
I said this was a dumb idea for a number of reasons and
it is. Another reason it is dumb is that you cannot legislate or
bureaucratically mandate (since this Administration has a proclivity for
ignoring the Constitution and bypassing Congress) scientific advances.
Legislating or mandating an average gas mileage of 56.2 miles per
gallon simply means smaller, lighter and clearly more dangerous
automobiles. It means driving little, underpowered, undersized
automobiles like they do in Europe. They have already removed spare
tires from new cars just to reduce weight and meet the arbitrary
government CAFE standards.
It’s what Obama wants. He wants you
and me to lower our standard of living by forcing Socialism on us. It
has absolutely nothing to do with pollution or global warming or any
other imagined or real problem. It’s all about control over your life
and mine. He and other self-styled decision makers believe they know
better than you do how you should live.
Obama has made it clear
that he would be delighted if gasoline prices slowly rise to those of
Europe. Earlier this year I was in Italy and the price of gasoline was
$13 (US) per gallon. Much of that cost was related to gargantuan taxes
on gasoline. Regulations like CAFE regulations cost young people and
those just entering the business world more than all the taxes imposed
by big government. It hurts your children and ultimately your
grandchildren more than it does you.
Another thing wrong with
this idea is that today the United States has the world’s largest known
combined reserves of oil and natural gas. That’s known reserves. And
with the advent of fracking, we now have access to billions of cubic
feet of natural gas and billions of gallons of oil (“fracking” refers to
the new process of recovering oil and gas from shale). We have vast
resources in Alaska, offshore and within federally owned land. If
government would get out of the way the price of gas at the pump would
be no more than a dollar per gallon.
There is no purpose
whatsoever to raising the CAFE standards. None. In fact, the very idea
that government can tell a private business how a product it produces
must perform is of questionable Constitutionality. In fact, I suspect
that there is no Constitutional basis for such governmental authority.
But more to the point, the CAFE standards should be eliminated
entirely. If you want to drive a car that burns more gasoline per mile
and I want to buy one that burns less per mile, that’s your business and
my business, not the business of some government busybody.
If
the government would simply get out of the way and let the free market
work, we could see an early return to prosperity. It is unreasonable to
think that a few people, even if they are über smart, can make better
decisions than free people deciding for themselves what to buy, what to
drive, what to wear, what to eat, where to go, and who to worship. It’s
the silliest and most dangerous idea ever conceived by man and it
always leads to serfdom.
The American dream is dying. The idea
of the United States as the land of opportunity is dying. It’s being
killed off by folks who think this nation has prospered by stealing the
wealth of other nations. While Obama can’t blame Americans for
colonialism, he calls us neo-colonists. In other words, we may never
have held colonies, but through our economic might we have raped and
pillaged the wealth of other nations.
It’s nuts, but that’s what
he and his liberal friends believe. They believe that our economic
system has exploited the poor in order for you and me to prosper. The
truth is that the United States of America has been not only the most
free and most prosperous nation in the world, but also the most
compassionate and generous nation in the world. Unique in the history,
we have shared our wealth with other nations as no other people ever
have. We have been peacemakers, while others have been aggressors. And
when, in the lead up to World War II, Germany’s National Socialist
Party (NAZI) attacked their neighbors, we came to their rescue. Then
after WWII the United States of America did something that had never
been done before. We not only gave aid to our allies so they could
rebuild, but we also generously gave aid to our enemies to help them
rebuild. It was totally unprecedented. In fact, while we were
providing help to those in need, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
(USSR) under Stalin enslaved millions of people.
In today’s world there is always a choice—either socialism or freedom. What will that choice be?
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
The Deniers
The Deniers
The Deniers (Richard Vigilante Books 2008) by Lawrence Solomon is a very good book. I doubt that I would agree with Mr. Solomon on any political topic, but this is an amazingly even handed, fair book. The blurb on the dustcover of the book describes Lawrence Solomon as “a world renowned environmentalist, author, and activist [who] has been at the forefront of movements to stop nuclear power expansion and to save the world’s rainforests.” He is active in Energy Probe, a group that not only opposes the development of nuclear power, but also opposes all hydro-electric plant development. This is how Mr. Solomon describes Energy Probe.
“Energy Probe had long been concerned about the global warming issue. We are
primarily advocates of conservation and renewal energy as alternatives to fossil
fuels, large hydro dams, and nuclear power. We are also a peace group concerned
with stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. In the late
1980’s, we also were among the very first organizations in Canada to sound the
alarm on global warming. And both Energy Probe and Probe International
developed proposals for minimizing the threat of global warming.”
Mr. Solomon is, by profession, a columnist with National Post (Toronto) and author of half a dozen books. But, in my mind, what sets Mr. Solomon apart from the pack is his unswerving commitment to fairness and objectivity in writing on this topic.
In this book Mr. Solomon addresses the issue as to whether those who take issue with all or part of the Global Warming debate are “kooks or crooks.” Are they as Al Gore says of them…
“Fifteen percent of the people believe the moon landing was staged on some movie
lot and a somewhat smaller number still believe the earth is flat. They all get
together on a Saturday night and party with the global warming deniers.”
Moreover, Mr. Solomon directly addresses the issue as to whether Global Warming is, as Al Gore and the minions on the left say “settled science.”
As Mr. Solomon accurately points out, “The very term ‘deniers’ is a deliberate reference to the ‘Holocaust deniers’ who defend the Nazi regime by claiming that Jews and their allies faked the Holocaust to slander Hitler.” It is, in other words, a very heavy handed, mean, and slanderous description if the description is untrue.
The book consists primarily of the outcome of interviews with “deniers,” i.e. those who do not believe all of or any of the explanation of global warming is true, or at least that man has caused global warming. It is a fascinating read. And, as Mr. Solomon warns early on, many of these “deniers” disagree with each other.
Here is a partial listing and partial bios of the folks discussed in this book…
* Dr. Edward Wegman. In 1978 became the head of the Mathematical Sciences Division of
Naval Research, coined the phrase computational statistics. He was the original program
director of the basic research program in Ultra High Speed Computing at the Strategic
Defense Initiate’s Innovative Science and Technology Office and is a member of the Board of
The American Statistical Association, a past president of the International Association of
Statistical Computing, and a past chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical
Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences
* Dr. Richard Tol. Dr. Tol is the Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change
and director of the Center for Marine and Atmospheric Sciences at Hamburg University,
principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije University, and adjunct
professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change at
Carnegie Mellon University.
* Dr. Christopher Landsea. He is a research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration, he was chair of the American Meteorological Society’s
Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones and a recipient of the American
Meteorological Society’s Banner I. Miller Award.
* Dr. Duncan Wingham. In 1996 he was appointed chair of the Department of Space and
Climate Physics, University College, London and made head of the Department of Earth
Sciences in 2005. He is a member of the National Environmental Research Council’s
(NERC) Science and Technology Board and Earth Observation Experts Group. He serves
as principal scientist of the European Space Agency CryoSat Satellite Mission.
* Dr. Richard Lindzen. A past professor at the University of Chicago and Harvard, he is the
Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT, a member of the National Academy of
Sciences, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a
member of the National Research Council Board on the Atmospheric Sciences and Climate.
* Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu. Founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the
University of Alaska Fairbanks and has published more than 550 professional journal articles
and authored or co-authored ten books. Twice named one of the “1,000 Most Cited
Scientists” and honored by the Royal Astronomical Society of London, the Japan Academy
of Sciences, and the American Geophysical Union.
* Dr. David Bromwich. Head of the Polar Meteorology Group of the Byrd Polar Research
Center and professor in the Atmospheric Sciences Program at the Department of Geography
of Ohio State University. He is president of the International Commission on Polar
Meteorology, the chair of the Polar DAAC Advisory Group, a member of the Arctic climate
System Study Working Group on Reanalysis, and a past member of the National Academy
of Sciences.
* Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen. Director of the Danish National Space Center. Member of the
Space Research Advisory Committee of the Swedish National Board from 1998 to 2006.
He is author or co-author of some 100 peer reviewed articles and has presented more than
50 invited papers at international conferences.
* Dr. Henrik Svensmark. Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish
National Space Center. Has held post-doctoral positions in physics at the University of
California Berkeley. Recipient of the Knud Hojgaard Anniversary Research Prize.
* Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov. The head of the space research laboratory of the Russian
Academy of Sciences’ Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s
Astrometria project.
* Dr. William Gray. Heads the University’s Tropical Meteorology Project, which publishes
yearly forecasts for tropical storms, named storms, typhoons, hurricanes, and intense
hurricanes.
I think you get the idea. These are some of the most respected scientists in the entire world. But they are just a small representation of the more than 100 world renowned scientists that Mr. Solomon has met or talked with. Each one of them takes issue with some aspect of the idea of man caused global warming and each one of them has world class scientific credentials.
Did their arguments sway Mr. Solomon? They did not. He says in his book…
“Have my deniers convinced me that global warming is all a hoax? They have not,
despite my admiration for the courage and integrity that so many of them display,
and despite their impeccable credentials, I might add, that are often far more
impressive than those of some of the gurus propounding climate-change
catastrophes.”
In regard to global warming, Mr. Solomon concludes…
“It is one environmental concern among many, whose science is far from settled.”
And my last word is, be sure and read this book. It provides an even handed, fair analysis of the theory of man caused global warming. It’s well written, well documented and the science explanations are understandable to a layman of which I am certainly one. Anyone with an open and fair mind will enjoy reading this book. It will challenge you to think. And, at least once in a while, that’s a good thing.
