Good bye Focus on the Family

I took the following segment from an Associated Press article:

"Terrorist strikes on four American cities. Russia rolling into Eastern Europe. Israel hit by a nuclear bomb. Gay marriage in every state. The end of the Boy Scouts.
All are plausible scenarios if Democrat Barack Obama is elected president, according to a new addition to the campaign conversation called "Letter from 2012 in Obama's America," produced by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family Action." Lots of groups Christian groups have criticized Obama, "but among the strongest pieces this year is Focus on the Family Action's letter which has been posted on the group's Web site and making the e-mail rounds. Signed by "A Christian from 2012," it claims a series of events could logically happen based on the group's interpretation of Obama's record, Democratic Party positions, recent court rulings and other trends.
Among the claims:
• A 6-3 liberal majority Supreme Court that results in rulings like one making gay marriage the law of the land and another forcing the Boy Scouts to "hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys." (In the imagined scenario, The Boy Scouts choose to disband rather than obey).
• A series of domestic and international disasters based on Obama's "reluctance to send troops overseas." That includes terrorist attacks on U.S. soil that kill hundreds, Russia occupying the Baltic states and Eastern European countries including Poland and the Czech Republic, and al-Qaida overwhelming Iraq.
• Nationalized health care with long lines for surgery and no access to hospitals for people over 80.
The goal was to "articulate the big picture," said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of public policy for Focus on the Family Action. "If it is a doomsday picture, then it's a realistic picture," she said.
Obama favors abortion rights and supports civil unions for same-sex couples, but says states should make their own decisions about marriage. He said he would intensify diplomatic pressure on Iran over its nuclear ambitions and add troops in Afghanistan.
On taxes, Obama has proposed an increase on the 5 percent of taxpayers who make more than $250,000 a year and advocates cuts for those who make less. His health care plan calls for the government to subsidize coverage for millions of Americans who otherwise couldn't afford it.
One of the clear targets of this latest conservative Christian push against the Democrat is younger evangelicals who might be considering him. The letter posits that young evangelicals provide the margin that let Obama defeat John McCain. But Margaret Feinberg, a Denver-area evangelical author, predicted failure.
"Young evangelicals are tired — like most people at this point in the election — and rhetoric which is fear-based, strong-arms the listener, and states opinion as fact will only polarize rather than further the informed, balanced discussion that younger voters are hungry for," she said.

To be honest, I stopped taking Focus on the Family seriously about the same time I wrote off Joshua Harris. America is not and never has been a New Israel-style theocracy. Sure, even some of the Founding Fathers liked to conjure up images and hint at values that suggested that, but only as ploys to galvanize more popular support for the Revolution. Most of the issues about which Focus on the Family is concerned are not platform issues. Gay rights is not, and won't be until Obama has an opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice. And unless Democrats are a 2/3 majority in the Senate at that time, the Republicans can still block any nominee they dislike, so I don't understand the alarm. In the segment cited above, they mention worries about long lines for health care. Are they worried because more people will have access to it? Ugh. Good bye Focus on the Family. You sold your brain to religion.

Happy Anniversary!

Hope you get to enjoy it! :-)

Powell endorsement

Anyone notice who fmr. Gen. Powell endorsed tonight? Any guesses? Any guesses as to why? Watch his endorsement of Obama, and listen to the the clarity and urgency of his message.

limited socialism

WASHINGTON - You won't find it in his campaign ads, but Barack Obama let slip his plans to become a modern-day Robin Hood in the White House, confiscating money from the rich to give to the poor.
MORE: Mac's Tax Ax A Saving Grace
MORE: O Poster Expelled At City HS
MORE: McCainiac Names Tot After GOP Ticket
MORE: Barack Backs Away From ACORN
Conservatives yesterday ripped Obama after he was caught on video telling an Ohio plumber that he intends to take the profits of small-business owners and "spread the wealth around" to those with lesser incomes.
showvideo("PostElections","1458_396214");
The fracas over Obama's tax plan broke out Sunday outside Toledo when Joe Wurzelbacher approached the candidate.
Wurzelbacher said he planned to become the owner of a small plumbing business that will take in more than the $250,000 amount at which Obama plans to begin raising tax rates.
"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the blue-collar worker asked.
After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: "I've worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream."
"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too. WASHINGTON - You won't find it in his campaign ads, but Barack Obama let slip his plans to become a modern-day Robin Hood in the White House, confiscating money from the rich to give to the poor.
MORE: Mac's Tax Ax A Saving Grace
MORE: O Poster Expelled At City HS
MORE: McCainiac Names Tot After GOP Ticket
MORE: Barack Backs Away From ACORN
Conservatives yesterday ripped Obama after he was caught on video telling an Ohio plumber that he intends to take the profits of small-business owners and "spread the wealth around" to those with lesser incomes.

