My Take on the Oil Spill

What shouldn't be a political football at all of course is, given our polarized partisan country.

As is my custom, I try to sift through what information is available and figure out what seems most likely to be true.

In this case, it would seem that these contributing factors are more likely true than false:

The accident probably could have been prevented or at least mitigated had BP been more responsible with safety standards.

Since there has never been an accident on this scale with a deepwater rig, BP was caught flat-footed without a clear plan to deal with it.

The President didn't even pay attention to the problem until the oil started washing up on gulf coast shores.

The ususal left-wing zealots, who hold themselves up as the protectors of the environment, cheered the disaster, proclaiming that "God must be a Democrat!". Pretty heartless toward the rig workers who died and the thousands of gulf coast folks who will be harmed by the whole event.

Some of the things I wonder about, being a lay person who knows next to nothing about deep sea oil rigs:

The "Top Kill" approach, which may or may not be working to stop the oil spill today, is something even I would have at least suggested. It isn't a hard concept to understand. So why did it take over a month for one of the "geniuses" down in the gulf to suggest it?

A moratorium on further deep water drilling would seem to be a reasonable response. But when issued by Obama, the suspicion is that he'll simply make it permanent because he will claim that the oil companies never satisfactorily proved to him they've learned from the accident and know how to make sure it never happens again.

Of course, if Bush were still president and made the same decision, the Right would be OK with it, but the Left would assume he will wait a few weeks or month before lifting the moratorium, whether or not BP learned from their mistakes.

Is it possible both might have some truth to them?

Obama dithered, of course. If the "Top Kill" works, he's already positioned himself to take credit for it, despite the obvious fact he had nothing to do with it.

The MMS and Interior Departments proved themselves to be incompetent bureaucrats. What exactly is new there? The attempts by Dems to try to suggest that's Bush's fault, in the face of the facts that the agencies are led and staffed by Obama appointees is jaw-droppingly ludicrous.

What a decent President, who is a true leader would have done:

Within the first 24 hours, he would have immediately convened experts from the industry to analyze the accident and work on strategies to minimize its impact.

He would have created a team to immediately commence containment operations while preparing for the "Top Kill" procedure.

Much of the oil would now be contained, and the leak plugged weeks ago.

But Obama's clearly not that kind of leader.

He ignored it for a couple of weeks, then when he did start paying any attention at all, it was only to threaten BP.

How much longer until we see $4 or $5 gas?

Probably very soon.

The Hitler Insult

Editorials in the local newspaper have been angrily denouncing a tea-party type who allegedly appeared in a local rally carrying a sign depicting Obama with the little Hitler mustache. Letter writers who are presumably supporters of the president expressed outrage at such unfair and uncivil misrepresentations.

It got me thinking about how the most popular insult of politicians these days involves comparisons to Hitler. Such comparisons are no more valid for Obama than for his predecessor, but it's interesting to note that they were made far more viciously and frequently against Bush. It certainly is a valid question to pose with these outraged editorialists, whether they were also outraged when the left side of the political spectrum continually invoked Hitler, even going beyond that to openly advocating or hoping for Bush's assassination.

National Socialists probably had more in common politically with Democrats than Republicans. They were, in fact, socialist, which is anathema to American Conservatives. They believed in centralized government control over the means of production, which is a hallmark of current Democrat philosophy.

It's Hitler's idea of the Aryan supremacy and his desire to purge the Jewish people from the face of the earth that makes him the most hated figure in modern history. Of course, no one can reasonably charge the Right with anything close to these attitudes, but Leftists love to try. Their twisted logic suggests that because the Right opposes socialist policies and those policies "help" the poor, and a large proportion of the poor are racial minorities, then the Right must be somehow Aryan supremacists.

The current president is showing hostility to Israel, but even that doesn't necessarily meet the Hitler standard of working for the destruction of the entire Jewish population.

Such name-calling by either side is counterproductive. While some fellow travelers might cheer Hitler comparisons of those they oppose, such comparisons have nothing but negative impact on those who are on the fence. And considering both sides understand that it's the fence-sitters they need to court to attain political power, they would be wise to abandon the Hitler references.

I don't get overly exercised when either side puts up a picture of their opponent with the little mustache added by a Sharpie pen. It's juvenile and silly, and means little. I do think the Tea Party should try to exert some control over their members and stop them from giving their opponents the opportunity to change the subject by painting the entire group with a broad brush, based on one guy carrying around the Obama poster with the Hitler mustache.