The Deniers (Richard Vigilante Books 2008) by Lawrence Solomon is a very good book. I doubt that I would agree with Mr. Solomon on any political topic, but this is an amazingly even handed, fair book. The blurb on the dustcover of the book describes Lawrence Solomon as “a world renowned environmentalist, author, and activist [who] has been at the forefront of movements to stop nuclear power expansion and to save the world’s rainforests.” He is active in Energy Probe, a group that not only opposes the development of nuclear power, but also opposes all hydro-electric plant development. This is how Mr. Solomon describes Energy Probe.
“Energy Probe had long been concerned about the global warming issue. We are
primarily advocates of conservation and renewal energy as alternatives to fossil
fuels, large hydro dams, and nuclear power. We are also a peace group concerned
with stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. In the late
1980’s, we also were among the very first organizations in Canada to sound the
alarm on global warming. And both Energy Probe and Probe International
developed proposals for minimizing the threat of global warming.”
Mr. Solomon is, by profession, a columnist with National Post (Toronto) and author of half a dozen books. But, in my mind, what sets Mr. Solomon apart from the pack is his unswerving commitment to fairness and objectivity in writing on this topic.
In this book Mr. Solomon addresses the issue as to whether those who take issue with all or part of the Global Warming debate are “kooks or crooks.” Are they as Al Gore says of them…
“Fifteen percent of the people believe the moon landing was staged on some movie
lot and a somewhat smaller number still believe the earth is flat. They all get
together on a Saturday night and party with the global warming deniers.”
Moreover, Mr. Solomon directly addresses the issue as to whether Global Warming is, as Al Gore and the minions on the left say “settled science.”
As Mr. Solomon accurately points out, “The very term ‘deniers’ is a deliberate reference to the ‘Holocaust deniers’ who defend the Nazi regime by claiming that Jews and their allies faked the Holocaust to slander Hitler.” It is, in other words, a very heavy handed, mean, and slanderous description if the description is untrue.
The book consists primarily of the outcome of interviews with “deniers,” i.e. those who do not believe all of or any of the explanation of global warming is true, or at least that man has caused global warming. It is a fascinating read. And, as Mr. Solomon warns early on, many of these “deniers” disagree with each other.
Here is a partial listing and partial bios of the folks discussed in this book…
* Dr. Edward Wegman. In 1978 became the head of the Mathematical Sciences Division of
Naval Research, coined the phrase computational statistics. He was the original program
director of the basic research program in Ultra High Speed Computing at the Strategic
Defense Initiate’s Innovative Science and Technology Office and is a member of the Board of
The American Statistical Association, a past president of the International Association of
Statistical Computing, and a past chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical
Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences
* Dr. Richard Tol. Dr. Tol is the Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change
and director of the Center for Marine and Atmospheric Sciences at Hamburg University,
principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije University, and adjunct
professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change at
Carnegie Mellon University.
* Dr. Christopher Landsea. He is a research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration, he was chair of the American Meteorological Society’s
Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones and a recipient of the American
Meteorological Society’s Banner I. Miller Award.
* Dr. Duncan Wingham. In 1996 he was appointed chair of the Department of Space and
Climate Physics, University College, London and made head of the Department of Earth
Sciences in 2005. He is a member of the National Environmental Research Council’s
(NERC) Science and Technology Board and Earth Observation Experts Group. He serves
as principal scientist of the European Space Agency CryoSat Satellite Mission.
* Dr. Richard Lindzen. A past professor at the University of Chicago and Harvard, he is the
Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT, a member of the National Academy of
Sciences, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a
member of the National Research Council Board on the Atmospheric Sciences and Climate.
* Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu. Founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the
University of Alaska Fairbanks and has published more than 550 professional journal articles
and authored or co-authored ten books. Twice named one of the “1,000 Most Cited
Scientists” and honored by the Royal Astronomical Society of London, the Japan Academy
of Sciences, and the American Geophysical Union.
* Dr. David Bromwich. Head of the Polar Meteorology Group of the Byrd Polar Research
Center and professor in the Atmospheric Sciences Program at the Department of Geography
of Ohio State University. He is president of the International Commission on Polar
Meteorology, the chair of the Polar DAAC Advisory Group, a member of the Arctic climate
System Study Working Group on Reanalysis, and a past member of the National Academy
of Sciences.
* Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen. Director of the Danish National Space Center. Member of the
Space Research Advisory Committee of the Swedish National Board from 1998 to 2006.
He is author or co-author of some 100 peer reviewed articles and has presented more than
50 invited papers at international conferences.
* Dr. Henrik Svensmark. Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish
National Space Center. Has held post-doctoral positions in physics at the University of
California Berkeley. Recipient of the Knud Hojgaard Anniversary Research Prize.
* Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov. The head of the space research laboratory of the Russian
Academy of Sciences’ Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s
Astrometria project.
* Dr. William Gray. Heads the University’s Tropical Meteorology Project, which publishes
yearly forecasts for tropical storms, named storms, typhoons, hurricanes, and intense
hurricanes.
I think you get the idea. These are some of the most respected scientists in the entire world. But they are just a small representation of the more than 100 world renowned scientists that Mr. Solomon has met or talked with. Each one of them takes issue with some aspect of the idea of man caused global warming and each one of them has world class scientific credentials.
Did their arguments sway Mr. Solomon? They did not. He says in his book…
“Have my deniers convinced me that global warming is all a hoax? They have not,
despite my admiration for the courage and integrity that so many of them display,
and despite their impeccable credentials, I might add, that are often far more
impressive than those of some of the gurus propounding climate-change
catastrophes.”
In regard to global warming, Mr. Solomon concludes…
“It is one environmental concern among many, whose science is far from settled.”
And my last word is, be sure and read this book. It provides an even handed, fair analysis of the theory of man caused global warming. It’s well written, well documented and the science explanations are understandable to a layman of which I am certainly one. Anyone with an open and fair mind will enjoy reading this book. It will challenge you to think. And, at least once in a while, that’s a good thing.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Jim DeMint & the Plan Save Our Republic from Insolvency
Jim DeMint & the Plan Save Our Republic from Insolvency
The other evening I had an opportunity to speak with one of my heroes, United States Senator Jim DeMint, a true American statesman. DeMint is a rare bird in Washington, DC—a man of character, courage, and principle. His first principle is to follow the words of the United States Constitution as they were written. Obviously, that’s not always easy to do, but it is what members of Congress (and those in both the Executive Branch and Judicial branch) take an oath to do. It’s not easy, but neither is it as hard as liberal politicians and judges pretend it is. After all, the Constitution is a written document of principles intended to limit the power of government and to ensure that power is shared by the three branches. Its philosophy is built upon a clear and accurate understanding of human nature—men and women are imperfect human beings who, if given the opportunity, will seek power over other human beings through the aegis of government as they have done from the beginning of time. Senator Jim DeMint understands and is committed to the same understanding as our Founding Fathers. He states his case for a commitment to the founding principles found in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution in his excellent book, Saving Freedom. It is a book that every American should read.
While lesser men come to Washington and get swallowed up in the heady power of being a Senator or Congressman, Jim DeMint has not lost his way. He can be counted on to take principled stands that frequently rankle the leadership of the Republican Party. Thanks in no small part to Jim DeMint, Marco Rubio is the US Senator from Florida, not RINO Charlie Crist; Rand Paul is the US Senator from Kentucky, not career politician, Trey Grayson; and Mike Lee is the US Senator from Utah, not Bob Bennett. It takes a huge amount of courage to buck the leadership of the Republican Party. Jim DeMint did it and won.
Now, Jim DeMint is in the forefront of the battle to block raising the debt ceiling unless permanent action is taken to make sure this never happens again. And this time, the leadership of both the House and the Senate is four square behind Senator DeMint. He spoke of his plan the other evening at the reception I attended and here is what he and fellow conservatives have proposed…
A Balanced Budget and Spending Limit Amendment to the US Constitution
This amendment is the unconditional terms for Barak Obama and the liberals in Congress to receive an OK for raising the debt limit. Senator DeMint believes it is a hard sell, but has a good chance of passage.
All 41 Republican members of the United States Senate have signed on to support this Amendment, and Republicans in the House of Representatives are fully behind it. Moreover, according to Freshman Senator Mike Lee on today’s FOX & Friends television show, numerous Democrat Senators and Congressmen are getting on board.
Why do Jim DeMint and the Republicans support this bill so strongly and why do they think it could possibly get two-thirds support in both the House of Representatives and the Senate? First and foremost, they know that a band aid fix will not solve the problem of spending. As DeMint put it in his talk, spending is an addiction, like drugs or alcohol. Unless there is a Constitutional Amendment in place, Congress will always spend more than it takes in. It is their way of getting re-elected (as Alexis de Tocqueville predicted).
Why does he think it can pass the Senate and House? The Senator said that there is a greater likelihood of persuading two-thirds of all Congressmen and Senators to limit spending capacity in the future, than it is to persuade 51% of them to cut spending immediately. In other words, rather then face the wrath of the American people and possibly go down to defeat in 2012, they would rather make this a challenge for future members of Congress than vote for spending cuts now. Kicking the can down the road rather than making hard decisions seems to be the favorite pastime of Members of Congress
There’s something else working in DeMint’s favor. A very recent poll shows that 65 percent of the American people support a Balance Budget amendment. Only 27 percent oppose it and 8 percent are undecided. This overwhelming support by the American people is hard for any politician to go against, especially with the 2012 election looming.
Not surprisingly, 81 percent of Republicans support the amendment and 68 percent of independents support it. Surprisingly, even a plurality of Democrats back the Amendment by a 45 percent to 44 percent margin. This poll shows how attractive a balanced budget is politically.
If the Amendment fails due to a lack of Democrat support, liberal Democrat candidates will pay a high price in the elections of 2012. It is a powerful cudgel that will knock aside those candidates who refuse to follow the will of the American people. Remember, getting re-elected is the most important goal of all members of Congress.