The fracas over Obama's tax plan broke out Sunday outside Toledo when Joe Wurzelbacher approached the candidate.
Wurzelbacher said he planned to become the owner of a small plumbing business that will take in more than the $250,000 amount at which Obama plans to begin raising tax rates.
"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the blue-collar worker asked.
After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: "I've worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream."
"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.

Doesn't sound too bad to me. A mixed socialist-capitalist economy is a good thing for the middle class, when guided by natural morality, rather than marxist determinism.

An Argument for the Existence of the God of Abraham

There are two ways a thing can exist. It can exist contingently, or it can exist necessarily. A thing is contingent if its existence is contingent on the existence of other things, and if it could be different (or not exist at all) without causing a logical contradiction. So to give an example, I am contingent, because my existence is contingent on the existence of my parents. I am also contingent because I could have had black hair instead of blonde without this causing some kind of logical contradiction in the nature of the universe.

For a thing to be necessary in its existence, it would have to rely on the existence of nothing else for its own existence, and everything else would have to rely on the existence of that necessary substance for their existence. Now we know that there must exist some necessary substance, because it is impossible to imagine a time when nothing existed. If nothing existed, nothing could have ever come to exist. So since there is existence now, something has always existed.

It could be, of course, that the cosmos is the necessary substance, and as has been pointed out by many atheists, "The Universe Just Exists." However, we also must realize that our cosmos is only one of many possible cosmos which may have existed in time, and also if our cosmos had been arranged differently, it would cause no logical contradiction. For example the Earth could just as easily have been the fourth, rather than the third, planet from the sun. But if the universe could exist differently from it now exists without causing a logical contradiction, the universe could not exist at all without causing a logical contradiction. As a result, we can say that the universe displays all the characteristics of a contingently existing substance. Therefore there must be some necessary substance, which is something other than matter, energy, etc, i.e a metaphysical substance, which is the exnihilator of the cosmos.

But if it is a necessary substance, it has to be a substance which could not be otherwise than what it is. So what are some traits that we can attribute to the necessary substance?

A.) It must be one. The idea of having two necessary substances is a contradiction, because each has to rely on nothing else in order to exist, and everything must rely upon each of them for its own existence. But if neither relies on the other to exist neither is necessary, and if either does, one is unnecessary.

B.) It must be metaphysical and indivisible. If it had contingent parts, like matter or energy, it would be contingent on their existence and therefore unnecessary.

C.) It must be alive. The principle that unites plants, animals, humans, and everything else that is alive is the principle of self-locomotion. They are capable of moving themselves. If this necessary substance is truly the exnihilator of the universe, relying on nothing else to have moved it in order for it to begin the movements that gave birth to our cosmos, then this thing lives.

D.) It must be perfectly good. A thing is "good" when it fulfills its end or function. When it fails to fulfill its natural end or function we say it is "bad". E.G, a bad tire is a flat one, because it is not fulfilling its function of helping our car move along the road. But since the existence of our necessary substance is logically necessary, it could not logically be otherwise than what it is. Therefore it logically must perfectly fulfill its natural end, and therefore it must be perfectly good.

Thus we find that the existence of the universe is logically reliant upon the existence of one incorporeal living and perfectly good God exactly like the kind revealed in The Hebrew Bible.

... and the winner IS....

Hip, Hip, Hooray, three cheers for Chicago Marathon Runner ELENA DAVIS, who finished YES FINISHED the course, all 26.2 miles through 29 Chicago neighborhoods. There were 45,000 runners and three other Elenas who were cheered by our sign but our Elena was the best of them all. You go, girl! ¡Sí, se puede!

guess where we went this weekend?

The Second Argerich Explodes

The more I hear of Irena Koblar's music, the more I like it. It's not often that a young pianist of this caliber is so powerful - most pianists don't mature and become truly great until their 50s or so; take Rubinstein, Horowitz, and Zimerman for example. That aside, Ms. Koblar's performances more often than not leave me breathless. Consider her recording of Beethoven's Piano Sonata Op. 10 No.3 in D major. What power and sensitivity! It was strongly reminiscent of the young Argerich from the 60s, winning the International Chopin Competition.