Perhaps the most accurate insult someone could make of Obama is to depict him as Jimmy Carter, who is his closest political twin. But I suppose only Conservatives would get it.

Historical Perspective

History is a great teacher for those willing to learn its lessons. That's not a very popular idea these days, as evidenced by those running the government.

For most of history, tribes battled each other for land and game, then as technology advanced, for treasure. Kings and tribal chiefs attained power over their land and subjects by offering protection and prosperity to their subjects. All walked a fine knife edge, balancing between the need for enough resources to raise armies to protect and expand their kingdom and the need to keep their subjects content enough to minimize those who would rise up and throw them out of power.

The Greeks were the first to innovate a new idea of civilization, the idea of self-governance through representation. The Greeks were hugely successful, but eventually crumbled as their citizens became complacent and overindulgent.

The Romans tried to apply the Greek ideal, but in relatively short order lost it to strong emperors who grew increasingly vile and corrupt with each generation, until the Roman empire crumbled under its own weight of debauched corruption.

Until the United States of America threw off the British to establish the modern version of the Greek model, the world mostly reverted to the age-old system of tribal chieftans and monarchies.

Then came Karl Marx, who dreamed of a collective society that pretends to distribute all goods equally among the citizens. The ideas were embraced brutally by revolutionary regimes in Russia and China. The Russian version crumbled, but China has so far adapted to become a world power.

In the meantime, a steady drumbeat has sounded in America over the last 200 years in the form of a movement euphemistically called "Progressivism". Which is Marxism disguised by an attractive name. The Progressive movement took full power over the American goverment in 2008, but has been gaining power for generations.

The Progressives are represented by specific, identifiable groups: Labor Unions, Government Bureucrats, Academics, Trial Lawyers, and those who consider themselves disenfranchised by the Capitalist system.

Their ascendancy took place incrementally, as government expanded, people were encouraged to believe they were disenfranchised by faceless capitalists who they believe selfishly deny them opportunity, and big business was allowed to consolidate into "too big to fail" status.

Ironically, the toppling of the system that permitted a Progressive takeover had at its core a Progressive program, named from acronyms that sound like "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac". Where Progressivism demanded that everyone has a "right" to decent housing, and therefore the government should guarantee mortgages to help them obtain such housing.

Then when energy prices spiked, many of these marginal folks could no longer keep afloat financially, and defaulted in unprecedented numbers.

So the Progressives rose to power on citizen anger over an intractable war against terrorism and a belief that the unsustainable energy costs were deliberately driven up by evil and greedy capitalists. People voted in the Progressives, thinking "let's let somebody else try to save us, they can't be any worse than these guys".

But they are worse. Much worse. The Progressives are in power and taking advantage of every moment. They have already imposed a socialist healthcare program that promises to bankrupt the system without delivering its false promise of quality, affordable healthcare for everyone. They are using all available power to shut down domestic energy production, while shifting huge sums of borrowed money into the pockets of their progressive cronies to build boondoggle windmills and solar panels while they lie to the public.

They ram through "financial reform" regulation under the facade of "fixing" the problems that led to our economic destruction, while the reality of that regulation is further consolidation of raw power into the Progressive bureaucracy. As evidence, just consider the fact that the new regulations and agencies do nothing to address any of the causal factors in the economic meltdown.

They are committed to dismantling the military to shift those resources into their social programs. They change foreign policy into one that is obsequiously seeking to pacify enemies while insulting and abandoning allies. They break laws with impunity, knowing they have the power to stop any investigations or prosecutions of their over-the-top corruption.

They plot to impose massive new taxes from the Value-Added Tax to Carbon Taxes. Simply defined, these brand new taxes are on everything we make and everything we put into the air. All of course earmarked to enrich their Progressive cronies at the expense of all productive citizens not part of thier "in" crowd.

Some citizens are waking up to their agenda, but it may be too late. Ordinary people can't get loans even when they qualify. The government controls the largest domestic automobile manufacturer. The government owns or controls much of the financial industry. The government seeks to own or control the energy industry.

In the meantime, real unemployment is above 17 percent and continues to rise. The proportion of citizens dependent on government for their very existence has reached critical mass. Illegal immigration is encouraged to put the size of the government-dependent citizenry into a position to insure permanent Progressive power over the country.

Thus does the latest, greatest society in human history topple.

Unless those of us who understand can find a way to reverse the Progressive juggernaut.

Searching for Balance

Stepping back a bit and trying to be objective, I realize I'm guilty of inconsistent self-expectations.

When I'm busy, it should be great. After all, I'm making money, have almost more work than I can handle, and should be ecstatic.

So why don't I feel ecstatic?

When I'm not so busy, it should be fine. As long as I'm earning enough to stay afloat, why not kick back and enjoy a bit of free time?

So why can't I just relax and enjoy the downtime?

I need to learn to be happy, whatever my situation.

Why I Believe

For a generation that has lost faith, my small contribution can only be to explain why I have not.



History

It cannot be reasonably disputed that there was such a person on earth a couple thousand-plus years ago, who we know as Jesus Christ. His existence and fundamental story is corroborated by a variety of sources, both biblical and secular.



Even the secular sources confirm that Jesus was a Jewish preacher who traveled the middle-eastern countryside spreading his message and performing miraculous healings.



Also mostly undisputed is that he suffered the brutal Roman method of execution, crucifixion.



Had that been all there is to the story, his followers would have simply dispersed and gone on with their lives. The story may have lived on as a terrible tragedy and example of extreme cruelty perpetrated by Jewish religious leaders and the Romans who feared a challenge to their power. But it would not have given rise to the worldwide religion called Christianity.



As Paul himself said, if Jesus Christ did not rise from death, then there is no Christian faith.



After his crucifixion, his tomb was found empty. Nobody disputed that fact; indeed, the Jewish leaders attempted to spread a story that his disciples simply stole the body to manufacture the myth of his resurrection.



But if that were true, it would seem that at least one of the disciples would have recanted in the face of their own torture and cruel death. But all 11 held fast to their faith, so that 10 of them suffered horrific executions while the 11th spent his last years in hiding and exile.

Then there were the more than 500 eyewitnesses who saw the risen Christ after his crucifixion, and that was only counting the men. There were at least as many women who were eyewitnesses to the resurrection as well.

The Church established by Jesus spread like wildfire, fanned by the apostles and those hundreds of eyewitnesses to the point that untold thousands of early Christians were subjected to torture and death they could have avoided by simply recanting their faith. Do any of us today believe in anything strongly enough to give ourselves up to tortures and execution rather than recant?



Personal

God has made himself known to me in many ways and on many occasions.



Not by appearing in some sort of miraculous heavenly glory and speaking to me in a thunderous voice, but by revealing truth to me in personal revelations and life experiences.



I know that sounds strange and vague. But that's sort of the function of individual enlightenment, which doesn't happen in a blaze of glory but in small experiences which add up over a lifetime to create a body of evidence that give me the satisfaction and assurance that there is a God, He loves us, and all He wants from us is our love for Him and each other.



OK, want some examples? I've been blessed with these personal revelations:

• A fleeting vision of heaven (in what some would call a Near-Death Experience)


• Visions of future events (my mother's passing)


• Clear messages (some would call them inner locutions)

You might say these are all tricks of the sub-conscious, and perhaps some may be. But only I had these experiences, you did not, so only I can judge whether they were tricks played in my own brain or supernatural.

But as dramatic as those experiences may seem, on their own they do not form the foundation of my faith. That foundation is actually based on a lifetime of study, seeking God where He may be found. And the wonder of experiencing the miracles of our world, such as the miraculous birth of three children, and seeing one of those children survive and thrive when it seemed almost impossible given his much-too-early arrival.

Those who scoff at people like me and sneeringly call us "weak-minded" or "superstitious" are missing something that goes to the core of our very existence. I feel sorry for these atheists, who like petulant children rebel against their heavenly Father just like my own children would rebel and throw tantrums against their earthly father when he disciplined them or denied them their desires.

I firmly believe every one of us has an innate knowledge of God, but we reject Him because of either personal pride, base desires, or anger with a God who doesn't give us what we want.

The non-believer tries to use two common themes in what they think are disproving the faith of believers.

The first theme is Science and Evolution. Atheists make the argument that evolution represents sufficient "proof" that there is no God. They sneer at evangelicals who believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis origins story, throwing the baby out with the bathwater by suggesting no reasonable person could conclude the earth is only 6500 years old.

I simply find it ironic that those most fervently opposed to religion place a religious fervor into their faith in scientific theories, especially the unobserved and unreplicated theory that somehow bringing some of the right elements together will magically create the building blocks of life.

Secondly, the non-believer points to Christians acting Un-Christian as justification for their lack of faith.

That is the most troubling, and certainly there are people who call themselves Christian who treat others worst than many non-Christians. From the well-publicized problem Catholics have with pedophile priests to fallen preachers like Jim Bakker and Ted Haggard, too often Christians fail to meet perhaps one of the most important responsibilities of a Christian.

On the other hand, I know that it's pretty much impossible for any Christian person to achieve perfection in matters of consistent morality. We all fall short, but the point is there is still salvation for us if we simply confront our failings, express true regret, and constantly try to be a better person.

That's what sets Christianity apart from any man-made religion. Jesus asked us for only those two things: Love God and each other. He didn't tell anyone to give him money, make human sacrifices, or force anyone else to "convert" to his religion. Rather, he challenged us to strive to be better people.

There is so much more I could never fit into a blog post, but the best closing argument I can think of is this:

Consider the alternative, which is already visible as our own society descends into anti-religious secularism.

What I know without a doubt is that a moral, righteous man of integrity will never:

Demand someone else give him housing, food, medical care, a living

Leave his wife and children alone to fend for themselves in poverty

Take the government handouts in form of Unemployment and not bother looking for gainful employment

Sell a home mortgage to someone he knows cannot afford the payments

Take out a home mortgage he knows he cannot afford

Sell financial derivative investments he knows will soon be worth zero

Expect a Physician to treat him and his family for free

Provide medical care only to those who have insurance or the cash

Brings lawsuits against people who were not negligent but have plenty of cash or insurance

Engage in extramarital and/or homosexual relations without restraint, then demand special privileges and transfer payments in honor of his "alternative lifestyle"

Lie and cheat for personal gain or to destroy a rival

If at least a majority of men were to choose to be men of honor, would our current societal meltdown have happened? I would say no.

Honorable men are becoming difficult to find.

You see, I'd rather believe and never discover that I was wrong, than not believe and find out much too late that I was horribly wrong.

Elections Have Consequences

As is evident in the latest Supreme Court nominee. Kagan is clearly a leftist, and the only real question is just exactly how far left.

Did anybody expect Obama to nominate a Conservative? Even a Moderate? I don't think so. Conservatives only hoped for a nominee who isn't a raging radical.

What would a Conservative in the Senate do with such a nominee? Line up in opposition? Or go along in hopes the other side might show the same consideration for the next Conservative President's nominee?

When people talk about the polarization between Left and Right (read: Republicans and Democrats), it's truly ideologically based. The argument already being made out front of any Republican opposition to the nominee is that they will oppose her on strictly partisan grounds.

Well, let's see if there are some objective factors that can be used to oppose this nominee.

She has never actually been a judge
She has never practiced law, at least before she was appointed to her current job by Obama
She thumbed her nose at the law when she tried to bar military recruiters from Harvard
She's apparently never even written anything of importance on consititutional law

Her only qualifications for the job seem to be that she's a woman, a liberal, and a career academic. How does that translate into Obama's criteria that she "understands the struggles of ordinary people", exactly? Would anyone characterize her as an "ordinary American"?

May I humbly suggest that she's less qualified for the job than, say, Harriet Myers.

Finding Truth About AZ Immigration Bill

I spent some time looking for the content of the actual bill online, and failed. It may be out there somewhere, but nowhere it can easily be accessed.

Instead, all I found were pages and pages of links to articles and blogs that decry the law as heavy-handed or fascist. Such overwrought propaganda is clearly designed to paint a frightening picture of a law that offends civil liberties, whether or not such charges are true.

Trying the second-best option, I found this article from NPR. Some might be surprised that a reasonable and analytical argument on the pro side of the issue would be given air by what many on the Right call National Proletariat Radio.

The information in this article refutes all of the paranoid rhetoric posed by the 3 out of 4 articles on the net and the President, who suggested a family going out for ice cream could be randomly pulled over and arrested for not taking their "papers" along.

The key phrase seems to be "lawful contact". In other words, nobody can be pulled over and harrassed based on a simple visual profile or an offier hearing them speaking Spanish. Lawful contact means the encounter was based on a routine encounter due to a traffic violation or other complaint requiring law enforcement contact.

There's also the important phrase "reasonable suspicion", which also has years of very clear definition. Reasonable suspicion is not defined by what's in the officer's mind at the time, but by clearly defined parameters that represent reasonable suspicion that the person detained for whatever violation may not be legally present. Things like no drivers licence, no proof of insurance, refusal to provide identification.

The outraged argument against the law seems to suggest that it gives license to law enforcement to harrass innocent people without cause. Where it is true that some rogue officers will do so for their own illegitimate reasons, that does not mean the law tolerates such behavior.

The bottom line of the law, as far as I can tell, is to simply allow police to turn over illegal aliens to ICE when they encounter them along the course of their normal enforcement activities.

And I don't have a problem with that.