Will it pass? I don’t know. And frankly, Jim DeMint doesn’t know either. But I do know that he and other new, principled Republican leaders are prepared to wage all out war to pass this Constitutional Amendment and send it to the states for ratification. It will not only balance the budget permanently, but also limit federal government spending to 18% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the historic level over the past 40 years. In stark contrast, federal government spending today is nearly 25% of the GDP, an unsustainable amount that has brought our nation to the verge of a Greek style bankruptcy.
Write, e-mail, or call your Congressman and Senator today and insist that they bring some fiscal sanity to Washington by supporting the Balanced Budget and Spending Limit Amendment. This can be the first and critical step in returning our nation to financial solvency and Constitutional government.
The other evening I had an opportunity to speak with one of my heroes, United States Senator Jim DeMint, a true American statesman. DeMint is a rare bird in Washington, DC—a man of character, courage, and principle. His first principle is to follow the words of the United States Constitution as they were written. Obviously, that’s not always easy to do, but it is what members of Congress (and those in both the Executive Branch and Judicial branch) take an oath to do. It’s not easy, but neither is it as hard as liberal politicians and judges pretend it is. After all, the Constitution is a written document of principles intended to limit the power of government and to ensure that power is shared by the three branches. Its philosophy is built upon a clear and accurate understanding of human nature—men and women are imperfect human beings who, if given the opportunity, will seek power over other human beings through the aegis of government as they have done from the beginning of time. Senator Jim DeMint understands and is committed to the same understanding as our Founding Fathers. He states his case for a commitment to the founding principles found in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution in his excellent book, Saving Freedom. It is a book that every American should read.
While lesser men come to Washington and get swallowed up in the heady power of being a Senator or Congressman, Jim DeMint has not lost his way. He can be counted on to take principled stands that frequently rankle the leadership of the Republican Party. Thanks in no small part to Jim DeMint, Marco Rubio is the US Senator from Florida, not RINO Charlie Crist; Rand Paul is the US Senator from Kentucky, not career politician, Trey Grayson; and Mike Lee is the US Senator from Utah, not Bob Bennett. It takes a huge amount of courage to buck the leadership of the Republican Party. Jim DeMint did it and won.
Now, Jim DeMint is in the forefront of the battle to block raising the debt ceiling unless permanent action is taken to make sure this never happens again. And this time, the leadership of both the House and the Senate is four square behind Senator DeMint. He spoke of his plan the other evening at the reception I attended and here is what he and fellow conservatives have proposed…
A Balanced Budget and Spending Limit Amendment to the US Constitution
This amendment is the unconditional terms for Barak Obama and the liberals in Congress to receive an OK for raising the debt limit. Senator DeMint believes it is a hard sell, but has a good chance of passage.
All 41 Republican members of the United States Senate have signed on to support this Amendment, and Republicans in the House of Representatives are fully behind it. Moreover, according to Freshman Senator Mike Lee on today’s FOX & Friends television show, numerous Democrat Senators and Congressmen are getting on board.
Why do Jim DeMint and the Republicans support this bill so strongly and why do they think it could possibly get two-thirds support in both the House of Representatives and the Senate? First and foremost, they know that a band aid fix will not solve the problem of spending. As DeMint put it in his talk, spending is an addiction, like drugs or alcohol. Unless there is a Constitutional Amendment in place, Congress will always spend more than it takes in. It is their way of getting re-elected (as Alexis de Tocqueville predicted).
Why does he think it can pass the Senate and House? The Senator said that there is a greater likelihood of persuading two-thirds of all Congressmen and Senators to limit spending capacity in the future, than it is to persuade 51% of them to cut spending immediately. In other words, rather then face the wrath of the American people and possibly go down to defeat in 2012, they would rather make this a challenge for future members of Congress than vote for spending cuts now. Kicking the can down the road rather than making hard decisions seems to be the favorite pastime of Members of Congress
There’s something else working in DeMint’s favor. A very recent poll shows that 65 percent of the American people support a Balance Budget amendment. Only 27 percent oppose it and 8 percent are undecided. This overwhelming support by the American people is hard for any politician to go against, especially with the 2012 election looming.
Not surprisingly, 81 percent of Republicans support the amendment and 68 percent of independents support it. Surprisingly, even a plurality of Democrats back the Amendment by a 45 percent to 44 percent margin. This poll shows how attractive a balanced budget is politically.
If the Amendment fails due to a lack of Democrat support, liberal Democrat candidates will pay a high price in the elections of 2012. It is a powerful cudgel that will knock aside those candidates who refuse to follow the will of the American people. Remember, getting re-elected is the most important goal of all members of Congress.
Will it pass? I don’t know. And frankly, Jim DeMint doesn’t know either. But I do know that he and other new, principled Republican leaders are prepared to wage all out war to pass this Constitutional Amendment and send it to the states for ratification. It will not only balance the budget permanently, but also limit federal government spending to 18% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the historic level over the past 40 years. In stark contrast, federal government spending today is nearly 25% of the GDP, an unsustainable amount that has brought our nation to the verge of a Greek style bankruptcy.
Write, e-mail, or call your Congressman and Senator today and insist that they bring some fiscal sanity to Washington by supporting the Balanced Budget and Spending Limit Amendment. This can be the first and critical step in returning our nation to financial solvency and Constitutional government.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Bonhoeffer
Bonhoeffer
I knew just a little bit about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, enough to be intrigued about this man who was a renowned Lutheran pastor in Germany before and during the reign of terror of Adolph Hitler. Bonhoeffer didn’t just have a strong faith in Jesus as his Savior, but under the most trying of circumstances became a martyr rather than submit to the atheist, Hitler. In fact, I wondered how an orthodox Christian like Bonheoffer could justify being part of a conspiracy to overthrow Hitler (knowing that part of that effort included the killing of Hitler) in light of what the Apostle Paul says in Romans 13:
“1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there
is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities
that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels
against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and
those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”
Paul’s words are pretty straightforward and don’t seem to offer any wiggle room. So how did a Bible believing Lutheran pastor justify participating in a conspiracy to overthrow Hitler? I wanted to know.
That’s why I bought and read Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy by Eric Metaxas (Thomas Nelson 2010). In fact, I didn’t pick it up and read it immediately after I purchased it, but took it with me on a trip to the UK. I was immediately intrigued by this complex man and had a hard time putting the book down. In fact, during one of my short breaks in reading during the flight across the Atlantic, a man walked by who noticed the book and said he was a friend of Eric Metaxas (www.ericmetaxas.com). I first encountered the writing of Eric Metaxas when I read his excellent biography of William Wilberforce, Amazing Grace.
It should not have surprised me that Dietrich Bonhoeffer came from a highly accomplished family. His father, Karl Bonhoeffer, held the chair of psychiatry and neurology in Berlin. He saw nothing scientific about Freud’s approach and the book identifies him as an “agnostic” in both psychoanalysis and religion. Dietrich’s brother, Karl-Friedrich was a physicist who worked in pre-war Germany with Albert Einstein and Max Planck, two of the greatest theoretical physicists of all time. His grandparents, his mother and his other siblings were similarly talented and excelled in whatever they did. The Bonhoeffer home was one rich in culture and intellect.
Surprisingly, Dietrich Bonhoeffer did not come from a church going family. In fact, Metaxas says “…the Bonhoeffers rarely went to church…” Nevertheless, according to the author, they were immersed in a German culture that was “inescapably Christian.” Metaxas attributes this to the enduring influence of Martin Luther, who even so many centuries after his death, remained the most powerful influence on the culture and outlook of German society.
The following passage from the book captures the intellectual challenge of being a member of the Bonhoeffer family…
“It wasn’t until 1920, when Dietrich turned fourteen, that he was ready
to tell anyone he had decided to become a theologian. It took a bold
and courageous person to announce such a thing in the Bonhoeffer
family. His father might treat it with respect and cordiality, even if he
disagreed with it, but his brothers and sisters would not. They were a
formidable group, all highly intelligent, and most of them openly and
often mockingly opposed their cocky young brother’s ideas. They
always teased him and gave him a hard time over many things much
less important than his choice of profession. When he was about
eleven, he mispronounced the name of a play by Friedrich Schiller to
roars of laughter. That he should be reading Schiller at that age was
taken for granted.”
At the University, Bonhoeffer was respectful of his professors and the theological ideas they held, even though he was not afraid to disagree with them when he thought that they were inconsistent with the Bible. Because of his intellect and his respectful approach, Bonhoeffer’s affection for his professors was returned in kind, at least up to a point. They were, however, put off by his independent mindedness and his refusal “to come directly under the influence of any one of them, always preferring to maintain some distance.”
Bonhoeffer’s faith was clear and precise. He believed “…that in order to know anything at all about God, one had to rely on revelation from God. In other words, God could speak into this world, but man could not reach out of this world to examine God. It was a one-way street, and of course this was directly related to the especially Lutheran doctrine of grace. Man could not earn his way up to heaven, but God could reach down and graciously lift man toward him.”
Just out of the University, Bonhoeffer’s intellect and theological depth was widely recognized by men and women much older than himself. His lectures were well attended, nevertheless he decided not to follow a career as a theologian, but to do the work of a pastor, which he believed to be far more important.
I was surprised to learn in reading the book the fact that Jews were an integral part of the Church in Germany prior to Hitler. In fact, Sabine, the sister that Bonhoeffer was closest to, married Franz Hildebrandt, a Jew. Hildebrandt not only embraced Christianity, but choose to become a minister of the Christian faith. Apparently, this was not at all uncommon up until the time of Hitler.