She has more than dazzling virtuosity; I have heard pianists with little else and though they may dazzle, they play without soul. (Lang Lang and such pianists are good examples) Ms. Koblar has plenty of soul. Her Scarlatti is dramatic without becoming Romantic gush, her early Beethoven rings clear and Classically true but her poetic depth is amazing considering her age. She dominates the keyboard (just watch her attack and posture!) without making it an empty instrument, again, something that normally is acquired through age and experience.

So many times women pianists flee to one of two extremes - overly sentimental or too dominating - Bianca Sitzius is a good example of the latter, Dubravka Tomsic of the former save for her Bach recordings. Yet Argerich and Irena Koblar were and are different. They have both, and Koblar, while she may never reach the emotional depth that Zimerman creates, nor the overwhelming virtuosity of Hamelin, has a confidence, interpretation, and technique all her own, and I say that it is good.

Her maturity, poetics, virtuosity, and faithful interpretations of the masters make her in my opinion one of the top young pianists in the world. This was her first concert - may she have many more, and have a long, distinguished career!

Finally, she is absolutely beautiful. It's rare for looks and art to be so well matched!

So much for the Cubs

How infuriating that they can't even win one game in the playoffs! What is their problem?? The best record in the National League and they still can't manage even one win in the playoffs. I say get someone who can hit and get rid of those who can't. This kind of embarassing loss is simply disgusting.

Bloodbath

Well, scanning the recent polls has been encouraging. An Associated Press article I read this morning suggested that the Democrats might gain as many as nine seats in the Senate this November. This is almost a bigger deal for me than the Presidential election, because the President can't get much of anything done without the Senate. On top of that "With Republicans fearing the loss of 17 to 21 House seats, January 2009 could bring Democrats a dominance over Washington that neither party has experienced since the Reagan years."

You know, American historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. predicted the Republican party would collapse. He actually suggested that would happen in the late 90's or just after the turn of the century, but of course couldn't figure in 9/11 and the Iraq war. The pendulum will eventually swing back to the center, and I think that third parties will play a stronger role in national politics very soon. Not sooner than 2012 of course: the Democrats will get their chance to soil the dough. I predict that Obama will win in November with a slim Electoral college majority and a small but clear majority in the popular vote. If the Republicans get slaughtered in the Congressional elections, then our national politics are going to change more dramatically than any of us have ever seen. I predict the Republicans will take a heavy beating. What happens after that is up to the Democrats and Obama.

Last Night's Debate

My expectations were that it was going to be pure entertainment with little substantive content...certainly true of Palin but I came away with a lot more respect for Biden. He was incisive and clear without resorting to the condescension of the past or compromising his message, all without making one of his characteristic gaffes (this has to be one of the best). 

 

Both parties were very cordial-great to see politicians strongly disagreeing without getting nasty. 

I don't know if "this is most important election of [our] lives", but there are certainly enough pertinent issues afloat (hot damn! the House just passed the bailout) for me to hope that the purple states head to the voting booths in November. 

The Government is to Blame for the Financial Crisis.

Congress has balked at the Bush administration's proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Under this plan, the Treasury would have bought the "troubled assets" of financial institutions in an attempt to avoid economic meltdown.

This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why:

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.

Thoughtful advocates of the bailout might concede this perspective, but they argue that a bailout is necessary to prevent economic collapse. According to this view, lenders are not making loans, even for worthy projects, because they cannot get capital. This view has a grain of truth; if the bailout does not occur, more bankruptcies are possible and credit conditions may worsen for a time.

Talk of Armageddon, however, is ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.

Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.

The costs of the bailout, moreover, are almost certainly being understated. The administration's claim is that many mortgage assets are merely illiquid, not truly worthless, implying taxpayers will recoup much of their $700 billion.

If these assets are worth something, however, private parties should want to buy them, and they would do so if the owners would accept fair market value. Far more likely is that current owners have brushed under the rug how little their assets are worth.

The bailout has more problems. The final legislation will probably include numerous side conditions and special dealings that reward Washington lobbyists and their clients.

Anticipation of the bailout will engender strategic behavior by Wall Street institutions as they shuffle their assets and position their balance sheets to maximize their take. The bailout will open the door to further federal meddling in financial markets.

So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.

The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer.