Offshore Oil

A word of explanation about my view. Yes, I want to see the development of alternative energy sources. I dearly want to see solar, electric, hybrid, and other sources explored. But those take time; and Nancy Pelosi has stated that she intends to keep prices of oil high deliberately in order to force the development of other energy sources. These measures cannot work to make any real difference, though, because they only harm the poor. The wealthy can afford gas. The middle and low income cannot, and it is they whose house payments depend on being able to afford the tank of gas to drive to work. These punitive methods espoused by Pelosi and her supporters only harm the poor, who are having the hardest time already in this difficult economy. It is rarely the poor who make policy, however. Pelosi herself can undoubtedly afford an alternative energy car. But can those who sell her groceries?

The Democratic party used to stand for compassion. I don't think it does anymore.

Since the MSM only finds it funny when conservatives say things like this...

we're left to spread it around ourselves.


Please share this!

I'll be waiting to hear apologies to the Palins.

I have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time. Even people who did not believe the rumors were very, very quick to spread them just the same. These same people often people who would call it "mean," "uncharitable," or "immature" if similar rumors were spread about a Democrat. Now it's been announced that Bristol Palin is 5 months pregnant, which of course makes it virtually impossible for her to be the mother of her 4 month old sibling.

The evidence was overwhelmingly against the rumors: legal documents, including birth certificates. Announcements of Sarah Palin's pregnancy, the fact that the baby has Down Syndrome, which is much, much more likely in one's 40's than in one's teens. The only evidence I've seen to the contrary is photos that show Sarah covered with bulky clothing, and the comment that no 44 year old with grown children would get pregnant. All of the speculation was spurious, yet those who knew it still spread the rumors.

Now that the rumors are known to be false, I don't really anticipate any apologies from those mean-spirited people who spread them. I hope they prove me wrong.

Why Politics Makes Me Hurt

Many people today put their political labels on such a pedestal that even the "compassionate" learn to harden themselves and even the logical learn not to think for themselves. It doesn't matter whether you are conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, if you let your political persuasion decide your views for you, then you have lost sight of your humanness, at least just a little bit.

Let me give two examples: abortion and the poor.

First, let's examine poverty issues. While I do not think either of the major parties has come up with adequate ideas for how to help the poor, I think the Republican party often forgets to be compassionate. Not having a solution is quite different from not giving a damn because you think they somehow deserve it. And anyone who doesn't want the government to be part of the solution had better be doing something on a private citizen level to help, or he or she is a hypocrite of the most selfish kind.

Now what about abortion? The Democratic party makes such a dogma of it that its members frequently feel that being pro-choice is the litmus test for being a good liberal. Let's put that litmus test to the test. Again, while I do not think either of the major parties has come up with adequate ideas for how to ensure women's full rights, I think the Democratic party has forgotten the very concept of compassion in naming the right to kill a positive step. The Democratic nominee for president has gone so far as to put himself on record -- by legal vote -- as opposing the right of a born baby to remain alive. Even if you believe that a person does not gain legal personhood until birth, and that until then the baby is merely part of the mother's body, the mother is free to walk away once that baby is outside her body; how is killing him after the fact going to affect her right not to be pregnant? How does the death of a born child help the unpregnant birth mother?

I know that few Republicans are going to read this post and say "Oh, man! Now I realize that I can't stay Republican!" And Democrats are unlikely to say "Now I see that the Democratic party doesn't represent my perspective after all!" I am not asking you to change your affiliation, or your self-image as a liberal or a conservative. But I am asking you to take a moment and ask yourself if the things you support are compassionate to all people involved. Nobody can hear your thoughts; you do not have to feel disloyal for asking the question. It is all right to ask; thinking people do stop and consider sometimes.

If you are to be truly human, ask yourself hard questions. Put aside the rhetoric of your people, no matter which "side" they are on, and just face the questions as though you were looking at them for the first time. Then ask yourself "What can I do to help my brothers and sisters to work toward a kinder world, even in the places where compassion and rhetoric disagree?"

Here's a Campaign Promise I Can Believe

Obama promises not to be moderate or act on the needs of the majority of the country.

The Death of Inconvenience

Today I was greeted at the entrance to the store by a man seeking petition signatures to get items on the ballot. One of them was called "Death with dignity." I cringe even thinking about what it means. "If you have any dignity, you'll off yourself when you become inconvenient."

If that sounds cynical, ask yourself what the message of abortion on demand is. Take a refresher course on the Michael Schiavo School of Disability Management. Let's face it, those who are not 100% self-reliant are treated like parasites on society, no thought given to their past or future accomplishments, or to the fact that by the very fact of their life they have dignity.

So we call it "choice" and kill inconvenient babies. We call it "dignity" and hurry the elderly on their way. We call it "right to die," and we decide for the disabled that they can't really want to live. And we pat ourselves on the back for having brought ourselves to this advanced, modern, humanist way of thinking. We value humans so much that we convince ourselves that the ones who don't have any value should be gone to help those who do have value to have a better human existence. Not only that, but we then go on to convince ourselves it's a kindness we have done.

All of this reminds me of the quote attributed to Ben Franklin, that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. We cannot truly call ourselves enlightened until we start caring about the needs of the sheep.

Grinding One's Axe on the Child

That's what I strongly believe is going on with the child mentioned here. Specifically, a second grader has announced that he's transgendered, with his family's support, and the school is obliged to support him in the decision.

So, where does an eight year old get a word like "transgender"? Where does a child that age get the concept that he isn't really the person he sees in the mirror? Even if it were true, it isn't an issue a second grader would be able to put into words.

That is, unless his parents jumped on the idea.

I could see a kid that age putting on Mommy's high heels and traipsing around the house saying "I'm a woman!" I've seen younger kids than that do it, because every child toys with the idea of pretending to be various role models. Every child I've ever known, by age two, tries on both Mommy's and Daddy's shoes... and big brother's, and aunt's... and any big person in his life. That is how they explore the idea that they will be big one day themselves. So, when a second grader comes up with the idea that it isn't fair that Sister has prettier clothes than he has, or wants to be just like Mommy when he grows up, it's not terribly surprising.

What is surprising is a parent who is so eager to display his axe to grind that when Kiddo says "I wish I could wear dresses like Mommy does," says "Woohoo, we have a transgender kid! Isn't it great? Now we can make our point to the world!!"

So now a kid who had an appreciation for gingham is suddenly assigned a lifetime of wearing girl's clothing and thinking daily about his own sexuality from this day forward. By age eleven, he will be deciding with whom to have sex. By age eighteen, he will likely commit suicide. The article doesn't mention that: that the majority of transgender people commit suicide.

But it's worth it, because it allows Mommy's and Daddy's soap box to be big and visible. Who gives a damn what it does to the child?

Anything for politics. Anything for politics. Anything for politics. Keep repeating that until you convince yourself that the child is less important than the issue.

Sickened

I'm just sickened when I read the news. One mother is accused of microwaving her baby. Another killed her toddler in a murder suicide as revenge on her ex husband. And there was the recent national news about Baby Grace, whose mother and stepfather tortured and killed her.

And I ache and feel nauseated over each one of these. I hear my tiny one cry, and it makes me go all mushy. I am outraged... and so are we all. But where is the outrage, hurt, nausea, over the millions of tiny ones deliberately and legally killed every year? How can we call ourselves compassionate if we put political theories on such a high pedestal that we no longer care whom they hurt?

The Religion of Peace Idolatry

They say they don't worship any man. There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his name? Um, I mean prophet. Er, Prophet. Uh, I mean Prophet, peacebeuntohim. Or is that peace be unto Him?

They call upon the government to execute a person who allows her kid to name his teddy bear after a classmate because the classmate happens to be named Mohammed. If using lightly even the name of the prophet is a blasphemy, it sounds to me like a form of worship.

Perhaps these self-named monotheists ought to rethink their worship of their idol prophet.

RIP

Don't stand too close to Rudy!

I know, the video is everywhere by now... but worthily so.



