12.31.2005 | Nguyen Van Thoi

Nguyen Van Thoi was one of those boat people you may have heard of. In Mr. Nguyen's case, he had been in ARVN and had directly helped our forces during the Vietnam war. After our disgraceful abandonment of the South to Communist dictatorship, he was sent to a "re-education" camp, in good Stalinist fashion. After two years, he bribed his way out, showing, if it needed showing, what the Communist ideologues were really about.

Nguyn Van Thoi escaped, via boat, taking his family to Thailand. The fuller story of how he wound up in Arlington, Virginia, where I had met him, may be found in his obituary. This man worked hard, at first at menial jobs, until he started what became his life's work here: a successful entrepreneur, opening a small chain of excellent restaurants. The best of them is the Nam Viet on North Hudson Street in Arlington, where we used to go weekly before we moved out of Arlington not too long ago.

Mr. Nguyen's life, now cut sadly short, is a reminder of how precious each life is. And how we should ever welcome newcomers to our shore who are willing and able to work. Especially those who are fleeing tyranny in their homelands. This man surely enriched our community, in more ways than one.

In closing, this about Nguyen Van Thoi's outlook (from the obituary):

Loyalty was a principle Mr. Nguyen often reiterated as a cherished quality for a good life, his son said.

"Never lie, cheat or steal from anyone to get ahead in life," Nguyen [John, Van Thoi's son]said his father wrote in a memo to his children shortly before his death. "Never let anyone look down on you."

Well, he's surely looking down on us, in a manner of speaking. No one who met the man in life could possibly have looked down on him. R.I.P.

12.28.2005 | Family

The city of Manassas, Virginia, has taken upon itself the redefinition of what a "family" is. At least insofar as a "family" inhabits a single house. From today's Washington Post, here's the story, and the city's definition:

A. An individual;

B. Two or more persons related to the second degree of collateral consanguinity by blood, marriage, adoption or guardianship, or otherwise duly authorized custodial relationship, as verified by official public records such as driver's licenses, birth or marriage certificates, court orders or notarized affidavits, living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, exclusive of not more than one additional unrelated person;

C. A number of persons, not exceeding three, living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit though not related by blood, marriage, adoption or guardianship; or

D. Not more than two unrelated persons and their dependent children living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit.

Four, as opposed to three, guys sharing a house? No can do. Not in Manassas. The obvious intent is to avoid having this suburb of Washington descend into trailer-park hell. Which it very well might do. Since it turns out that many, if not close to all, of the overcrowded houses are shared by immigrants, the usual cries of "racism" fill the air.

The city of Manassas, like many in the DC metro area, goes about its business like a nanny, looking to dictate as much of our lives as it can get away with. It seems like they've crossed the line, here, however.

A man's home used to be his castle. What this meant was that what went on within its walls was the owner's business. Nobody else.

Now, if the house is a public nuisance, that's something the authorities can, and should deal with. Excess noise, trash strewn on the public streets, drug dealing, prostitution, anything that disrupts the neighborhood should be actionable. Who, and how many live there? None of the authorities' business.

12.26.2005 | Ann Coulter: you go, girl!

Here's a little tidbit from a slinky blond member of the VRWC (her December 21, 2005 column)

Which brings me to this week's scandal about No Such Agency spying on "Americans." I have difficulty ginning up much interest in this story inasmuch as I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East, and sending liberals to Guantanamo.

Now, the question is, "Is she serious???" Three question marks. Previously, if memory serves, just after 9/11 she wrote something along the lines of, "let's invade the Middle East, kill their leaders, and Christianize everyone."

I thought she was joking. Ha. Ha. We used to call something like this "exaggeration for emphasis." But I suspect that there's a hard kernel of truth in what Miss Ann writes. After all, if the Middle East were actually Christian, there'd be no jihad against us Christians. Just the usual tribal warfare that the stupids engage in all 'round the Arab world. Since we're not one of their tribes, and we've got really big guns, I suspect they'd leave us the hell alone.

But they're not Christian. So they don't leave us alone. And the Arab stupids* are joined by the Iranian stupids, with only their "religion of peace" (or was that "pieces?") in common. And you have to ask if we'd have a safer country if we did exactly what Miss Ann writes.

Safer, no doubt. Better? Depends on your ethnicity. Which shouldn't matter, and, as a matter of law, does not matter. And, getting back to that religion thing, turns out that many Arab-Americans are Christian, and came here to get away from the Islamofascists in their native lands.

_____
* For all you bleeding hearts: I use "stupids" to describe what many Arabs and Iranians do, and what they profess as their beliefs, e.g. infidels should be killed, Jews use the blood of Christians to bake matzoh, etc. In this they are nothing but encouraged by their government-run media. If not actually by the government.

| 31 percent are proficient

Proficient in reading and understanding the written word. Not literary or higher criticism; rather, basic understanding. A recent survey (how else?) has shown a been a marked decline in basic literacy -- among college graduates. Ouch. The sad story is here, and from it, the basics:

The test measures how well adults comprehend basic instructions and tasks through reading -- such as computing costs per ounce of food items, comparing viewpoints on two editorials and reading prescription labels. Only 41 percent of graduate students tested in 2003 could be classified as "proficient" in prose -- reading and understanding information in short texts -- down 10 percentage points since 1992. Of college graduates, only 31 percent were classified as proficient -- compared with 40 percent in 1992.

College graduates. This is scary, and yet obvious. What has happened is not that people are getting dumber, but that college is being dumbed down. And why is this? Well, do you suppose it might have something to do with the silly notion that everyone should go to college?

This is, more or less, what has happened over the past 30 or so years. In the name of "equality", many, many mediocre and below students are primed to expect a college education. And, worse, they actually go on to college.

That many arrive at the college doors unable to read and write is besides the point in the new universe of equal outcomes: All must go to college, even if it is to study Basket Weaving 101. There are several causes for this. Among them liberal guilt, and the pernicious notion that one's worth in society is determined by how many years of school they've had.

As a result, the "market" of college educations has adjusted accordingly. Many land-grant and other state schools have let in anyone with a pulse, and dumbed down their requirements. Many of those admitted never should have been. Of those, quite a few hang on to get their diploma in Basket Weaving. And can neither read, nor write.

There still remain the top tier of universities, who admit many who can't hack it, but mostly those who can. The net effect is to cheapen a degree from many a formerly proud state school, and to loose upon the economy a host of unprepared yet credentialed college "graduates."

12.24.2005 | Welcome, government employees...

Note, it isn't "welcome, government workers..." This Dilbert 'toon o' the day illustrates what goes down in much of government and is called "work." In my time working for the G, it was easy to spot those who had never held real jobs, producing real things, on the outside.

They would, in all seriousness, embrace the notion that the world could be changed by a powerpoint slide. Now, to be sure, there have been presentations made to three- and four stars, and their civilian equivalents, that have resulted in real world changes. But this is a coincidence, and the method of the presentation isn't important.

In the reality, the best presentations to the brass are made by those who've been out there doing real things. Moving dirt. Designing and erecting buildings. Designing, building, and field testing machines and weapons. And using them. There's nothing to give that certain extra something to a briefing like, "Sir, we tried that in Blankistan, and it was fubared beyond belief because..."

Also in reality, decisions that have effect in the real world are not typically made as a result of presentations at all. Rather, they are the result of private conversations and intense lobbying by inside and outside interests with a stake in the outcome. No amount of slick briefing is going to change minds like the prospect of lucrative post-service employment, with stock options...

But many in government toil endlessly on their powerpoint presentations, polishing them, believing that what they do is "work." If this all seems to be cynical, well, my world, and welcome to it.

12.23.2005 | Hyphenated Americans

Well, the holiday "message" from the President started well:

Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel,' which means, God with us.-- Matthew 1:23

More than 2,000 years ago, a virgin gave birth to a Son, and the God of heaven came to Earth. Mankind had received its Savior, and to those who had dwelled in darkness, the light of hope had come. Each Christmas, we celebrate that first coming anew, and we rejoice in the knowledge that the God who came to Earth that night in Bethlehem is with us still and will remain with us forever.

President Bush then goes on, in his annual proclamation, to issue what amounts to a well-earned "thank-you" for our armed forces in harms way. I think the Christmas part of the message is close to perfect.

