Greg Sargent at the leftist Washington Post has a wailing and gnashing of teeth post up which advises the Republicans are about to have a massive win over the Dem's over the debt ceiling deal " GOP on verge of huge, unprecedented, political victory.
The gist is that the GOP got everything they wanted and the Dem's gave up everything. But there is a shining moment for the Dem's though-they emerge as principled uber-patriots willing to lie down and surrender because only their side would rather lose,temporarily no doubt, than see the country go into default.
This is one of two themes that have merged over the last few days when it has become apparent that the true patriots the Tea Party freshmen have, by doing what is really the unprecedented thing, actually voting the way they were elected to do in the November landslide, not being seduced by the Beltway and not folding under relentless liberal media attacks utterly changed the body politic.
The second theme is that these patriots have been charged with Nazism, terrorist, holding the country to ransom,bringing America to the verge of default and potentially leaving pensioners and the military starving and defenceless. Josh Painter has a full analysis of the media howling and wailing
The liberal media chorus, once again seeing their hero Obama going down the drain, have risen up almost as one, particularly the harpies, to demonize the utterly ordinary folks from fly over country-the little people as Sarah Palin categorized them, as some sort of heartless radicals which is so silly it brings the media into even further contempt.
In stark contrast, and certainly a theme that will not be heard from the media is that one person has emerged from this debacle with her reputation for saying what she means, for staying true to the "common sense economic principles needed to get America back on track" and as the leading light of the Tea party and that is, of course, Sarah Palin.
Whilst others were wavering Palin issued the strongest encouragement to the freshmen tea party representatives,outlined the consequences for them and the country of not holding strong,once again called out the president when no other potential candidate had the guts to do so-where was Romney's leadership over the last week or so?
If the 2012 election is to be decided on firm leadership, principles, honesty and common sense economics then Palin, should she run has every chance of doing a Reagan versus Carter re-run.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Orriel Smith Sunday
..
TAKE MY MOTHER HOME-ORRIEL SMITH
More of Orriel at the Orriel Smith Appreciation Society
http://www.myspace.com/orrielsmithsociety
TAKE MY MOTHER HOME-ORRIEL SMITH
More of Orriel at the Orriel Smith Appreciation Society
http://www.myspace.com/orrielsmithsociety
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Pew Poll;Romney 21% Tea Party Candidates 43% The True State Of GOP Nomination
The latest Pew Research poll of Republican preferences makes it strikingly clear what the GOP rank and file want. They want a candidate who is supported by the Tea Party, or has values which are Tea Party centered.
What they don't want is the business as usual, flip-flopping Beltway insider candidates. If all the Tea Party focussed candidates support is added up it is more than twice that of Romney's and much more than a combination of Romney/Gingrich/Pawlenty (if Pawlenty is added to the Tea party then of course the huge plurality becomes even more obvious).
In another poll, from Gallup, which had Giuliani included, his support, plus Romney's, was still well below the Tea Party candidates support levels.
If the RealClearPolitics aggregate results across all major polls is examined the Romney/Gingrich/Giuliani result is 39.9% and the Tea Party support is 45.1% with Pawlenty left of both at 2.8%.
The danger for the Tea Party, and for the insiders candidates for that matter, is that if the Tea Party voters do not coalesce around a single candidate then Romney could win enough primary votes to have an insurmountable lead come convention time. If that were the case, and given the clear preference for a non-Romney candidate, the Republicans might well lose the ensuing general election because so many disaffected and disappointed Tea party voters might simply stay at home.
The choice of candidate speculation is just that until Sarah Palin makes her decision as to whether she will run, or if she will endorse someone else-expected on September 3rd.
If she chooses to run then it is quite possible that there will be an immediate winnowing out of the other Tea Party supported candidates and if that happens her support would quickly surpass that of Romney.
A Palin Candidacy Would Decide Jeffersonian Or Hamiltonian Prescription For America
Salena Zito posted a brilliant article on Real Clear Politics which contrasts the differing philosophies of government between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson.
Zito states that America is moving away from the Hamiltonian model i.e. “His vision was to promote an economy based on commerce, wealth and strict laws, advancing towards a technological age and European-style collectivism.”
Hamilton was, in his wider view, a non-believer in the basic capabilities of humankind to manage its affairs” he believed humans were inherently flawed and, left on their own, made poor choices.
In contrast, Jefferson “had a deep belief in man’s goodness and liberty’s importance...and his vision of America was of a decentralized federal government with power spread out to the states and local governments”
Zito sees the election of 2010, and incidences from popular culture as marking a shift away from the Hamiltonian to the Jeffersonian with the Democratic Party being particularly “out of sync” with this changing mood.
Whilst making the point that American history is one of “zigzagging” between these visions-not wholly embracing either, Zito stops short, I believe, of the full transcendence of the deepest nature of the 2010 result.
For the true nature of this paradigm shift we need to look beyond Jefferson, whose vision has been, to some degree, made archaic by the shift from the agricultural country America was in his time, to the commercial one Hamilton conceived of, to now consider the vision of his colleague James Madison.
Madison had moved in his thinking to a strong states rights position.* “He characterized inherent or implied (i.e. federal) powers as ‘the creatures of ambition...powers extracted from such sources will be indefinitely multiplied by the aid of ...patronage which, with the impossibility of controlling them by any demarcation....would ultimately swallow up state sovereignties”.