I don't know about you, but I think I'll keep my distance from this man when he speaks!

Footprints

It occurs to me... Al Gore paid to offset his carbon footprint. With one more future saint on the way here, maybe he should pay us for offsetting his moral footprint.

The Positive Side of DNA Technology

I've expounded, in the past, on the negative uses of DNA testing and manipulation: cloning, eugenics, abortion, and a general decrease in appreciation of individual humans. Today, though, we see a positive application of this same technological field in the news. A mother, Luz Cuevas, whose infant daughter had been kidnapped six years previously and was believed dead, spotted and recognized the six year old at a party, and obtained strands of hair to prove by DNA testing that the child was indeed her missing daughter.

If you look around the internet at the articles and quotes concerning Ms. Cuevas, you will note that her command of the English language is not terribly strong; yet nobody can accuse this woman of not being bright. Not only did she have the quickness to spot, after six years, a child she had only seen for ten days as a newborn, but she quickly thought of a way to prove it.

Aside from bespeaking this mother's impressive maternal instinct, the story exemplifies the often repeated comment that evil is a perversion of good. First, the action of the kidnapper was a perversion of the maternal instinct. Second, the story shows that DNA testing can be a very positive thing, with moral and worthwhile applications, even if the stories that make the news are often about the ways this technology is perverted to moral wrongs, such as the deliberate creation of embryos for the purpose of destroying them.

I think the lesson in all of this is that we cannot blame technology for man's sinfulness. DNA research isn't responsible for the evils that have occurred using its resulting technology; human greed, fear, and lack of compassion are. Even the wrongful use of aborted embryos in stem cell research originates in a desire to show compassion for the ill; and "therapeutic abortion" originates with a parent's desire to have a baby who will not suffer.

The way to rid our society of the misuse of our technological abilities, then, is not to eliminate technology but to pray for the grace to use it morally.

This time, conservatives want the state to get out of their bedrooms.

Usually it is the Democrats who cry out over government intrusion into the bedroom. But some democrats, like Washington state representative Maralyn Chase, favor privacy only for liberal causes. The "Two or Fewer" bill she proposed upholds the Democratic and liberal perspective, so that invasion of privacy doesn't count as a genuine invasion.

The truth is that Ms. Chase's perspective doesn't hold up as consistent when more liberal issues are at stake. A defender of gay rights, she gets an A rating from the Snohomish County Elections Committee for Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgendered. Another pro-homosexual group lists her as one of the few Washington state representatives with an "A+" rating, rating her higher than 50% of the openly homosexual or bisexual representatives. Her views on privacy only extend to the privacy of groups represented by liberal causes and groups, apparently. It would be nice if she could represent her constituency more evenhandedly, by holding either a solid moral perspective or an unflinching respect for privacy for all. Some people would still disagree with her views, but at least they could not accuse her of hypocrisy.

Ms. Chase herself claims her bill is not an intrusion at all, because it does not advocate the actual restriction of family size, but only "education." She "She counts that choice among the most private and intimate decisions a couple can make." She speaks as though she is defending the rights of both sides; but it is only the promotion of negative population growth that her bill promotes. That isn't education, but propaganda.

And it is not just a matter of sexual privacy, but of religious freedom.

When she propagandizes against large families, not only is she committing a serious act of bigotry against a number of her own constituents, she is also making a religious statement that those religions that encourage larger families are acting harmfully to society. She is, further, encouraging others to join her in an idealogical crusade against those who have either personal or religious reasons for having larger families.

Then there's the more sinister question: how often does an idealogical crusade succeed without it eventually moving from words to action? It took China about 20 years to move from words to action, instituting a one-birth policy. And "progress" in multiple countries (particularly China and India) has shown that birth restriction, whether legally enforced or idealogically encouraged, tends to lead toward the degradation and even killing of women and girls. This is not a direction I, as a resident of Washington state, want to go.

Fortunately, neither do any other members of the Washington state House of Representatives. Unable to get a co-sponsor, the bill died for the year. I have a feeling that so will Ms. Chase's political career.