Then Mr. Bush starts wading in politically correct waters. First, he addresses Hebrew-Americans who celebrate an unbiblical (ok, uncanonical; the two Books of Maccabee are in the Apocrapha) and relatively trivial Jewish celebration.

I write "trivial" not to insult believing Jews, but to amplify on what any observant Jew knows: The two most important "holidays" are Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, and every Sabbath. Others in the top tier might be Pesach (Passover) and Succoth (Festival of Booths), which includes Simchat Torah (Joy of the Law). Hannukah? Gimme a break. Secular Jews, on the other hand, are annoyed that they can't string pretty blue and white lights to go along with the Menorah lights.

Oops. Actually, they can. In the believe it or not category, these things are for sale at finer Hallmark stores in neighborhoods with concentrations of Jews (or at least one such I visited in Rockville, Maryland). Then there's the whole megillah of giving of presents. Of course, this is just as off the mark (of the purification of the temple that marked the Maccabean revolt), as is the giving of lavish gifts to anyone other than the Holy Child. But hey, the goyim do it; we'll do it. At about the same time on the secular calendar. So there.

Hannukah greetings are sad enough, given the relative unimportance of the event it commemorates (hey, Mr. President, where was your Simchat Torah greeting? Don't know what that is, do you?). But then Mr. Bush dives into the deep end of the politically correct cesspool: kwanzaa.

The things celebrated by kwanzaa read almost like the Communist Manifesto: "unity, self-determination, collective work and responsibility, cooperative economics, purpose, creativity, and faith." OK, except for that last. Commies only had faith in idols such as Joe Stalin. This is the worst kind of pandering. Kwanzaa is a made-up non-holiday, celebrating collectivist political virtues. It's character can perhaps best be exemplified by the notion that the late, unlamented and unrepentant stone cold killer, Tookie Williams, was named Los Angeles' "King of Kwanzaa" (hey, I got my back my komedy k's...).

Well, there you have it, hyphenated Americans. Christian-Americans, Hebrew-Americans, African-Americans. December 25th is Christmas. The season leading up to Christmas is Advent. Period. Anything more is less.

12.21.2005 | $400 million a day

Perhaps this is what the State of New York should fine the Transit "Workers" Union. Having grown up and lived in the City, and being from a union family, all I can say is that these guys don't deserve anything but the boot to their lazy lard asses. My dad and uncle risked getting their heads busted for walking a picket line just to get the minimum wage, with no benefits.

It's certainly a truism that any labor strike is made all the more effective by coming at the worst possible time. For transit in New York, the week before Christmas qualifies nicely, and it's estimated (New York Sun) that the strike will cost $400 million per day in economic losses. The Sun's editorial today really says it all:

The strike is a blatantly illegal act of economic sabotage by a union so selfish that it is willing to destroy one of the most important business weeks in the city in a last-ditch attempt to preserve privileges that most private sector employees can only dream of. It is a case of premeditated illegality that actually deserves the high-octane, out-front law enforcement that Mr. Spitzer has reserved for use against Wall Street tycoons.

I hope that the strike ends quickly; I know what a pain it is to have to get somewhere when you can't depend on public transit in New York. What I'd really like to see happen is for someone in Albany to grow a pair of brass ones and crush the union. Since Spitzer is the top cop, though, don't hold your breath.

In the meantime, know who the real villians are: lazy, spoiled transit workers.

12.19.2005 | Tiger Woods

Jay Nordlinger goes on about the excellence of Tiger Woods in his Impromptus today. At some length.

Now, I'm just about certain that I can't do the wonderful things on a golf course that Tiger Woods can. Never claimed to, either. But I've got say this:

I’ll consider Tiger Woods an athlete when the other golfers attempt to tackle him before he completes his drives. And he can still do what he does.

Let me rephrase: other golfers who are fit and who can run and tackle. In the meantime, Tiger is just among the best of those who make a living by having those pleasant walks over wasted greenspace.

Golf to me was, is, and will always remain an old man's game. Played on occasion by young men like Tiger Woods.