In his later thinking Madison had been inclining towards the doctrine of “Dual Federalism,” according to which collisions between the states and federal government were to be avoided by recognizing that the purposes which the general government was intended to promote were relatively few, whereas the states were entrusted with the furtherance of government; the public safety, morals, and the general welfare.”
The states rights position is one that is clearly recognizable as one that has indeed had a zigzag course through American history. In ascendance throughout the laissez-faire pre-depression time of the first third of the twentieth century, and very much in abeyance during the centralising period of Roosevelt’s administration and the second World War.
Democratic Party majorities in congress were tempered by the substantial number of old South representatives who, due to longevity, headed up key committees. Democratic Party president’s ambitions towards centralizing were quickly muted by mid-term swings to the GOP. However, during the G.W. Bush years things got out of kilter.
A huge swing to the traditional control on the leftward swing of the Clinton administration “The Contract with America” was negated as the pitfalls of becoming a Washington insider allied with a tendency to fall for the siren songs of lobbyists, led to a massive increase in government spending. That this led to economic near collapse and the massive repudiation of the Republican Party in 2008 was a natural consequence.
The hubris of the Obama administration driven by a demanding “progressive” left and a lickspittle media, led them to a wildly leftward swing which was, as Zito points out, rejected strongly and led to the rise of the Tea Party.
In examining this return to Jeffersonian principles, which is described by quoting an author Dr.Lara Brown as “our culture connecting with individual liberty again” Zito misses the Madisonian prescription. The “principal objects of government...public safety and general welfare” are implied in the Jeffersonian blueprint, what is missing is the third arm of the Madisonian analysis-morals as a principal object of government.
This is understandable as Jefferson was a deist, at best, and his view of human nature was predicated on man’s inherent goodness. The true nature of America has been one of a belief in man’s inherent goodness allied with an abiding belief in a loving God who guides America’s destiny. “One nation under God” is still the prevailing ethos no matter how much the progressives may wish to demean and deprecate this ideal.
The election of 2012 will be a battle between the Hamiltonian forces as represented by the Obama administration and the Madisonian forces represented by Sarah Palin.
It is clear that Palin’s entire political being is a combination of Jefferson’s individualism and belief in states rights and the inherent goodness of mankind, coupled with Madison’s belief in (state) governments having a responsibility to be an exemplar in morals. This assumption of moral guidance is one of “by example” and not by force.
Palin would have ranged against her the massive forces of centralization, the bureaucracy, the liberal media and the violent “progressive” blogosphere. It would be normally a daunting, near impossible challenge for one lone woman.
But the reality is that Palin will have an army of supporters and, perhaps, most importantly “an idea whose time has come” which idea is as old as history and is an unstoppable force.
*Madison quotations from asterisk to end of quotations at "general welfare" 'The Federalist Era 1789-1801' John C. Miller
Boehner Vs Tea Party Is Proxy For Coming Palin Vs Romney
Showing true patriotism enough House members the Tea Party have put its support behind the Boehner plan allowing it to pass.
Accepting a symbolic commitment to a balanced budget constitutional amendment, and enough spending cuts to equal, more or less, the initial required raise in spending, the Tea Party members have retained their honor and assisted with the process of letting the business of government continue.
This without the opprobrium the left media would have heaped on them if no settlement of sorts was reached before the August 2nd deadline. Oh the media screaming hardship stories of "old people will be left starving etc" that would have followed if no agreement was reached, with all the blame shifted from the Obama administration to the Tea Party.
Two things have emerge in stark relief, the power of the Tea Party representatives, which is derived from, something perhaps unique in political history, an emphatic determination to do what they were elected for, primarily to stop government overspending.
Secondly, with the spending cap out of the way the choice for the GOP for the presidential nomination is sharply in focus. A Romney candidacy representing flip-flopping politics as usual, or a candidate who represents the new politics, a politics which says "this is my platform and if you elect me I will bring it to fruition".
That such a new politics is a reality has been shown by those honorable Tea Party representatives who, for the sake of the longer battle, supported Boehner's bill, and those honorable Tea party representatives who voted against it to show, that in the end a vote for a Tea party candidate is a "what you see and hear is what you will get vote."
One potential presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, has remained steadfast to the principles of the Tea Party, i.e. cutting spending and a balanced budget. Polls of potential GOP voters show her usually in second or third place behind Romney, and polls of GOP activists show her, variously as winning in a landslide, or well ahead of the pack.
If Palin declares, on September 3rd in Iowa presumably, it would be expected that some of the support for other candidates will go to her as a declared contender and she would be, at that point, either ahead or neck and neck with Romney.
The battle for the soul of the GOP would commence on that day. If she runs and wins the battle for the soul of America would then commence. It would be a filthy, vicious campaign by the left, and the old guard, but all the more important for that, as the foetid failed policies which has brought once proud America to the debtors table, will be exposed and ready for the surgeons scalpel.
Accepting a symbolic commitment to a balanced budget constitutional amendment, and enough spending cuts to equal, more or less, the initial required raise in spending, the Tea Party members have retained their honor and assisted with the process of letting the business of government continue.
This without the opprobrium the left media would have heaped on them if no settlement of sorts was reached before the August 2nd deadline. Oh the media screaming hardship stories of "old people will be left starving etc" that would have followed if no agreement was reached, with all the blame shifted from the Obama administration to the Tea Party.
Two things have emerge in stark relief, the power of the Tea Party representatives, which is derived from, something perhaps unique in political history, an emphatic determination to do what they were elected for, primarily to stop government overspending.
Secondly, with the spending cap out of the way the choice for the GOP for the presidential nomination is sharply in focus. A Romney candidacy representing flip-flopping politics as usual, or a candidate who represents the new politics, a politics which says "this is my platform and if you elect me I will bring it to fruition".
That such a new politics is a reality has been shown by those honorable Tea Party representatives who, for the sake of the longer battle, supported Boehner's bill, and those honorable Tea party representatives who voted against it to show, that in the end a vote for a Tea party candidate is a "what you see and hear is what you will get vote."
One potential presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, has remained steadfast to the principles of the Tea Party, i.e. cutting spending and a balanced budget. Polls of potential GOP voters show her usually in second or third place behind Romney, and polls of GOP activists show her, variously as winning in a landslide, or well ahead of the pack.
If Palin declares, on September 3rd in Iowa presumably, it would be expected that some of the support for other candidates will go to her as a declared contender and she would be, at that point, either ahead or neck and neck with Romney.
The battle for the soul of the GOP would commence on that day. If she runs and wins the battle for the soul of America would then commence. It would be a filthy, vicious campaign by the left, and the old guard, but all the more important for that, as the foetid failed policies which has brought once proud America to the debtors table, will be exposed and ready for the surgeons scalpel.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Near 10,000 Vote Poll. Palin 46.6%/Perry 38.5%/Bachmann 5.2%/Romney 2.9%
Ace of Spades latest online poll-which appears to be a one vote per person poll shows, once again the strength of Sarah Palin amongst the rank and file, who certainly, judging by this poll, don't want anything to do with Mitt Romney.
If she declares, as is widely expected, in Iowa on September 3rd her ratings can only go up. Palin, as per the July "Hot Air" poll, despite all the MSM naysayers, and the Taylor Marsh type PDS pundits, just keeps rising.
Of particular interest are the changes from the June poll which had Perry in first place on 31.1% Palin in second on 30.5% and Bachmann-then the flavor of the month on 17.8%. As can be seen her support has utterly collapsed.
Obama Hits All Time Low of 40% Approval In Gallup A 29 Point Drop From High
President Obama hits his 52 week low and ties for his all time low at 40% in Gallup. This represents an astonishing 29 point drop from his all time high. If this held up through election year Florida/Ohio/Colorado/Virginia would be lost to him and he would be defeated. Even Pennsylvania could go which would be approaching landslide territory.
According to the cumulative tracking poll at Real Clear Politics-which is by its nature removed from bias, the Democratic Party's candidate for the 2012 election President Barack Obama has seen a massive, no other word to describe it, erosion of support.
At his highest point February 10th 2009 President Obama had a positive approval rating of 65.5%. In today's poll his approval rating is 44.9% and declining.
That is a drop of over 20 points.
Even worse President Obama's disapproval rating, at its best for him, was 19.3% on January 29th 2009. In today's RCP poll aggregate it is 49.8%-a startling rise of 30.5 points in his disapproval rating-and he is in the negative by -4.9% in his current approve/disapprove position.
If the economic situation worsens, and his economic policies on the deficit are seen to be faulty, then this continuous decline over time, and, allowing for fluctuations by events of the moment like the Bin Laden death, would seem to be heading that way again. If it falls below 40% (which it could well be now given the tradition MOE of +/- 3%) it is quite possible that his re-election would be very difficult.
Taylor Marsh Goes Full Bitchy PDS Palin Berserk
What is wrong with Taylor Marsh? This once sensible, and positive person has gone full Palin Derangement Syndrome off the rails. In a post on June 23rd Marsh assigned Palin to the trash bin of (Marsh's) history with such childish, catty and frankly stupid comments such as "Palin belches out her Facebook comments" which one would expect at Firedoglake or the juveniles at Huffpost, but not from someone of her, sadly now depleted, standing.
Personally I find the strongest cases of PDS allied with cattiness comes from, sadly, women. Judging by Marsh's dyed locks, and angled website photograph to try and make a silk purse out of a sows ear, the root of the problem is pretty obvious I think.
Marsh heaps praise on Michele Bachmann whom, should she ever get the nomination, is sure to be ripped to shreds by the likes of Marsh. In doing so Marsh makes the ridiculous claim that Bachman has more merit than Palin "Palin's scared of unfriendly media" because she, Bachman, is not afraid to talk to the press. The fact that during Palin's bus tour "the media ran out of questions to ask her, they asked so many which she answered in depth" totally escapes Marsh, which shows the level of bias and blindness she has sunk to. I recall Palin being interviewed-full on- by Larry King and Wolf Blitzer and saw no signs of her being scared.
In the June posting Marsh advises that "Palin's relevancy is at its lowest" a theme she returns to in this latest post.The irony that Marsh has, in two consecutive columns, taken to comment on a supposedly irrelevant person totally escapes her. A quick glance at the aggregate Memeorandum website, shows that Palin's latest remarks, directed at freshman congressmen elected with Tea Party support, that they should stand firm, has had widespread coverage and elicited serious analysis.
Why would that happen if Palin were "irrelevant"? Wishful thinking on Marsh's part clearly, but not that of Andrew Sullivan of Daily Beast, Michael D. Shear of The Caucus and the National Review just to mention a few of major commentators who wrote columns on Palin's remarks.Here is what the Los Angeles Times (no friend of Palin's) had to say, inter alia:
Sarah Palin sent a warning to freshman Republicans on Thursday not to forget the promises made to voters in 2010, adding her outsized voice to the flurry of last-minute arm-twisting before a key debt ceiling vote in the House.
Marsh has a terrible, demon like, drawing of Palin accompanying her latest post. The attack looks like the creation of a person suffering from some deep seated neuroses, and is again, a sad reflection on a once competent journalist-if Palin had posted such a drawing of Marsh, or e.g. Pelosi, or either of the Obama's, then Marsh would chew the carpet I am sure.
Anyway, Marsh advised in June that Palin's possible run for president is a
"charade she’s concocting surrounding whether she’ll run for president. How can she stiff her fans? What will happen to her career if she doesn't run, which seems the most likely choice," Marsh then goes on to call Palin a "Fox news babe"-cattiness and bitchiness in extremis.
I look forward to posting a link to that column-probably on September 3rd, when huge helpings of crow will be served.
Personally I find the strongest cases of PDS allied with cattiness comes from, sadly, women. Judging by Marsh's dyed locks, and angled website photograph to try and make a silk purse out of a sows ear, the root of the problem is pretty obvious I think.
Marsh heaps praise on Michele Bachmann whom, should she ever get the nomination, is sure to be ripped to shreds by the likes of Marsh. In doing so Marsh makes the ridiculous claim that Bachman has more merit than Palin "Palin's scared of unfriendly media" because she, Bachman, is not afraid to talk to the press. The fact that during Palin's bus tour "the media ran out of questions to ask her, they asked so many which she answered in depth" totally escapes Marsh, which shows the level of bias and blindness she has sunk to. I recall Palin being interviewed-full on- by Larry King and Wolf Blitzer and saw no signs of her being scared.
In the June posting Marsh advises that "Palin's relevancy is at its lowest" a theme she returns to in this latest post.The irony that Marsh has, in two consecutive columns, taken to comment on a supposedly irrelevant person totally escapes her. A quick glance at the aggregate Memeorandum website, shows that Palin's latest remarks, directed at freshman congressmen elected with Tea Party support, that they should stand firm, has had widespread coverage and elicited serious analysis.
Why would that happen if Palin were "irrelevant"? Wishful thinking on Marsh's part clearly, but not that of Andrew Sullivan of Daily Beast, Michael D. Shear of The Caucus and the National Review just to mention a few of major commentators who wrote columns on Palin's remarks.Here is what the Los Angeles Times (no friend of Palin's) had to say, inter alia:
Sarah Palin sent a warning to freshman Republicans on Thursday not to forget the promises made to voters in 2010, adding her outsized voice to the flurry of last-minute arm-twisting before a key debt ceiling vote in the House.
Marsh has a terrible, demon like, drawing of Palin accompanying her latest post. The attack looks like the creation of a person suffering from some deep seated neuroses, and is again, a sad reflection on a once competent journalist-if Palin had posted such a drawing of Marsh, or e.g. Pelosi, or either of the Obama's, then Marsh would chew the carpet I am sure.
Anyway, Marsh advised in June that Palin's possible run for president is a
"charade she’s concocting surrounding whether she’ll run for president. How can she stiff her fans? What will happen to her career if she doesn't run, which seems the most likely choice," Marsh then goes on to call Palin a "Fox news babe"-cattiness and bitchiness in extremis.
I look forward to posting a link to that column-probably on September 3rd, when huge helpings of crow will be served.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Gov. Palin on Greta: “It’s the Spending, Stupid!”
Gov. Palin on Greta: “It’s the Spending, Stupid!”
Posted by Ron Devito on July 26, 2011
What Is A Thinking Christian To Think Of Scholarly, Compelling, Negative Scriptural Analysis?
At the website EarlyChristianwritings.com the article "Analysis of writings attributed to Luke" by Alfred Loisy, is just one of a number of commentaries on "Acts of the Apostles" from what are obviously highly scholarly reflections, from analysts who don't appear to have a particular axe to grind. I don't either, but I am of course speaking as a layman, and don't notice any particular anti-Catholic or anti-Protestant bias. Readers from those areas of Christianity may find such bias, but to me it is certainly not overt.
If Loisy's article on Luke is read, we find that hardly any, if any, single sentence, much less section, is not totally exploded (in a scholarly fashion).They are exposed as being either an interpolation, a fiction, an insertion, a redaction, an alteration, a duplication, a fantasy, a placing back in time something from the future, a "classical format" wherein stock characters, used in antiquity are brought into life, to give credence to a writing as if it was from a famous author (e.g. attributing to "Paul" a work which is clearly not Pauline.)