Coming from an affluent family, Bonhoeffer traveled widely and spent two periods in the United States, primarily in New York City where he was loosely affiliated with the liberal Union Theological Seminary. In Bonhoeffer’s view those at the Seminary had “jettisoned serious scholarship altogether.”
While Bonhoeffer did not find the Gospel being preached at Union Theological Seminary, he did find it preached with power and authority by Dr. Adam Clayton Powell, Sr. at Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem.
Unfortunately Bonhoeffer’s travels were limited in the United States and because of his connection with Union Theological Seminary he had a (justifiably) low view of Christian theologians in the United States. Had his path crossed that of Lutheran theologians of that period such as Dr. Walter A. Maier, William Beck as well as theologians of a similar cast, he might have had a much higher opinion of theologians in the United States. One important thing that Bonhoeffer did glean from his time in the US was an understanding of the advantages of free and independent churches that did not receive financial support from the government. He realized that churches dependent on government support are also churches that are under the thumb of government.
Although this theme is not fully developed in the book, it highlights once again the danger of all powerful government being an enemy of both freedom and faith. In pre World War II Germany and during that war it compromised the Gospel and the integrity of the church. Even today, fidelity to Scripture is nearly non-existent in the official government church of Germany. It is only in the free churches that the Gospel is preached unimpeded. In fact, being born a “Lutheran” today in Germany destroys the bond between the member and the church itself, and ultimately waters down doctrine. It has impeded evangelism in Germany and has led to the decline of Europe itself.
We learn much of Bonhoeffer’s struggles with the National [Lutheran] church of Germany that wittingly or unwittingly became an enabler of Hitler. We learn of the development of the independent Confessing [Lutheran] Church, its commitment to sound doctrine, and the short-lived creation of an independent seminary with Bonhoeffer as its head.
Metaxas does an excellent job in the book of also uncovering Bonhoeffer the man—his love of music and the arts, his temperament, his passion to serve as a pastor rather than just a theologian, his playfulness, his romantic interest in Elizabeth Zinn and his engagement to Maria von Wedemeyer. We learn about Bonhoeffer’s thoughts through his letters and writings.
But what about Bonhoeffer’s participation in the scheme (with some 1,000 or more co-conspirators) to overthrow Hitler? How did Bonhoeffer, a Bible believing Christian, reconcile it with Paul’s clear directive Romans 13? Truthfully, Metaxas does not deal with this issue directly. In fact he makes this remark on the topic…
“The willingness of Lutherans to keep the church out of the world
reflected an unbiblical overemphasis on Romans 13.”
But Metaxas never explains why believers should not take the words of Paul literally. Instead, he weaves a very compelling story of the unsavory choices that were left to Bonhoeffer and the reader is left to conclude that he did, indeed, make the right decision. While I believe that Bonhoeffer was a true champion of the faith, an intellectual giant, and a man of incredible courage, I have no way of knowing if he made the right decision to come back to Germany from the US just as war was breaking out. What if he had remained in the US during the war and then returned to Germany after the war to lead and build an independent church faithful to scripture? Would post war Germany (and perhaps Europe) have experienced not only an economic boom, but also a spiritual renaissance?
I can’t put myself in Bonhoeffer’s shoes, nor can I explain the implications of Romans 13 in the context of Bonhoeffer’s situation. Most pastors don’t like to talk about the implications of Romans 13 in terms of real life issues such as abortion, infanticide, mercy killings, civil rights, or even in regard to the American Revolution. It’s easier to simply not think about it. There is no unity of thought about the application of Romans 13 among Christian churches in the US today.
Perhaps this verse from 1st Corinthians 13:12 is our guide…
“Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face
to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully
known.”
Lest there be any doubt in regard to the faith of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, just take a moment to read this excerpt from a letter he wrote in 1936 to his brother-in-law, Rüdiger Schleicher, a very liberal theologian…
“First of all I will confess quite simply—I believe that the Bible alone is
the answer to all our questions, and that we need only to ask repeatedly
and a little humbly, in order to receive this answer. One cannot simply
read the Bible, like other books. One must be prepared really to
enquire of it. Only thus will it reveal itself. Only if we expect from it
the ultimate answer, shall we receive it. That is because in the Bible
God speaks to us. And one simply cannot think about God in one’s own
strength, one has to enquire of him. Only if we seek him, will he
answer us... Only if we will venture to enter into the words of the Bible,
as though in them this God were speaking to us who loves us and does
not will to leave us alone with our questions, only so shall we learn to
rejoice in the Bible… If it is I who determine where God is to be found,
then I shall always find a God who corresponds to me in some way, who
is obliging, who is connected with my own nature. But if God
determines where he is to be found, then it will be in a place which is
not immediately pleasing to my nature and which is not at all congenial
to me. This place is the cross of Christ. And whoever would find him
must go to the foot of the Cross, as the Sermon on the Mount
commands. This is not according to our nature at all, it is entirely
contrary to it. But this is the message of the Bible, not only in the New
but also in the Old Testament. …since I have learnt to read the Bible in
this way…it becomes every day more wonderful to me.”
Although I can quibble with little parts of this book and rebel at real or imagined personal biases of the author, this is a marvelous book. It is a well-told story of a 20th Century hero of the faith. It challenges the reader to more fully live my faith and to rely more completely on God each and every day. I urge you to get a copy and read it.
I knew just a little bit about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, enough to be intrigued about this man who was a renowned Lutheran pastor in Germany before and during the reign of terror of Adolph Hitler. Bonhoeffer didn’t just have a strong faith in Jesus as his Savior, but under the most trying of circumstances became a martyr rather than submit to the atheist, Hitler. In fact, I wondered how an orthodox Christian like Bonheoffer could justify being part of a conspiracy to overthrow Hitler (knowing that part of that effort included the killing of Hitler) in light of what the Apostle Paul says in Romans 13:
“1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there
is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities
that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels
against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and
those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”
Paul’s words are pretty straightforward and don’t seem to offer any wiggle room. So how did a Bible believing Lutheran pastor justify participating in a conspiracy to overthrow Hitler? I wanted to know.
That’s why I bought and read Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy by Eric Metaxas (Thomas Nelson 2010). In fact, I didn’t pick it up and read it immediately after I purchased it, but took it with me on a trip to the UK. I was immediately intrigued by this complex man and had a hard time putting the book down. In fact, during one of my short breaks in reading during the flight across the Atlantic, a man walked by who noticed the book and said he was a friend of Eric Metaxas (www.ericmetaxas.com). I first encountered the writing of Eric Metaxas when I read his excellent biography of William Wilberforce, Amazing Grace.
It should not have surprised me that Dietrich Bonhoeffer came from a highly accomplished family. His father, Karl Bonhoeffer, held the chair of psychiatry and neurology in Berlin. He saw nothing scientific about Freud’s approach and the book identifies him as an “agnostic” in both psychoanalysis and religion. Dietrich’s brother, Karl-Friedrich was a physicist who worked in pre-war Germany with Albert Einstein and Max Planck, two of the greatest theoretical physicists of all time. His grandparents, his mother and his other siblings were similarly talented and excelled in whatever they did. The Bonhoeffer home was one rich in culture and intellect.
Surprisingly, Dietrich Bonhoeffer did not come from a church going family. In fact, Metaxas says “…the Bonhoeffers rarely went to church…” Nevertheless, according to the author, they were immersed in a German culture that was “inescapably Christian.” Metaxas attributes this to the enduring influence of Martin Luther, who even so many centuries after his death, remained the most powerful influence on the culture and outlook of German society.
The following passage from the book captures the intellectual challenge of being a member of the Bonhoeffer family…
“It wasn’t until 1920, when Dietrich turned fourteen, that he was ready
to tell anyone he had decided to become a theologian. It took a bold
and courageous person to announce such a thing in the Bonhoeffer
family. His father might treat it with respect and cordiality, even if he
disagreed with it, but his brothers and sisters would not. They were a
formidable group, all highly intelligent, and most of them openly and
often mockingly opposed their cocky young brother’s ideas. They
always teased him and gave him a hard time over many things much
less important than his choice of profession. When he was about
eleven, he mispronounced the name of a play by Friedrich Schiller to
roars of laughter. That he should be reading Schiller at that age was
taken for granted.”
At the University, Bonhoeffer was respectful of his professors and the theological ideas they held, even though he was not afraid to disagree with them when he thought that they were inconsistent with the Bible. Because of his intellect and his respectful approach, Bonhoeffer’s affection for his professors was returned in kind, at least up to a point. They were, however, put off by his independent mindedness and his refusal “to come directly under the influence of any one of them, always preferring to maintain some distance.”
Bonhoeffer’s faith was clear and precise. He believed “…that in order to know anything at all about God, one had to rely on revelation from God. In other words, God could speak into this world, but man could not reach out of this world to examine God. It was a one-way street, and of course this was directly related to the especially Lutheran doctrine of grace. Man could not earn his way up to heaven, but God could reach down and graciously lift man toward him.”
Just out of the University, Bonhoeffer’s intellect and theological depth was widely recognized by men and women much older than himself. His lectures were well attended, nevertheless he decided not to follow a career as a theologian, but to do the work of a pastor, which he believed to be far more important.
I was surprised to learn in reading the book the fact that Jews were an integral part of the Church in Germany prior to Hitler. In fact, Sabine, the sister that Bonhoeffer was closest to, married Franz Hildebrandt, a Jew. Hildebrandt not only embraced Christianity, but choose to become a minister of the Christian faith. Apparently, this was not at all uncommon up until the time of Hitler.
Coming from an affluent family, Bonhoeffer traveled widely and spent two periods in the United States, primarily in New York City where he was loosely affiliated with the liberal Union Theological Seminary. In Bonhoeffer’s view those at the Seminary had “jettisoned serious scholarship altogether.”
While Bonhoeffer did not find the Gospel being preached at Union Theological Seminary, he did find it preached with power and authority by Dr. Adam Clayton Powell, Sr. at Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem.
Unfortunately Bonhoeffer’s travels were limited in the United States and because of his connection with Union Theological Seminary he had a (justifiably) low view of Christian theologians in the United States. Had his path crossed that of Lutheran theologians of that period such as Dr. Walter A. Maier, William Beck as well as theologians of a similar cast, he might have had a much higher opinion of theologians in the United States. One important thing that Bonhoeffer did glean from his time in the US was an understanding of the advantages of free and independent churches that did not receive financial support from the government. He realized that churches dependent on government support are also churches that are under the thumb of government.
Although this theme is not fully developed in the book, it highlights once again the danger of all powerful government being an enemy of both freedom and faith. In pre World War II Germany and during that war it compromised the Gospel and the integrity of the church. Even today, fidelity to Scripture is nearly non-existent in the official government church of Germany. It is only in the free churches that the Gospel is preached unimpeded. In fact, being born a “Lutheran” today in Germany destroys the bond between the member and the church itself, and ultimately waters down doctrine. It has impeded evangelism in Germany and has led to the decline of Europe itself.
We learn much of Bonhoeffer’s struggles with the National [Lutheran] church of Germany that wittingly or unwittingly became an enabler of Hitler. We learn of the development of the independent Confessing [Lutheran] Church, its commitment to sound doctrine, and the short-lived creation of an independent seminary with Bonhoeffer as its head.
Metaxas does an excellent job in the book of also uncovering Bonhoeffer the man—his love of music and the arts, his temperament, his passion to serve as a pastor rather than just a theologian, his playfulness, his romantic interest in Elizabeth Zinn and his engagement to Maria von Wedemeyer. We learn about Bonhoeffer’s thoughts through his letters and writings.
But what about Bonhoeffer’s participation in the scheme (with some 1,000 or more co-conspirators) to overthrow Hitler? How did Bonhoeffer, a Bible believing Christian, reconcile it with Paul’s clear directive Romans 13? Truthfully, Metaxas does not deal with this issue directly. In fact he makes this remark on the topic…
“The willingness of Lutherans to keep the church out of the world
reflected an unbiblical overemphasis on Romans 13.”
But Metaxas never explains why believers should not take the words of Paul literally. Instead, he weaves a very compelling story of the unsavory choices that were left to Bonhoeffer and the reader is left to conclude that he did, indeed, make the right decision. While I believe that Bonhoeffer was a true champion of the faith, an intellectual giant, and a man of incredible courage, I have no way of knowing if he made the right decision to come back to Germany from the US just as war was breaking out. What if he had remained in the US during the war and then returned to Germany after the war to lead and build an independent church faithful to scripture? Would post war Germany (and perhaps Europe) have experienced not only an economic boom, but also a spiritual renaissance?
I can’t put myself in Bonhoeffer’s shoes, nor can I explain the implications of Romans 13 in the context of Bonhoeffer’s situation. Most pastors don’t like to talk about the implications of Romans 13 in terms of real life issues such as abortion, infanticide, mercy killings, civil rights, or even in regard to the American Revolution. It’s easier to simply not think about it. There is no unity of thought about the application of Romans 13 among Christian churches in the US today.
Perhaps this verse from 1st Corinthians 13:12 is our guide…
“Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face
to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully
known.”
Lest there be any doubt in regard to the faith of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, just take a moment to read this excerpt from a letter he wrote in 1936 to his brother-in-law, Rüdiger Schleicher, a very liberal theologian…
“First of all I will confess quite simply—I believe that the Bible alone is
the answer to all our questions, and that we need only to ask repeatedly
and a little humbly, in order to receive this answer. One cannot simply
read the Bible, like other books. One must be prepared really to
enquire of it. Only thus will it reveal itself. Only if we expect from it
the ultimate answer, shall we receive it. That is because in the Bible
God speaks to us. And one simply cannot think about God in one’s own
strength, one has to enquire of him. Only if we seek him, will he
answer us... Only if we will venture to enter into the words of the Bible,
as though in them this God were speaking to us who loves us and does
not will to leave us alone with our questions, only so shall we learn to
rejoice in the Bible… If it is I who determine where God is to be found,
then I shall always find a God who corresponds to me in some way, who
is obliging, who is connected with my own nature. But if God
determines where he is to be found, then it will be in a place which is
not immediately pleasing to my nature and which is not at all congenial
to me. This place is the cross of Christ. And whoever would find him
must go to the foot of the Cross, as the Sermon on the Mount
commands. This is not according to our nature at all, it is entirely
contrary to it. But this is the message of the Bible, not only in the New
but also in the Old Testament. …since I have learnt to read the Bible in
this way…it becomes every day more wonderful to me.”
Although I can quibble with little parts of this book and rebel at real or imagined personal biases of the author, this is a marvelous book. It is a well-told story of a 20th Century hero of the faith. It challenges the reader to more fully live my faith and to rely more completely on God each and every day. I urge you to get a copy and read it.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Guaranteed to Make You Happy
Guaranteed to Make You Happy
What
can be almost as hard as climbing Mount Everest, yet everyone can do it
and it is guaranteed to make you happy? Sound crazy, perhaps? But it
really is true and if you will give it a 10 day test, you’ll become a
believer.
There’s no doubt about it, life is tough. This world is full of imperfect people (read sinners) who live close to or even with other imperfect people. And it doesn’t make any difference if you are wealthy or poor, Asian or American, the frailties of others gets under our skin and grates on us like sandpaper on a wound. Of course, we don’t take any note of our own shortcomings. Our eyes only look outward, not inward. We can, as the Bible says almost humorously, see the speck in the other fellow’s eye, but we can’t see the beam in our own eye. Now, of course, if you had a real two by four piece of lumber in your eye you would more than see it, but Jesus is here giving us a gentle reminder of the fact that we just aren’t perfect, so don’t expect perfection from anyone else.
But that’s exactly what we do. We quite willingly accept and/or ignore our own failings, but give no quarter when it comes to seeing the failings of others. I’m as guilty as the next guy (or gal). Sometimes when I see or hear of an employee doing something stupid that may damage the company, I want to blow up. Fortunately, most of the time, I instead walk down the hall into my friend, Bill’s office, and tell him I need to vent. After I spout off, Bill always has the same bit of wise advice to share with me. He says, “Isn’t it a shame that everyone else is not perfect like you and me.” Ouch! But I love hearing it. It is true Godly wisdom. Too bad I don’t remember it and follow it more often. The Bible makes Bill’s point this way in Proverbs 14:29 and it doesn’t pull any punches:
“A person of great understanding is patient, but a short temper is
the height of stupidity.”
If I could only practice what the Bible teaches. But I’m held back by my imperfection. Nevertheless I strive on to be a more temperate, understanding person. Why? It’s not because I think I can ever achieve perfection. And it’s certainly not because I think I can earn my way into heaven. I know that’s not the case. How perfect could heaven be if it let in imperfect people like me? If it did that, it would no longer be a perfect place and I wouldn’t want to spend eternity there.
But God had a plan to get imperfect humans into his perfect heaven. It’s called his plan of salvation and it took incredible love to execute. God’s plan does not call for any human exertion or for us to do some incredible good work. No, as it says in Ephesians 2:8-9, He did it all…
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this
not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no
one can boast.”
Just what did God do? He sent his one and only son, Jesus, to live the perfect life we cannot live, and then Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose from the grave to cement the promise of a perfect life in heaven. The perfect died for the imperfect to create a way for you and me to live in joy and happiness forever.
But what about back here on earth where we face difficulties, insults and offenses regularly? What about the way we are to live our lives? If Jesus has done everything, who cares how we live?
We are to do our very best to follow the example of Jesus in loving others and caring for others and putting their needs before ours. Our reason is not to gain us any points or special blessings, but to show our appreciation for the indescribable love God showed for us by sending Jesus to save us.
And that gets us back to the one way that is guaranteed to give us a life filled with joy and happiness, even as imperfect as we are and even with all the challenges life throws at us. This life is filled with the Devil’s illusions. The father of lies puts lies in our mind. “If I only lived in that city, I’d be happy.” “If I only had that car, I’d be happy.” “If I could win the lottery, I’d be happy.” “If I was only married to that person, I’d be happy.” When we sit back and look at it, the silliness of such thoughts become obvious. Things outside of us do not make us happy. It’s what’s inside of us that makes us happy.
In fact, there is one key to being a person who is content and lives with joy in his or her heart. And Jesus taught this truth to his disciples when he taught them the Lord’s Prayer. Right after we ask for “daily bread” Jesus tells us to ask God to…
“Forgive us as we forgive others.”
Oh, oh. This means that we can’t hold on to that old grudge or seek vengeance on those who have hurt us and offended us! Ugh. But that’s not what sounds good to us. They hurt me, now it’s my turn to get even. It even feels better to get even—at least for a little while.
So what does forgiveness have to do with happiness and joy and contentment?
The answer is that the person who forgives benefits more from forgiving than even the person who is forgiven. How’s that again? Yes, it’s true, the one who forgives benefits more than the one who is forgiven. While it may be nearly as hard as climbing Mount Everest, once you sincerely forgive and amend your attitude accordingly, you will find that anger falling away. Anger never brings happiness. And, surprisingly, it never brings satisfaction or contentment.
The bottom line is that you cannot be both an angry person and a happy person. Anger and happiness are incompatible. When you choose to forgive, even when the other person does not seek forgiveness or even when forgiving does not seem right or fair, a great burden will be lifted from your life. Jesus asked God to forgive those who put him on the cross—that’s you and me. If God forgives us for our many and continuing sins, how can we not forgive others?