12.17.2005 | The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

First the good. The House has decided to actually do something about the flood of illegal immigration. As always, the mainstream media, personified by the Washington Post (motto: "We're not as lefty as the New York Times, but we're getting there..."), has this headline on their story: "House Votes to Toughen Laws on Immigration; One Setback for Bush: No Guest-Worker Plan."

Wouldn't be a complete MSM story without spinning it as a defeat for George Bush. But it's mostly good news:

The House last night passed tough immigration legislation to build vast border fences, force employers to verify the legality of their workers and tighten security on the nation's frontier, but it rebuffed President Bush's entreaties to include avenues for foreign workers to gain legal employment.

Recognizing that we've got quite a problem, Mr. Bush attempted to do a Clintonian triangulation: appear tough on illegal immigration, while subtly encouraging them to stay. Nice try, Dubya. Go, House.

The bad is the Senate. Who rejected the Patriot Act, as written (story here). The usual suspects opposed the Act, all, of course, with the claim that (from the story) "renewal would do too little to protect civil liberties." The essence of the Patriot Act is to combine existing statutes and to ease the sharing of information among the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The exact sort of thing that the 9/11 Commission criticized the administration for not doing. And we know who will be braying about not following the hallowed recommendations of those worthies, don't we.

The ugly? Why, the New York Times, for holding on to that "domestic spying" report for a while. About a year. Until it could best be used, not to improve our national security or civil liberties. Rather, until it could be best used to sytmie the efforts of the Bush administration to protect their sorry asses.

We are at war. We are not in a "police action." Our enemies will not be defeated by normal law enforcement. These are harsh times, and it it long past time for our citizens to realize this.

12.16.2005 | This and that

Just a few things to mark our continuing descent into...well, pick your metaphor. But make sure there's "handbasket" in the refrain:

• "Bush Authorized Domestic Spying." Lions and tigers and spying on terror suspects, oh my. Story here. I'd only be concerned about this story if it concerned real Americans. It does not. It concerns those with links to terrorist groups or nations. In the latter category I very much include "our friends the Saudis" and Syria. It is useful, as always, to consider the source: the Gray Lady, who never met anything meant to keep our country safe that they did not condemn.



• "Experts Cautious in Assessing Iraq Election." WaPo story here. Every silver lining has its cloud. The MSM just can't give Bush and Co. a break. Iraq is a "quagmire", a "Vietnam." Don't confuse me with any facts on the ground.



• "In Iran, Arming for Armageddon." This one, by Dr. K. (no, the good Dr. K., Charles Krauthammer) does us the service of reminding us of the plans the Iranians have for their nuclear weapons. Which, of course, they've convinced the Euros that they're not really working on. Mo ElBarelySee will go, at most, "tsk tsk," and propose a really, really terse note for the Security Council to sit on for two years. By which time Tel Aviv may be a smoldering ruin. But not if Tehran is first...

It could be depressing, were it not for the fact that there are still a few good men, stout-hearted patriots, who will not let things come to that pass. Here, and, in Israel. Not too many other places, I'm afraid...

12.13.2005 | The $100,000 Bar Mitzvah

Just when I thought I'd heard of every wretched excess, now comes the $100,000 bar mitzvah. According to this story in the Washington Post (and they only lie about important things, so this is probably right on the money...). Apparently such things are somewhat common, at least in New York City, where, according to the Post, "Hundreds of New York bar mitzvahs cost $100,000 or more. Many top the quarter-million-dollar mark."

I've absolutely nothing against the wealthy. As to how people use their wealth, I'm quite willing to call wasteful spending by its proper name: wretched excess. Now, there's always going to be some Birkenstock-wearing, Volvo-driving, Ben & Jerry's eating prig who'll tell me not to drive my SUV or turn on (or even have) air conditioning in my home. And how many of us truly adhere to the "less is more" philosophy, and minimize our environmental footprint on the Earth?

The point is that it is one thing to have some comfort, and safety on the road. But to spend six figures so some spoiled brat can have a party? Worse, it's the nominal purpose of the celebration that gets lost. A bar mitzvah should be a solemn affair, in keeping with the seriousness of what it is: making the recipient a son of the covenant (bar mitzvah translates literally as "son of commandment"). That's with God.