Nothing of Jesus remains as historical, nearly nothing of Paul's travels, conversation, or speeches, remains intact. If they do, they are often or are shown to be later creations used by the nascent Christian community to prove arguments, and attract new adherents. Dates, times, personages are shown to be wrong, impossible to have been where they are said to have been and, as with the Lucan Gospel, the entire writing is basically set out as being an aid to faith with no basis in reality-a "Christian Catechises". Actions attributed to individuals, and particularly to Jesus, are, he shows, clearly copies of the acts of ancient heroes, or made up to "prove" the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies.
In contrast there is, from the same site, an analysis of Acts by J.W. McGarvey from 1872 which treats the text as "gospel" in the Victorian tradition. Most of the other articles however, such as "Luke's Story of Paul in Corinth; fictional history in Acts 18" by Darrell J. Doughty of Drew University, follow the same scholarly path (as is obvious by the title) that Loisy goes down, taking the narrative to bits.
Again, not being a biblical scholar, and not one to blindly accept what is put in front of one from the church, one has to accept, I believe, that the arguments set out by these learned gentlemen are striking. The question is, in the light of them, what is a thinking Christian to think?
One can take everything on faith and disregard the scholarly analysis, much like one might the analysis of professor's of economics, of whom it is said, with apparent justification, that if of all of them were laid end to end they still would not come to a conclusion. We can see that since early Victorian times, and the commencement of critical biblical scholarship, fashions in analysis come and go. Thus perhaps, we are justified in putting aside Mr Loisy and his colleagues arguments as fashions of a sceptical time-irrespective of how compelling their arguments appear-but that is, to me, an easy way out.
To me, if we set aside all dogma, miracles, epistles, articles of faith of whatever denomination one ascribes to and, for the sake of argument, accept these scholars views that what we know as the "memoirs of the apostles" are "aids to faith" and are not eye witness memoirs which contain seemingly irreconcilable contradictions, there are questions which are not answered by these scholars. In fact not only not answered but not even raised, which leaves a pathway for a thinking Christian faith which can accept the "catechesis' premise.
Again, these are a layman's thoughts, or rather questions, so if the following is simplistic I make no apology.
Something must have happened after the crucifixion to convince, not just one individual but a group, that Jesus was alive in a fashion beyond an apparition or an hallucination. Such phenomena may happen to an individual or even to a collected group once perhaps. But for the experience to have happened a number of times, and to the extent that rational people could accept it as proof of a resurrection, and so vivid and so valid that it could be not only accepted as real, but so real that it would enable them to die for it would, surely, be either inexplicable or proof of validity.
That the experience came later to be given an artificial gloss, so the analysts state, in the interests of "aiding the faith" for those who did not experience it first hand, is a strong argument but not a negating one.
It is, I think, no counter argument to say that being willing to die for ones faith, as millions have done for many faiths, gives no validity to the argument for the first hand experience presentation. Yes, certainly, millions have died for their faith, but it would be difficult to find many examples of a group of people who originated a faith and who were willing to die for it. If the disciples who experienced the resurrection invented it, or had any doubts as to its validity, or concocted a lie for whatever reason, it is hard to believe they would willingly lay down their lives for something they knew to be an invention of their own.
The second question is, even if it is accepted that the disciples believed in a resurrection, by what possible mechanism could they convince others, especially deeply faithed Jews who fought to the bitter end to ensure the purity of their religion? Pentecost, which, surprisingly, is not the subject of much critical analysis, is, perhaps, even more so than the resurrection, the key aspect of the making of Christianity as a faith. Something dramatic happened to the plain men who were disciples of Jesus to transform them into propagators of an entirely new faith.
Something happened which so strikingly impressed those Jews who came in contact with them as to the truth of what would seem a preposterous claim. The miracle of speaking in "other languages" (not "tongues") as an explicable proof of a divine intervention, is beautifully set out by McGarvey, and does not seem to have a counter argument from the modern scholars. So in sum, there are two inexplicable aspects of Christian origins which stand aside from textual analysis-the resurrection and the imparting of the Holy Spirit. These two aspects can be textually attacked, but the underlying aspects are not destroyed and are, I believe, genuine items of faith which are beyond rational understanding, and do not stand or fall on textual exegesis.
The third question, which stands apart from Christianity, but is an adjunct to it is the matter of "creation" itself.
Modern science has shown that all life, and the universe as we have it is a mechanism of evolution. What no science can explain is the origin of the universe. Certainly its beginning can be described up to millions of a second before the "big bang" but the origin of the infinite amount of pure energy, in an infinitely small space, eludes science.The fact that so many astonishingly narrow levels of atomic interactions have to take place to allow for a universe where life could exist, and that there is just enough "dark matter" to keep the universe expanding instead on imploding, are mysteries that science has not, as yet, if they ever will, found the answer to.
Scientists posit "budding off" universes, expanding and contracting universes, "mulitiverses" which, if they happen enough times will, by sheer force of numbers, eventually give rise to a universe where a planet like ours could exist.
They describe balloon like universes, and anthropic universes, perhaps like ours, which can only exist by being "observed" by humans "that it was waiting for". And yet some of these scientists ridicule Christians for fantastical beliefs! Here are some of the atheists and scientists fantastical beliefs; "For instance, Richard Dawkins maintains that an alien designer or designers are more plausible than a supernatural designer or designers because there is a known mechanism to produce them. He calls it the “crane” of Natural selection. Dawkins' claims, though, are criticized among philosophers (e.g. Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, Nancey Murphy) to just push back the problem further (now it would be no more the case to explain this universe, but the universe in which those aliens live), and it could be argued that the resulting universe where the aliens live calls even more for a designer that would be eternal and uncreated (that is God). Further, in Richard Dawkins' ultimate Boeing 747 gambit he explains that evolution is an even more plausible "crane""
All these theories simply push back, or aside, the concept of a creator but by no means negate one-so there is room for faith in cosmology still:
Most religions have some kind of account of the creation of the universe, although they generally differ in detail from the ones listed above. Some of these may be compatible with known scientific facts. For example scientist-theologians such as John Polkinghorne emphasize the implications of Anthropic Fine-Tuning within an orthodox Christian framework whilst fully accepting the scientific findings about Evolution and the age of the Universe. This is also the position of the Roman Catholic Church and of most Anglican theologians.[31]
So for me there is, despite the striking efforts of the negative biblical exegeses, room for a faith based Christianity, brought into being by the actions of the Holy Spirit, which, in a way, might be richer for understanding the texts in a new light, which might be a surprising, and perhaps unexpected result of the analysts scripture reconstructing actions.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Report; "Gov. Christie Casts Shadow Over Iowa". Surely He's Not That Big???
NJ (New Jersey).Com leads with a breathless story on how America, and particularly Iowa, is waiting on Governor Chris Christie to give the slightest indication that he would seek the GOP presidential nomination.
You can (if you wish) read all about the speculation and machinations here.
What caught my eye was the headline that, apparently, Governor Christie himself is casting a shadow over Iowa.
Yes certainly he is a large gentleman, and size, as president Taft showed, is no impediment to being elected. But, if he is actually of such a dimension that he blocks out the sun for a large portion of the country, there are major considerations, agriculture for example, which might preclude him running (if running were possible).
On the other hand Paul Bunyan solidified his position in American lore in spite, or perhaps partly because of, his briodnignagian appearance, so perhaps a president Christie is possible-but he shouldn't leave everyone "in the dark" for too long about his possibly being a candidate one would imagine.
You can (if you wish) read all about the speculation and machinations here.
What caught my eye was the headline that, apparently, Governor Christie himself is casting a shadow over Iowa.
Yes certainly he is a large gentleman, and size, as president Taft showed, is no impediment to being elected. But, if he is actually of such a dimension that he blocks out the sun for a large portion of the country, there are major considerations, agriculture for example, which might preclude him running (if running were possible).
On the other hand Paul Bunyan solidified his position in American lore in spite, or perhaps partly because of, his briodnignagian appearance, so perhaps a president Christie is possible-but he shouldn't leave everyone "in the dark" for too long about his possibly being a candidate one would imagine.
Major Candidate Drops 19.7 Points In Approval.Disapproval Up By 29.7 Points
According to the cumulative tracking poll at Real Clear Politics-which is by its nature removed from bias, the Democratic Party's candidate for the 2012 election President Barack Obama has seen a massive, no other word to describe it, erosion of support.
At his highest point February 10th 2009 President Obama had a positive approval rating of 65.5%. In today's poll his approval rating is 45.8% and declining.
That is a drop of 19.7 points.
Even worse President Obama's disapproval rating, at its best for him, was 19.3% on January 29th 2009. In today's RCP poll aggregate it is 49.0%-a startling rise of 29.7 points in his disapproval rating-and he is in the negative by -3.2% in his current approve/disapprove position.
If the economic situation worsens, and his economic policies on the deficit are seen to be faulty, then this decline will continue over time.
At one point his Gallup approval rating was 41% and, allowing for fluctuations by events of the moment, like the Bin Laden death, would seem to be heading that way again (it is currently down to 42%). If it falls below 40% it is quite possible that his re-election would be very difficult.
At one point his Gallup approval rating was 41% and, allowing for fluctuations by events of the moment, like the Bin Laden death, would seem to be heading that way again (it is currently down to 42%). If it falls below 40% it is quite possible that his re-election would be very difficult.
Is It Fair For These Beautiful Conservative Bloggers To Wear High Heels And Show Cleavage?
Every one knows that conservative women are, in the absolute main, far more attractive than liberal women. It has something to do, I think, with beauty being from the inside as well as the outside. This external manifestation of internal beauty is made possible because the nature of conservatism and the values it presents when internalized creates a wellspring of peace, beauty, kindness and, well just plain sexiness too.
Sarah Palin is of course the embodiment of all those qualities as are conservative elected officials too numerous to count-everyone having their list of favorites of course.
However, since fairness is one aspect of conservative thinking one has to pose the question-has this new conservative women's website "Chicks on the Right" gone beyond the bounds of fair play? Really, the left is at a disadvantage in argument and pulchritude from the start, but to have such beautiful, feminine women in 6 inch heels with amazing cleavage as competitors they would be beaten from the get-go. Really who would look at a "progressive" website's arguments when one could focus on "Chick's on the Right and view good old common sense package in..well an attractive package?
Here in their own words are their reasons for starting their blog-which are eminently sensible of course-who could disagree with anything they say? Oh, and here they are too (whew)...
So, why did we start this blog, anyway?
Sarah Palin is of course the embodiment of all those qualities as are conservative elected officials too numerous to count-everyone having their list of favorites of course.
However, since fairness is one aspect of conservative thinking one has to pose the question-has this new conservative women's website "Chicks on the Right" gone beyond the bounds of fair play? Really, the left is at a disadvantage in argument and pulchritude from the start, but to have such beautiful, feminine women in 6 inch heels with amazing cleavage as competitors they would be beaten from the get-go. Really who would look at a "progressive" website's arguments when one could focus on "Chick's on the Right and view good old common sense package in..well an attractive package?
Here in their own words are their reasons for starting their blog-which are eminently sensible of course-who could disagree with anything they say? Oh, and here they are too (whew)...
So, why did we start this blog, anyway?
We’re glad you asked.
When you hear the word “conservative” or “Republican” or the phrase “right-wing,” what image pops into your mind? If your answer looks anything like an older white dude with gray hair and a scowl, wearing a business suit or holding a bible and wielding a firearm, you’re not alone. Stodgy old white guys have long been associated with the GOP and conservatives. And it was, in part, this very stereotype that led us to start Chicks On The Right. We think conservatism needs a big-time makeover.
Here’s a news flash for all the liberals out there – Not all conservatives listen to country music and pack heat. Not all of us have rebel flags in the back of our Ford F150s. Not all of us are crazed religious freaks who will chase after you with our bibles. And, not all of us are old, gray-haired white men in suits. Nor are we just 20-something WASPs with trust funds. Some of us are stiletto-and-Sephora-wearing, hardworking chicks who juggle families, careers, and some semblance of a social life. We appreciate traditional family values, but don’t mind a great dirty joke. We like men who hold the door open for us, and don’t FLIP THE FREAK OUT if they sneak a peek as we’re walking by. We embrace our own feminism, and leave the bra-burning and hairy armpits to the Gloria Steinem-ites. We love our country, and we adore our husbands and kids. We believe that America is not only just exceptional, but that it is simply the most kickass country that ever existed. And we don’t hate government. We just want it to be limited. We believe in a healthy respect for government, in fact, but in turn, we believe that government should understand that it receives its power from us. The people.
Hat Tip :SaucyAmerican In NZ
Presidential Requirement-Not To Come From A Broken Or Abusive Home? Obama/Clinton Contrasted To Palin?
Hugh Hewitt has this comment in his piece on the Obama administration, and particularly President Obama's handling of the current budget negotiations.
"I'm not going to negotiate in public" has been the president's mantra, and it is simple code for "the public won't support what I am proposing." The president has bluffed, cajoled and filibustered his way through a month of closed door theatrics with the assistance of a compliant MSM, and the public is weary to the bone with the Community Organizer in Chief. His petulance, self-regard and overbearing ego combines into an unprecedented persona that is both ludicrous and also alarming in that he may truly be as clueless about the economy as he often sounds."
If Hewitt is correct with his observations of the character of President Obama, and these character traits are an impediment to cooperative negotiations in the interests of the country, then one must ponder where such negative and potentially devastating character traits originated from.
Here, from Wikepedia, is a biographic snapshot of the presidents early life, including his drug use, which might offer a clue;
1971, Obama returned to Honolulu to live with his maternal grandparents, Madelyn and Stanley Armour Dunham, and attended Punahou School, a private college preparatory school, from the fifth grade until his graduation from high school in 1979. Obama's mother returned to Hawaii in 1972, remaining there until 1977 when she went back to Indonesia to work as an anthropological field worker. She finally returned to Hawaii in 1994 and lived there for one year, before dying of ovarian cancer.
If the early life of former president Bill Clinton is examined, also via Wikepedia a similar broken home environment, this time with abuse, is found which may go towards explaining the destructive character trait of womanizing, to the reckless extent of having an affair in the White House (which has shades of Anthony Weiner's self-destructive pattern of womanizing). This pattern was also reflected in the notorious womanizing of the Kennedy's, which reached its destructive apex in the Chappaquiddick incident;
"Although he assumed use of his stepfather's surname, it was not until Billy (as he was known then) turned fourteen that he formally adopted the surname Clinton as a gesture toward his stepfather.[20] Clinton says he remembers his stepfather as a gambler and an alcoholic who regularly abused his mother and half brother, Roger Clinton Jr. to the point where he intervened multiple times with the threat of violence to protect them"
Both the elder and younger Presidents from the Bush family, whatever one may think of their personalities and policies did not, it seems, endanger the country through aspects of their personality which might stem from the troubled childhoods similar to that which Clinton and Obama experienced.
If in contrast the early childhood of potential presidential candidate Sarah Palin is examined, it is a model of stability, parental mutual love, and love for their children, of guidance, togetherness, prudence, morals and faith.
This person, Palin, whose life and character has been attacked viciously by the liberal media and entertainment industry, yet her parents and her own life is an exemplar (as the Wikepedia links will show) of honesty, probity, caring for people, faith and public service.
