This Blog has moved ...

Thanks for stopping by but I'm not at home ... or, more accurately, I've moved!

But you can still come and visit me at my new home at Blue Collar Muse anytime you like. You don't even need to call ahead first to see if I'm home. This is the Internet, silly, the lights are ALWAYS on!

Enjoying the new digs ...

BCM

The NFL and the Rule of Law ...

NFL commentators, like the rest of us, have a catalogue of observational responses expressed reflexively under the influence of certain stimuli. This means they say the same things in certain situations. One of the most common statements is, "Officials could probably call ‘holding’ on every play!"

They don’t, of course, but what happens when the zebra does flag a player? Every camera broadcasts the offender’s response. These vary from apologies for negating 60 yard touchdowns to anger with self for doing something he knows better than to do.

A player may protest he was not ‘holding’, but I’ve never seen a player admit to ‘holding’ but berate the official for calling the foul. Players know ‘holding’ is wrong. While they don’t like being caught, when they are, they take their punishment and move on. If officials fail to flag their next ‘hold’, they’re grateful for the grace.

Further, no one complains ‘holding’ should not be a foul. They’ve played for years and it has always been so. Players don’t make the rules. Others define the terms of competition. If a player disagrees with a rule he can complain. Maybe it gets changed, maybe not. But the player, if he wants to play, submits to rules as currently made and enforced by others.

Bottom line, ‘holding’ is a foul and everyone knows it. You won’t get caught every time but you will get caught sometimes. When you do, don’t complain. ‘Holding’ is a foul and everyone knows it. Sure the zebras get it wrong now and then but they’re pretty good at what they do. It’s the rule of law on the gridiron.

A Conservative talk radio host commented on two items Friday morning. 1) a 73 year old woman was arrested for running a Super Bowl office pool totaling $50; and, 2) some locals were ticketed for warming their cars by starting them and going back inside. The host stated there were more serious matters needing police attention.

Reminded that, "the law is the law", by a caller, the host got a bit emotional and related a possible, albeit improbable, scenario. He said he would have no sympathy for officers found writing tickets for warming up cars if it could be shown that a simultaneous child abduction in their patrol area would have been prevented had officers not been wasting time enforcing a law against a far less serious offense.

Police are tasked with enforcing a host of laws ranging from jaywalking to premeditated murder. The argument can be made that the offenses the host related occupy the not-so-serious end of the scale and that the cops did not have to make the decisions they did. However, faulting the police and coddling lawbreakers puts at risk Conservative ideals such as the Rule of Law and individual responsibility.

Like NFL players, we all know the rules. We complain about tickets for ‘only’ 5 miles over the limit, we more readily accept punishment if we’re clocked at 10 miles over and revert to complaining about the fines for 15+ miles over the limit since, after all, "We were just speeding, it’s not like we killed someone!" But we know speeding is illegal and that it begins at 1 mile over the limit.

Just so, we know gambling is wrong. We know that law is seldom enforced except in flagrant cases so we’re comfortable with our chances. If we roll the dice and our number comes up, pun intended, we should take our lumps and go on. Why blame the cops for doing what we pay them for, enforcing the law? Why not blame the lawbreakers? Had they not broken the law the police would never have been involved. That the crime is a less serious one is irrelevant. The law is the law.

In life, as in the NFL, others make the rules. Since those others are imperfect, it is certain some will be bad rules. Our response to this certainty reveals who we are. Confronting seriously bad rules, such as "Jim Crow" laws or Nazi Germany’s legislation targeting the Jews, we should object to enforcement and refuse to obey them. This opposition is based in "The Rule of Law". We may justifiably refuse to obey any law of man if doing so requires us to break God’s perfect Law. Even armed with such justification, there still may be consequences we must be prepared to accept.