Tell me, how do the paltry offenses of others against you stand up to the terrible sins and crimes and offenses that put Jesus on the cross? How can I ask for Jesus to forgive me when I’m not willing to forgive others? Jesus went first. And now because of his great love and forgiveness, how can I not follow his example?
The great apostle, Paul, who suffered beatings, shipwreck, imprisonment, and cruelty of many kinds, said this in Philippians 4:11…
“I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to
be content whatever the circumstances.”
Having a forgiving heart will give you a new outlook on life. It will create joy you have not previously experienced. It won’t create wealth or change your circumstances, but it will provide a perspective that allows you to wake each morning with a smile and to walk out the door with a song in your heart. It really will. But don’t just take my word for it, give it a 10 day trial and you will be surprised.
Forgiving an old grudge may appear to be as hard as climbing Mount Everest, but the joy you will receive in return is better than reaching that summit. Now if only I can put into action what I can put into words.
There’s no doubt about it, life is tough. This world is full of imperfect people (read sinners) who live close to or even with other imperfect people. And it doesn’t make any difference if you are wealthy or poor, Asian or American, the frailties of others gets under our skin and grates on us like sandpaper on a wound. Of course, we don’t take any note of our own shortcomings. Our eyes only look outward, not inward. We can, as the Bible says almost humorously, see the speck in the other fellow’s eye, but we can’t see the beam in our own eye. Now, of course, if you had a real two by four piece of lumber in your eye you would more than see it, but Jesus is here giving us a gentle reminder of the fact that we just aren’t perfect, so don’t expect perfection from anyone else.
But that’s exactly what we do. We quite willingly accept and/or ignore our own failings, but give no quarter when it comes to seeing the failings of others. I’m as guilty as the next guy (or gal). Sometimes when I see or hear of an employee doing something stupid that may damage the company, I want to blow up. Fortunately, most of the time, I instead walk down the hall into my friend, Bill’s office, and tell him I need to vent. After I spout off, Bill always has the same bit of wise advice to share with me. He says, “Isn’t it a shame that everyone else is not perfect like you and me.” Ouch! But I love hearing it. It is true Godly wisdom. Too bad I don’t remember it and follow it more often. The Bible makes Bill’s point this way in Proverbs 14:29 and it doesn’t pull any punches:
“A person of great understanding is patient, but a short temper is
the height of stupidity.”
If I could only practice what the Bible teaches. But I’m held back by my imperfection. Nevertheless I strive on to be a more temperate, understanding person. Why? It’s not because I think I can ever achieve perfection. And it’s certainly not because I think I can earn my way into heaven. I know that’s not the case. How perfect could heaven be if it let in imperfect people like me? If it did that, it would no longer be a perfect place and I wouldn’t want to spend eternity there.
But God had a plan to get imperfect humans into his perfect heaven. It’s called his plan of salvation and it took incredible love to execute. God’s plan does not call for any human exertion or for us to do some incredible good work. No, as it says in Ephesians 2:8-9, He did it all…
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this
not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no
one can boast.”
Just what did God do? He sent his one and only son, Jesus, to live the perfect life we cannot live, and then Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose from the grave to cement the promise of a perfect life in heaven. The perfect died for the imperfect to create a way for you and me to live in joy and happiness forever.
But what about back here on earth where we face difficulties, insults and offenses regularly? What about the way we are to live our lives? If Jesus has done everything, who cares how we live?
We are to do our very best to follow the example of Jesus in loving others and caring for others and putting their needs before ours. Our reason is not to gain us any points or special blessings, but to show our appreciation for the indescribable love God showed for us by sending Jesus to save us.
And that gets us back to the one way that is guaranteed to give us a life filled with joy and happiness, even as imperfect as we are and even with all the challenges life throws at us. This life is filled with the Devil’s illusions. The father of lies puts lies in our mind. “If I only lived in that city, I’d be happy.” “If I only had that car, I’d be happy.” “If I could win the lottery, I’d be happy.” “If I was only married to that person, I’d be happy.” When we sit back and look at it, the silliness of such thoughts become obvious. Things outside of us do not make us happy. It’s what’s inside of us that makes us happy.
In fact, there is one key to being a person who is content and lives with joy in his or her heart. And Jesus taught this truth to his disciples when he taught them the Lord’s Prayer. Right after we ask for “daily bread” Jesus tells us to ask God to…
“Forgive us as we forgive others.”
Oh, oh. This means that we can’t hold on to that old grudge or seek vengeance on those who have hurt us and offended us! Ugh. But that’s not what sounds good to us. They hurt me, now it’s my turn to get even. It even feels better to get even—at least for a little while.
So what does forgiveness have to do with happiness and joy and contentment?
The answer is that the person who forgives benefits more from forgiving than even the person who is forgiven. How’s that again? Yes, it’s true, the one who forgives benefits more than the one who is forgiven. While it may be nearly as hard as climbing Mount Everest, once you sincerely forgive and amend your attitude accordingly, you will find that anger falling away. Anger never brings happiness. And, surprisingly, it never brings satisfaction or contentment.
The bottom line is that you cannot be both an angry person and a happy person. Anger and happiness are incompatible. When you choose to forgive, even when the other person does not seek forgiveness or even when forgiving does not seem right or fair, a great burden will be lifted from your life. Jesus asked God to forgive those who put him on the cross—that’s you and me. If God forgives us for our many and continuing sins, how can we not forgive others?
Tell me, how do the paltry offenses of others against you stand up to the terrible sins and crimes and offenses that put Jesus on the cross? How can I ask for Jesus to forgive me when I’m not willing to forgive others? Jesus went first. And now because of his great love and forgiveness, how can I not follow his example?
The great apostle, Paul, who suffered beatings, shipwreck, imprisonment, and cruelty of many kinds, said this in Philippians 4:11…
“I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to
be content whatever the circumstances.”
Having a forgiving heart will give you a new outlook on life. It will create joy you have not previously experienced. It won’t create wealth or change your circumstances, but it will provide a perspective that allows you to wake each morning with a smile and to walk out the door with a song in your heart. It really will. But don’t just take my word for it, give it a 10 day trial and you will be surprised.
Forgiving an old grudge may appear to be as hard as climbing Mount Everest, but the joy you will receive in return is better than reaching that summit. Now if only I can put into action what I can put into words.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Manning Up
Manning Up
I rarely reprint articles by others in their entirety, but I am going to make an exception in the case of Lil Tuttle, Education Director of the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute (www.cblpi.org). There’s more wisdom and wit in this short piece on the attitudes and mores of post college age men and women by Lil Tuttle than I have read in many years. And, if you are not already aware of it, I suggest you check out the Luce Institute which was founded by Michelle Easton following her stint as Undersecretary of Education in the Reagan Administration. Through the Luce Institute, Michelle is providing a great service to young conservative women who still believe in traditional values.
Here is Lil’s great article…
The Rocky Dating & Mating Road for Twentysomethings
by Lil Tuttle, Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute
They met as freshmen in college—he in pre-law, she in history and government—and never seriously dated anyone else. After graduation, she chose a job in Washington DC for its close proximity to his law school.
When she told her parents that they were thinking of sharing an apartment to save money, her mother offered a little time-honored advice: men crave sex, domestic comforts and long-term respect, while women crave relationship, domestic stability and long-term security. Don’t meet his needs until he meets yours (which, incidentally, is called marriage). She got her own apartment, rose rapidly in her career, continued dating him and said “I do” on the same day he learned he’d passed the bar exam. Now 30, her biological alarm has gone off, and they are planning their first child.
This couple falls generally into Kay Hymowitz’s “Neo-Traditional” category of modern college graduates who, after a decade or so of intense personal and career development, eventually marry and settle into a satisfying family life. Neo-Traditionals’ life story has a better chance at a happy ending, suggests Hymowitz in her book, Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys, than many of their college peers, who are crashing over the guard rails of the rocky, unmapped dating-and-mating road paved by the pill, feminism, and the Knowledge Economy.
As market capitalism empowered women in the last half century to participate in the work force with safe birth control and technologies that eased their domestic burdens, feminism encouraged them to trade in family aspirations for the chance to outdo men in the casual sex, education and career game of life.
You Go, Girl became the mantra in the New Girl Order, and go they did. Women aged 25 to 34 with a bachelor (or better) degree began outnumbering men in the 1980s, and today they earn 58% of all degrees awarded. (This is not an American phenomenon, Hymowitz notes; “women earn more college degrees than men in 67 of 120 nations.”)
In 1960 a mere 3% of law school graduates—and 6% of medical school graduates—were women; today they are at near parity with men at 47% and 49%, respectively. Women in this age group also beat men in earnings: A recent study found that the unmarried, childless female college grad earns, on average, more than her male peers in 147 of the 150 largest U.S. cities.
“Failing to recognize the signs that young women were already on academic and psychological steroids, legislators and policymakers took their cue from backward-looking experts,” writes Hymowitz. “Girls needed more attention, more encouragement, and more ambition, they agreed.” And they got it with even more government programs and scholarships.
Yet “the success of feminism’s siren call to the workplace,” says the author, required “an economy that could provide a wealth of fulfilling jobs.” As if on cue, the new Knowledge Economy emerged. While the old Industrial Economy valued men’s innate skills of strength, endurance and individual competitiveness, the new Knowledge Economy values women’s innate skills: organization, focus, creativity, diligence, and networking. “It may not be pleasant to say so,” writes Hymowitz, “but manufacturing’s loss has been women’s gain.”
Preadulthood—a New Adolescence
The computer and Internet revolution of the 1990s brought “a mega-kiloton explosion of career possibilities” for educated, upwardly mobile, unmarried, childless twenty-somethings of both sexes.