Based on that, and the stark contrast with her potential rival and predecessor it may be that when voters are, in the future, considering candidates for the presidency the candidates upbringing may be a factor which is to loom large in such considerations. If they do, then a potential Obama versus Palin contest would seem to have the odds stacked strongly in Palin's favor.
"I'm not going to negotiate in public" has been the president's mantra, and it is simple code for "the public won't support what I am proposing." The president has bluffed, cajoled and filibustered his way through a month of closed door theatrics with the assistance of a compliant MSM, and the public is weary to the bone with the Community Organizer in Chief. His petulance, self-regard and overbearing ego combines into an unprecedented persona that is both ludicrous and also alarming in that he may truly be as clueless about the economy as he often sounds."
If Hewitt is correct with his observations of the character of President Obama, and these character traits are an impediment to cooperative negotiations in the interests of the country, then one must ponder where such negative and potentially devastating character traits originated from.
Here, from Wikepedia, is a biographic snapshot of the presidents early life, including his drug use, which might offer a clue;
His mother, Stanley Ann Durham, was born in Wichita Kansas and was of mostly English descent. His father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a Luo from Nyang'oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province,Kenya. Obama's parents met in 1960 in a Russian language class at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, where his father was a foreign student on scholarship. The couple married on February 2, 1961, separated when Obama Sr. went to Harvard University on scholarship, and divorced in 1964. Obama Sr. remarried and returned to Kenya, visiting Barack in Hawaii only once, in 1971. He died in an automobile accident in 1982.
After her divorce,Dunham married Indonesian student Lolo Soetoro, who was attending college in Hawaii. When Suharto, a military leader in Soetoro's home country, came to power in 1967, all Indonesian students studying abroad were recalled, and the family moved to the Menteng neighborhood of Jakarta. From ages six to ten, Obama attended local schools in Jakarta, including Besuki Public School and St. Francis of Assisi School.
In 1971, Obama returned to Honolulu to live with his maternal grandparents, Madelyn and Stanley Armour Dunham, and attended Punahou School, a private college preparatory school, from the fifth grade until his graduation from high school in 1979. Obama's mother returned to Hawaii in 1972, remaining there until 1977 when she went back to Indonesia to work as an anthropological field worker. She finally returned to Hawaii in 1994 and lived there for one year, before dying of ovarian cancer.
,
"Of his early childhood, Obama recalled, "That my father looked nothing like the people around me—that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk—barely registered in my mind." He described his struggles as a young adult to reconcile social perceptions of his multiracial heritage. Reflecting later on his formative years in Honolulu, Obama wrote: "The opportunity that Hawaii offered—to experience a variety of cultures in a climate of mutual respect—became an integral part of my world view, and a basis for the values that I hold most dear." Obama has also written and talked about using alcohol, marijuana and cocaine during his teenage years to "push questions of who I was out of my mind."
If the early life of former president Bill Clinton is examined, also via Wikepedia a similar broken home environment, this time with abuse, is found which may go towards explaining the destructive character trait of womanizing, to the reckless extent of having an affair in the White House (which has shades of Anthony Weiner's self-destructive pattern of womanizing). This pattern was also reflected in the notorious womanizing of the Kennedy's, which reached its destructive apex in the Chappaquiddick incident;
"Although he assumed use of his stepfather's surname, it was not until Billy (as he was known then) turned fourteen that he formally adopted the surname Clinton as a gesture toward his stepfather.[20] Clinton says he remembers his stepfather as a gambler and an alcoholic who regularly abused his mother and half brother, Roger Clinton Jr. to the point where he intervened multiple times with the threat of violence to protect them"
Both the elder and younger Presidents from the Bush family, whatever one may think of their personalities and policies did not, it seems, endanger the country through aspects of their personality which might stem from the troubled childhoods similar to that which Clinton and Obama experienced.
If in contrast the early childhood of potential presidential candidate Sarah Palin is examined, it is a model of stability, parental mutual love, and love for their children, of guidance, togetherness, prudence, morals and faith.
This person, Palin, whose life and character has been attacked viciously by the liberal media and entertainment industry, yet her parents and her own life is an exemplar (as the Wikepedia links will show) of honesty, probity, caring for people, faith and public service.
"Palin was born in Sandpoint, idaho and is of English, Irish and German descent. She is the third of four children (three daughters, one son) born to Charles R. "Chuck" Heath, a science teacher and track coach, and Sarah "Sally" (née Sheeran), a school secretary. Palin's siblings are Chuck Jr., Heather, and Molly.[9][10][11][12][13] The family moved from Idaho to Skagway, Alaska, when Palin was a few months old; then to Eagle River,when she was about five years old; and finally to Wasilla when she was eight.
Palin played flute in the junior high band, then attended Wasilla High School where she was the head of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and a member of the girls' basketball and girls cross country running teams.[17] During her senior year, she was co-captain and point guard of the basketball team that won the 1982 Alaska state championship, earning the nickname "Sarah Barracuda" for her competitive streak"
Based on that, and the stark contrast with her potential rival and predecessor it may be that when voters are, in the future, considering candidates for the presidency the candidates upbringing may be a factor which is to loom large in such considerations. If they do, then a potential Obama versus Palin contest would seem to have the odds stacked strongly in Palin's favor.