Arguments regarding lesser offenses generally don’t appeal to God’s Law preferring to appeal to things like ‘common sense’ instead. The nature of this appeal is flawed, though, for it pits one man’s view against another man’s view. Which man is right and on what basis do we decide? Opposing a law not based in morality, jaywalking for example, we can urge the law be changed and maybe it will and maybe it won’t. Disregarding a law with which I personally disagree makes me the final arbiter of right and wrong and reverses 800 years of Western Civilization.

In 1215, at Runnymede, King John signed the Magna Carta. Rex Lex (The King is Law) became Lex Rex (The Law is King) and every man was made subject to the law. Unless man’s law opposes God’s law, I cannot simply dispense with it because it fails to suit my purpose without doing serious damage to society.

A talk show host works in a glass house. It is easier to write here at my computer than to be on the firing line each day. I may seem a classic Monday Morning QB second guessing the guys making decisions in the midst of the fury. Still, radio hosts choose their jobs and this one chose to introduce this discussion himself. He wasn’t responding to a caller. He was a public Conservative speaking his mind. If my taking him to task seems the political equivalent of ‘Pros vs. Joes’, I’ll just note that Joes aren’t wrong just because they’re Joes and Pros aren’t right just because they’re Pros.

The position taken by the Pro as good policy for small matters undermines his arguments in more weighty matters. This same Pro believes, correctly, the arguments others bring to the Immigration debate, despite emotional content and appeals to common sense, are trumped by the fact that America is a nation which respects the Rule of Law. Concerning illegal immigration, he believes "The law is the law" and condemns those suggesting that upholding the law should take a back seat to the need others have to break it to get what they want.

How, then, can he take a position he condemns without raising both questions and eyebrows? Were I to do that I would be a creature of convenience and not a person of principle. The best course would have been never to have started the discussion. Failing that, while he disagreed with the police decision, it should have been noted the law was still broken and the cops were in the right or a call should have been issued for the law to be changed. Condemning the police and urging selective enforcement based on subjective evaluation of the law was precisely the wrong course.

Cops make some bad decisions. Who doesn’t? They could have passed these matters over and sometimes they do. They didn’t. All in all, Law Enforcement does a fantastic job under difficult conditions. But citizens must discharge their responsibilities, too. Respect the law, all of it, as a matter of individual responsibility - it’s the Conservative thing to do.

Standing at midfield and announcing to the crowd, "After further review, the individual on the Right did, indeed, fumble the ball ... since it was also recovered by a player on the Right, the Right retains possession ... the result of the play is a first down ... game on!!"

BCM

Thinking God's Thoughts after Him ...

America is the greatest nation on earth. We can do anything (legal) we can afford to do and believe anything we want to believe and give voice to that belief. However, independent thinking can be a two-edged sword.

For example, if a US military officer is killed, his men will likely exercise initiative and continue fighting whereas soldiers in a totalitarian state army might be useless in the same situation as independent thinking has been trained out of them. Independent thought also becomes a liability if we don’t evaluate ourselves to ensure what we believe is correct. When we believe what we believe is true because we believe it and not because it is demonstrably true.

This is particularly dangerous in discussions of Christianity. Christians believe one’s relationship with God is personal. Many who claim to be Christians, and some who don’t, believe that doctrine is personal, too. Confronted with an uncomfortable truth from The Book they dismiss it explaining, "Well, I don’t believe that!"

Christians ought not fear debate as differing views provoke thought and may bring revelation. There are many issues on which Christians can agree to disagree. The Message Bible paraphrases Romans 14:1, "Welcome with open arms fellow believers who don't see things the way you do. And don't jump all over them every time they do or say something you don't agree with--even when it seems that they are strong on opinions but weak in the faith department. Remember, they have their own history to deal with. Treat them gently." Anther translation of this verse calls these things "disputable matters". In short, one may hold any number of views and still be faithful to Christ.

There are, however, matters that are not disputable. Things like the divinity of Christ, His bodily resurrection and man’s sinful nature. I don’t mean people cannot or should not hold non-Christian views. I do mean two things: 1) People in general and Christians specifically, if they are going to get involved in discussions (especially public ones), ought to know the difference between the two; and, 2) if a person holds non-Christian doctrines he should have the spiritual and intellectual integrity not to label them as or infer they are Christian.