Career choice became less about landing a good job and more about ‘finding one’s passion’. With no life script for such a quest, young college grads may wander from job to job for years and, on occasion, find themselves back in their childhood bedrooms for unexpected, extended stays.
One phenomenon of the Knowledge Economy is a new demographic of young people who postpone adulthood for a decade or more. It is a state of life the author calls preadulthood—a 21st century extension of the 20th century’s adolescence—that she defines as “without stable employment, quasi-permanent independent residence, wives, husbands, or child.” With the shift in the median age of marriage from 23.2 in 1970 to 28 today, scores of preadults are populating metropolitan areas in particular.
If the New Girl Order alpha-girl in this demographic group is ambitious, hyper-organized, mature and sophisticated, her “fun-house mirror image” is the child-man: a passive, vague, crude, happily immature and unsophisticated slacker.
Feminists theorize he is a deliberate backlash against women’s progress, but the evidence suggests that the child-man is a product of nearly a century of increasing societal male-bashing combined with diminishing respect for the traditional role of men as providers, protectors, husbands and fathers.
The child-man, then, is the lost son of a host of economic and cultural changes: the demographic shift I call preadulthood, the Playboy philosophy, feminism, the wild west of our new media, and a shrugging iffiness on the subject of husbands and fathers. He has no life script, no special reason to grow up. Of course, you shouldn’t feel too bad for him; he’s having a good enough time.
But preening with a sense of entitlement he is not. In fact, after passing through boyhood and adolescence, he arrives at preadulthood with the distinct sense that he is dispensable, that being a guy is a little embarrassing and that given his social ambiguity, he might as well just play with the many toys (and babes—he hopes) his culture has generously provided him. After all, he is free as men have never been free before.
Acknowledging that it may be “impossible to prove for certain,” the author points to longitudinal studies which suggest that “the loss of the almost universal male life script—manhood defined by marriage and fatherhood—is key to the mystery of the child-man.”
Men tend to work harder, strive for success in their career, and earn more if it improves their chances of marrying a quality woman. If no such marriage returns to career choices exist, “men would tend to work less, study less, and choose blue-collar jobs over white-collar jobs.“ In short, “men succeed to prove themselves to potential partners.”
What Price Adulthood?
“If preadulthood is an enlightened philosopher when it comes to work and self-fulfillment,” writes Hymowitz, “it is a lazy mute when it comes to love, sex, and marriage.”
The old conventions have been discarded, but new ones haven’t been written. Neither guys nor gals can clearly read today’s mating signals: is the interest in hooking up, or settling down? Personal dating rules (read: expectations) still exist, but they vary from person to person and are rarely telegraphed in advance. Consequently, dating becomes a baffling guessing game that too often breeds cynicism, hostility and bitterness in both sexes. And both share the blame.
What it adds up to is that neither sex can be trusted. Men cheat because they are always hunting for variety, while women double-deal because they are always prowling for higher-status males. “Attractive single girls not only dropped their ‘dates’ at the slightest whiff of a bigger, better deal, they routinely betrayed their girlfriends, too,” Toby Young, a British author who lived in New York for five years, wrote about his sojourn there in his dismissive review of the movie Sex and the City.
Time favors the male of the species, not the female. “For women [there] is a gap between the cultural ideals behind preadulthood—equality, freedom, personal achievement, sexual self-expression—and biology’s pitiless clock,” says Hymowitz. His mating season extends well into the 30s; hers begins diminishing by that age in terms of both starting a family and the size of the mating pool.
In sadly funny ways, Hymowitz describes the future of those who swim too long in the mating pool:
Darwinian Playboy—wounded and cynical, focused on having a lot of sex with a lot of women, by mid-40s doing a comb-over for his balding head and wearing leather jackets to cover up his gut when he goes to bars to pick up women (few of whom are interested)
Single-and-Loving-It Woman—chose the Darwinian Playgirl lifestyle, maybe married once but divorced, travels a lot, dotes on her nieces and nephews, occasionally dates (rare serious or sexual encounters, dropping to zero as years progress)
Choice Mother—hoped she’d find Mr. Big for a husband, lived for a while with a guy in her 20s, fell in love with her career instead, finally settled for a fertility clinic and a baby to raise on her own at 35
Starter Marriage—Alpha Girl dated a Child-Man for 3 years, had a “cool” wedding avoiding words like “love” and “forever,” out of there by age 30, now engaged and planning her next big wedding (ignoring statistical chances of second-time-around’s success)
Then there’s the Neo-Traditional, the scenario similar to the young couple discussed earlier. They may meet in college, date briefly, go their separate ways, meet again, get serious, get married, and have a family.
This group still represents the overwhelming majority of college grads, but trends are not in their favor: 84% of college men marry today, but it was 93% in 1980; 86% of college women marry, down from 92% in 1980.
“Nonattachment and self interest: these don’t seem like the right groundwork for the marriages that most young people say they want, but that’s what they often find themselves practicing,” concludes Hymowitz.
“Both sexes still say they want to have satisfying family lives. If that’s going to happen, young women will have to get a better understanding of the limitations imposed by their bodies. And young men? They’ll need to man up.”
It might help if we girls ‘woman up’ as well.
I rarely reprint articles by others in their entirety, but I am going to make an exception in the case of Lil Tuttle, Education Director of the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute (www.cblpi.org). There’s more wisdom and wit in this short piece on the attitudes and mores of post college age men and women by Lil Tuttle than I have read in many years. And, if you are not already aware of it, I suggest you check out the Luce Institute which was founded by Michelle Easton following her stint as Undersecretary of Education in the Reagan Administration. Through the Luce Institute, Michelle is providing a great service to young conservative women who still believe in traditional values.
Here is Lil’s great article…
The Rocky Dating & Mating Road for Twentysomethings
by Lil Tuttle, Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute
They met as freshmen in college—he in pre-law, she in history and government—and never seriously dated anyone else. After graduation, she chose a job in Washington DC for its close proximity to his law school.
When she told her parents that they were thinking of sharing an apartment to save money, her mother offered a little time-honored advice: men crave sex, domestic comforts and long-term respect, while women crave relationship, domestic stability and long-term security. Don’t meet his needs until he meets yours (which, incidentally, is called marriage). She got her own apartment, rose rapidly in her career, continued dating him and said “I do” on the same day he learned he’d passed the bar exam. Now 30, her biological alarm has gone off, and they are planning their first child.
This couple falls generally into Kay Hymowitz’s “Neo-Traditional” category of modern college graduates who, after a decade or so of intense personal and career development, eventually marry and settle into a satisfying family life. Neo-Traditionals’ life story has a better chance at a happy ending, suggests Hymowitz in her book, Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys, than many of their college peers, who are crashing over the guard rails of the rocky, unmapped dating-and-mating road paved by the pill, feminism, and the Knowledge Economy.
As market capitalism empowered women in the last half century to participate in the work force with safe birth control and technologies that eased their domestic burdens, feminism encouraged them to trade in family aspirations for the chance to outdo men in the casual sex, education and career game of life.
You Go, Girl became the mantra in the New Girl Order, and go they did. Women aged 25 to 34 with a bachelor (or better) degree began outnumbering men in the 1980s, and today they earn 58% of all degrees awarded. (This is not an American phenomenon, Hymowitz notes; “women earn more college degrees than men in 67 of 120 nations.”)
In 1960 a mere 3% of law school graduates—and 6% of medical school graduates—were women; today they are at near parity with men at 47% and 49%, respectively. Women in this age group also beat men in earnings: A recent study found that the unmarried, childless female college grad earns, on average, more than her male peers in 147 of the 150 largest U.S. cities.
“Failing to recognize the signs that young women were already on academic and psychological steroids, legislators and policymakers took their cue from backward-looking experts,” writes Hymowitz. “Girls needed more attention, more encouragement, and more ambition, they agreed.” And they got it with even more government programs and scholarships.
Yet “the success of feminism’s siren call to the workplace,” says the author, required “an economy that could provide a wealth of fulfilling jobs.” As if on cue, the new Knowledge Economy emerged. While the old Industrial Economy valued men’s innate skills of strength, endurance and individual competitiveness, the new Knowledge Economy values women’s innate skills: organization, focus, creativity, diligence, and networking. “It may not be pleasant to say so,” writes Hymowitz, “but manufacturing’s loss has been women’s gain.”
Preadulthood—a New Adolescence
The computer and Internet revolution of the 1990s brought “a mega-kiloton explosion of career possibilities” for educated, upwardly mobile, unmarried, childless twenty-somethings of both sexes.
Career choice became less about landing a good job and more about ‘finding one’s passion’. With no life script for such a quest, young college grads may wander from job to job for years and, on occasion, find themselves back in their childhood bedrooms for unexpected, extended stays.
One phenomenon of the Knowledge Economy is a new demographic of young people who postpone adulthood for a decade or more. It is a state of life the author calls preadulthood—a 21st century extension of the 20th century’s adolescence—that she defines as “without stable employment, quasi-permanent independent residence, wives, husbands, or child.” With the shift in the median age of marriage from 23.2 in 1970 to 28 today, scores of preadults are populating metropolitan areas in particular.
If the New Girl Order alpha-girl in this demographic group is ambitious, hyper-organized, mature and sophisticated, her “fun-house mirror image” is the child-man: a passive, vague, crude, happily immature and unsophisticated slacker.
Feminists theorize he is a deliberate backlash against women’s progress, but the evidence suggests that the child-man is a product of nearly a century of increasing societal male-bashing combined with diminishing respect for the traditional role of men as providers, protectors, husbands and fathers.
The child-man, then, is the lost son of a host of economic and cultural changes: the demographic shift I call preadulthood, the Playboy philosophy, feminism, the wild west of our new media, and a shrugging iffiness on the subject of husbands and fathers. He has no life script, no special reason to grow up. Of course, you shouldn’t feel too bad for him; he’s having a good enough time.