I have many non-Christian friends and enjoy the lively discussion of any topic with them, especially the "Dreaded Duo’ of Religion and Politics. But it is frustrating when people offer up as Christian something that is not and rationalize it with the unassailable non-proof, "That’s what I believe!"

Christianity is not just, "One path of many leading to God." Nor does invoking the name of Christ in your argument make you a Christian any more than living in the USA makes you an American. Christianity is unique in claiming the Bible is a record of God reaching out to man and revealing Himself to him. A Christian, therefore, does not have ‘personal beliefs’. Rather, he accepts as true what God has said to be true and adjusts his thinking accordingly. Johann Kepler’s description of Science as, "Thinking God’s thoughts after Him" is just as true of theology. We’re not authors making it up as we go, we’re adventurers looking for treasure!

So what prompted this rant? This afternoon a talk radio caller suggested listeners check with their pastors and get a clue about doctrine. He believed this is the New Testament age and the Old Testament is less, or maybe no longer, applicable today. Signing off, the host echoed this idea stating he tended to pay more attention to ‘the words in red’ than he did to the Old Testament. The host is a bright man, well read, well educated and generally right on the issues. I have always understood this man to be a Christian so I was stunned to hear his statement. Perhaps I was mistaken - either in what I heard from him or in what I believed about him.

Or perhaps he missed the Sunday School lessons where a few foundational truths were taught. Things like Jesus is God; things like God personally wrote the Bible using men as His instruments; things like Christianity is not a separate religion from Judaism but the fulfillment and logical conclusion of it. For the Christian the words in red and those in black were written by the same Person and carry the same weight and authority. Indeed, without the Old Testament, there would be no ‘words in red’. We need both equally not one as truth and the other as ‘truth-lite’.

And if you disagree, that’s fine with me. Every man is free to make up his own mind about the claims God makes in the Bible. Indeed, each man should put forth a considerable effort to examine those claims because his individual eternity is on the line. Do me a favor, however. Be convinced, honest and proud about what you decide. If it’s Christian, proudly call it so. If it’s not, proudly call it not. But please don’t give the Bible an ‘Extreme Tome Makeover’ and pretty up some old heresy for the 21st Century. We have enough theological conflicts to keep us all busy until the Second Coming as it is.

Trying to decide if I’m still on the narrow path ...

BCM

Those Selfish Americans ...

The Global Warming debate, World Trade Organization matters, the United Nation’s thinly veiled assault on US sovereignty and a host of other issues share at least one common element. Developed nations in general, and the US in particular, are accused of unfair exploitation of resources and consumption of goods.

The US, just 5% of the world’s population, is charged with greedily consuming a far larger and unfair percentage of the world’s resources. The companion charge, implied but never proven, is that the US deliberately shuts out the rest of the world in a global game of Monopoly.

But is this a fair, accurate depiction of the US? I contend it is not. It is, in fact, a classic illustration of the old saw, "Well, there’s lies, there’s damn lies and then there’s statistics!"

I concede it is possible, perhaps probable, our 5% consumes 25% of the world’s goods and resources. I object, however, to concluding that makes us responsible for the other 95% having to make do on the other 75%. In fact, the opposite is true.

The US has done more in the last 150 years to increase the goods and resources available to the world’s population than, perhaps, the next 10 nations on the list combined. In so doing, the US raised her standard of living to levels only dreamed of scant decades ago. In addition, she made possible increased standards of living, incomes and production capabilities in literally every nation on earth.

Why, then, does the world lag behind in production and consumption? The US bears some responsibility for conditions in the rest of the world. There have always been bad apples to ruin our reputation along with portions of the world’s orchard. However, our form of government and economic system allow us to publicly and decisively correct our mistakes without fear that admitting mistakes makes us weak and vulnerable.

Other forms of government and economic systems either cannot or will not do the same and their nations and citizens suffer. This is hardly the fault of the US. If other nations pursued our form of government and economic system with vigor equal to that with which they pursue the results of our government and economic system the resulting plenty would leave no time for complaints.

Complainers should rather encourage the various tin-horn dictators, socialist utopias, military juntas and assorted other despots of the world to "Give Democracy and Capitalism a Chance!" Freeing their people from tyranny would be more beneficial than cursing the darkness and blaming their problems on the US.

I offer the following support for my contention the US benefits the world more than she is credited for. Consider ...

Bill Gates and US computer companies - Computers revolutionized work and play in a single generation producing jobs and wealth in volumes that boggle the mind. The time savings and increases in efficiency and productivity directly credited to computers are staggering.

Henry Ford and US automakers - Is there a nation in existence without increased productivity and wealth from the internal combustion engine and the basic car or truck? Additionally, manufacturing and service in the automotive industry feeds and clothes millions around the world.

J. Paul Getty and US oil companies - These much maligned companies deserve praise and thanks not scorn and contempt. Cheap transportation and heating have saved, improved and prolonged innumerable lives. When Middle Eastern countries saw how profitable this one enterprise could be they allowed US companies to develop their natural resource (they couldn’t do it themselves) and then nationalized (read: stole) the final result. Word on the street is Hugo Chavez is considering the same approach in Venezuela.

The Wright brothers and US airlines - Without the ability to fly we could not begin to navigate our global village. Commerce and recreation exploded as capitalism expanded globally and show no sign of stopping. Without flight, what would tourism, travel and business do?

And what of Thomas Edison and the light bulb, Alexander Graham Bell and the telephone and countless other examples? You get the point.

Regarding nations changing their ways (at times with some "assistance") and adopting ours resulting in benefit to themselves and the world, consider Japan and Germany. Consider the democracies emerging from the former USSR. Consider the economic changes underway in China.

Only time will tell if capitalism will finally shatter the remaining shackles of communism in the former USSR and cut through the inertia of red tape in Red China. If not it will not be from lack of ability but from the intervention of those using power to line their own pockets instead of improving the lives of those they claim to represent. If these current powers that be prevent democracy and capitalism from replacing them it will not be the US’s fault. Just so, their current troubles are not the US’s fault either. The US is the cure not the infection. All the complaining, accusing and mud-slinging in the world cannot change that one simple fact.

Pledging allegiance to the flag and to the Republic ...

BCM

Media Reports from Iraq ...

Here's a story that hasn't made the news as best I can tell. Or if it did it was noted as just another homicide bomber attack in Iraq. However, like your 'Pappy used to say, 'The devil's in the details!" Anyone out there see this reported truthfully? Here's a guy who actually went and saw the place where it happened and talked to the people affected by it as opposed to sitting on their butts in The Green Zone and mindlessly regurgitating press pool feeds and info. Kudos to Michael Yon. Bookmark his site, sign up for his mailing list and enjoy the truth of what is happening "over there".

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/the-hands-of-god.htm

Thinking warm thoughts of our troops and our allies in the fight ...

BCM

Cell Phone or Bible??

I wonder what would happen if we treated our Bible like we treat our cell phones?

What if we carried it around in our purses or pockets?

What if we turned back to go get it if we forgot it?

What if we flipped through it several times a day?

What if we used it to receive messages from the text?

What if we treated it like we couldn't live without it?

What if we gave it to kids as gifts?

What if we used it as we traveled?

What if we used it in case of an emergency?

Is this something that makes you wonder, "Hmmm...where IS my Bible?"

One more thing - unlike our cell phone, we don't ever have to worry about our Bible being disconnected because Jesus already paid the bill!

Strolling through the house looking for my Book ...

BCM

Storm headed for Florida ...

Evidently my Chicago friends have never heard of weather that's 'bear'-able due to foul weather gear ... Go Colts!

Thinking this be the year Peyton avenges his Heisman boondoggle ...

BCM