But preening with a sense of entitlement he is not. In fact, after passing through boyhood and adolescence, he arrives at preadulthood with the distinct sense that he is dispensable, that being a guy is a little embarrassing and that given his social ambiguity, he might as well just play with the many toys (and babes—he hopes) his culture has generously provided him. After all, he is free as men have never been free before.
Acknowledging that it may be “impossible to prove for certain,” the author points to longitudinal studies which suggest that “the loss of the almost universal male life script—manhood defined by marriage and fatherhood—is key to the mystery of the child-man.”
Men tend to work harder, strive for success in their career, and earn more if it improves their chances of marrying a quality woman. If no such marriage returns to career choices exist, “men would tend to work less, study less, and choose blue-collar jobs over white-collar jobs.“ In short, “men succeed to prove themselves to potential partners.”
What Price Adulthood?
“If preadulthood is an enlightened philosopher when it comes to work and self-fulfillment,” writes Hymowitz, “it is a lazy mute when it comes to love, sex, and marriage.”
The old conventions have been discarded, but new ones haven’t been written. Neither guys nor gals can clearly read today’s mating signals: is the interest in hooking up, or settling down? Personal dating rules (read: expectations) still exist, but they vary from person to person and are rarely telegraphed in advance. Consequently, dating becomes a baffling guessing game that too often breeds cynicism, hostility and bitterness in both sexes. And both share the blame.
What it adds up to is that neither sex can be trusted. Men cheat because they are always hunting for variety, while women double-deal because they are always prowling for higher-status males. “Attractive single girls not only dropped their ‘dates’ at the slightest whiff of a bigger, better deal, they routinely betrayed their girlfriends, too,” Toby Young, a British author who lived in New York for five years, wrote about his sojourn there in his dismissive review of the movie Sex and the City.
Time favors the male of the species, not the female. “For women [there] is a gap between the cultural ideals behind preadulthood—equality, freedom, personal achievement, sexual self-expression—and biology’s pitiless clock,” says Hymowitz. His mating season extends well into the 30s; hers begins diminishing by that age in terms of both starting a family and the size of the mating pool.
In sadly funny ways, Hymowitz describes the future of those who swim too long in the mating pool:
Darwinian Playboy—wounded and cynical, focused on having a lot of sex with a lot of women, by mid-40s doing a comb-over for his balding head and wearing leather jackets to cover up his gut when he goes to bars to pick up women (few of whom are interested)
Single-and-Loving-It Woman—chose the Darwinian Playgirl lifestyle, maybe married once but divorced, travels a lot, dotes on her nieces and nephews, occasionally dates (rare serious or sexual encounters, dropping to zero as years progress)
Choice Mother—hoped she’d find Mr. Big for a husband, lived for a while with a guy in her 20s, fell in love with her career instead, finally settled for a fertility clinic and a baby to raise on her own at 35
Starter Marriage—Alpha Girl dated a Child-Man for 3 years, had a “cool” wedding avoiding words like “love” and “forever,” out of there by age 30, now engaged and planning her next big wedding (ignoring statistical chances of second-time-around’s success)
Then there’s the Neo-Traditional, the scenario similar to the young couple discussed earlier. They may meet in college, date briefly, go their separate ways, meet again, get serious, get married, and have a family.
This group still represents the overwhelming majority of college grads, but trends are not in their favor: 84% of college men marry today, but it was 93% in 1980; 86% of college women marry, down from 92% in 1980.
“Nonattachment and self interest: these don’t seem like the right groundwork for the marriages that most young people say they want, but that’s what they often find themselves practicing,” concludes Hymowitz.
“Both sexes still say they want to have satisfying family lives. If that’s going to happen, young women will have to get a better understanding of the limitations imposed by their bodies. And young men? They’ll need to man up.”
It might help if we girls ‘woman up’ as well.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Profits, Subsidies and Demagoguery
Profits, Subsidies and Demagoguery
Are
you invested in a 401(k) program or an IRA? Or have you invested in
some other investment instrument that allows tax free saving? If so,
you’re just like big oil. In fact, you are probably invested in big oil
stocks, more than 40 million Americans own oil company stocks. So you
are big oil. You must be evil, or so those in the media and the White
House imply.There are two things wrong with the current attacks on big oil.
1. Profits. There is nothing wrong with profits. Profits are essential to
keeping the engine for free markets running and providing Americans
with the highest standard of living in the world. Bigger profits not only
mean a better return for investors like you and me, but also more money
for the research and development needed to satisfy our energy needs.
Profits are good. Excess taxes are bad.
2. Subsidies. Big oil is not subsidized in any way. There are no payments
by the government to big oil. What the left refers to as subsidies are
simply tax breaks. If a tax break is a subsidy then all money and all
wealth belongs to the federal government. Calling a tax break a subsidy
is not merely semantics, it is a big, dangerous lie.
Assuming some part of your wealth includes oil company stock, let me ask you a couple of questions. Why did you invest in oil stock, or any other stock for that matter? Were you hoping the company would not only continue in business, but in fact make big profits so that your stock would appreciate and maybe you would receive fatter dividends? So, you’re in favor of profits? The bigger the better you say.
Isn’t that the primary reason every company goes into business—to make a profit and stay in business? The oil companies, like all other businesses, have found a way to make money while serving the public—that would be you and me. About seven out of ten start-up companies go under within a couple of years. Most of the folks that started those companies lose everything. Going into business is a very high risk business. You would have better odds in Las Vegas.
Nevertheless, risk takers like John D. Rockefeller put everything on the line to start producing and refining oil. They took big chances and received big profits in return. The Mellon family risked their money to open up the oil fields in Texas. Out of this risk-taking venture grew the Texas Oil Company (now called Texaco) and Gulf Oil, among others. It was Lucas Gusher at the Spindle Top oil field near Beaumont, Texas that broke the near monopoly on oil production and distribution by John D. Rockefeller, not the federal government.
But all this history is really unimportant. What is important is that attacks on profits are attacks on your freedom and mine. Profits made through the free market system are critical to keeping America a world leader. Profits made through free enterprise are absolutely essential to your personal freedom and mine.
Demagogic attacks on big oil are thinly disguised attacks on the bedrock of the most successful and free economic system in the world. And make no mistake about it, the choice you and I have is between us deciding what, when and where we will purchase goods and services or a few elite bureaucrats deciding what, when and where we will purchase goods and services. Socialism is incompatible with individual freedom. How can anyone seriously argue that a small coterie of individuals deciding for a vast number of citizens what they shall eat, where they shall live, what kind of car they will drive, where they are allowed to travel, how they can worship, or what they can say is freedom?
The current assault by the Obama Administration on so-called “big oil” is hypocrisy at its worst. The idea that a few speculators are causing the price of oil to go up is ludicrous. It’s simply a diversionary tactic. The Administration itself and the left in general is the sole and only reason that gasoline prices are above or nearly at $4.00 a gallon at the pump. Here are the two reasons…
1. Gasoline Taxes. Gasoline taxes are nearly $.50 per gallon. And frankly,
most of those taxes are frittered away. Until the 1970s all state and
federal gasoline taxes were by law dedicated solely to highway
maintenance and construction. If that were the case today the United
States would have the best highways and the safest bridges in the world.
We would also have less congestion and less air pollution. However,
when greedy politicians (both Republicans and Democrats) raided the
highway trust funds at the state and national level the best user fee in
history was destroyed and along with it, our great highway system. In
addition, politicians then began to raise gasoline taxes as a means to fund
every wild eyed spending program to come down the pike. So count at
least $.40 of every gallon of gas you buy as a government slush fund to
support irresponsible government spending.
2. Blocked Exploration. As bad as gasoline taxes are, their impact on the
cost of gasoline is negligible compared to the systematic blocking of
exploration for oil in the United States by liberals who disdain your
individual freedom. Nancy Pelosi may not believe in the law of supply
and demand, but her disbelief does not repeal the reality that government
constricted supply will always drive up prices, no matter the item.
Today, the United States has the largest known oil reserves in the world.
Yes, that’s right, more than Saudi Arabia or any other Middle East
nation. And, it should be pointed out that these are only the known
reserves. Many other millions of acres have been put off limits where there
are likely many millions of barrels of additional oil reserves. The US has
sufficient known oil reserves to run automobiles and heat homes for more
than 50 years! But enviro-nincompoops and their ignorant allies in
Congress and in the White House have blocked drilling for many years.
Liberal politicians are solely responsible for the high prices at the pump
today. If the free market were allowed to function, the price for a gallon
of gas would probably be under $2.00.
So the next time you hear or read about exorbitant profits, don’t believe it. The high price of gasoline is completely unnecessary and the CAFE (Corporate Automobile Fuel Economy) standards for gasoline mileage are totally unjustified.
Liberals just don’t like freedom. They really don’t like the fact that the United States of America has a reputation for being the world’s most prosperous and at the same time most generous nation. They don’t see it that way and they think the time has come for America to have its comeuppance. In their twisted and distorted view of history, Americans have gotten rich off the labors of others. Or their other answer is that America has just been lucky. They believe life is a zero sum game, that if someone benefits, he does it at the cost of another. Such a sad, contorted view of reality they have.
It’s time to vote them out of office—all of them—no matter whether they call themselves Republicans or Democrats, if they refuse to return this nation to the limited government principles established by our founders. Our nation has been brought to the brink of insolvency by an inexperienced and profligate young President who is out of touch with the foundational principles of freedom. We have one more chance to save the nation that has been the beacon of freedom to the world for more than 200 years.
It’s 1776 again. Those who came before us did not fail us. We must not fail those who come after us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)