Now, it could be I've read the Big Guy all wrong. But I really think that God would be much happier if the bar mitzvah boy-and-now man would focus on his new responsibilities. Perhaps as written by the prophet Micah (6:8):

He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Which just might include finding a way to help those less fortunate with some of the monies otherwise spent on a frivolity.

12.12.2005 | "right-wing noise machine"

Noise machine? Coming from one of the gutless wonders at MoveOn.org? Give. Me. A. Freakin'. Break. This, from a front page (!) WaPo article on how The Hillary is scuttling, crab-like, towards some perception of the political center. All in the name of fulfilling her lifelong ambition of becoming unquestioned Ruler of All. The new White Queen, only this time on our side of the wardrobe.

There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that all that Hillary is interested in is Hillary. Not national security. Not the poor. Not racism. Just Hillary, 24/7/365. From the Post story:

"Senator Clinton is demonstrating cowardice in the face of the right-wing noise machine," said Tom Mattzie, Washington director of the liberal [sic] group MoveOn.org.

But Clinton's refusal to embrace a quick exit strategy drew strong editorial support from the Buffalo News, which on Thursday praised her as a politician of conviction and conscience.

Well, just goes to show ya. You can fool some of the people all of the time. Hillary Sure has them snookered up in Buffalo.

12.09.2005 | Always Winter and never Christmas

Sounds sort of like the kind of joyless scene that would be set were a certain type of nanny-statist, eco-freak, politically correct band of liberals in charge. Praise be to God that they are not, but, if they pine for their goddess, she does a star turn as the White Witch in the just-opened Narnia.

As usual with C.S. Lewis, "always Winter and never Christmas" is descriptive beyond its few words. Narnia is in the iron grip of WW, who has the really neat trick of being able to turn folks, human and otherwise, into stone statues. She's a good stand in for He Who Must Not Be Named, oh, sorry, wrong fantasy, for Satan.

Narnia is about what a fantasy kingdom's Christ might look like, and anyone who claims that it is merely a ripping good morality tale has not been paying close attention. It is about how Christ died for our sins, was resurrected from the dead, and returns to rule His kingdom. And the very important concept that our redemption is totally unearned. Now, to be sure, you may read Narnia and claim that there is no Christ in it. But you would be wrong.

All of which is to say: so what? Just sit back and enjoy a fantasy world in which good and evil are known, temptations exist (Turkish delight, yummm...), and faith in the King of Beasts, Aslan, will be rewarded.

Of course, this kind of message really, really, annoys members of the liberal elite. Consider this overwrought quotation, as reported via the Washington Post yesterday:

"Here in Narnia," writes Polly Toynbee in the Guardian newspaper, "is the perfect Republican, muscular Christianity for America -- that warped, distorted neo-fascist strain that thinks might is proof of right."

If this is what being a Republican means, thank you, Polly Toynbee. I'll take it.

12.08.2005 | Keeping the barn door closed...

...now that the horse has escaped. This is the apparent message from the wretched overreaction to the killing of one (apparently) loony passenger who claimed to have a bomb on board (story here). The fact that the man did not have a bomb, but was (again, apparently) simply off his meds could not have been known by the air marshal who did the right thing by shooting him.

The marshal did the only reasonable thing he could have. He rendered the man incapable of setting of a bomb. Ever. After this, the only thing that should have happened is a check on who the dead man was, and a brief interview with all the passengers to see if there was any indication that the man was part of a wider, or any, plot.

However, in addition to this, what followed was classic government overkill. The marching of the passengers, hands on heads, as if they were all perps. The dramatic, and totally unnecessary, blowing up of the dead man's luggage. Uh, fellas, perhaps we could run it through one of our x-ray machines, and perhaps get some dogs to sniff it? Nope. Too easy. Let's blow it up; we like things that go boom.

Well, the inept and bloated Transportation Insecurity Agency had to appear to be doing something. What they will not do is profile, thereby saving the 99.99% rest of us from being hasseled. What they may now be starting to do, a little too late, is to actually screen people by their appearance and behavior.

What the TSA has not done is to actually look for terrorists, as opposed to looking for sharp objects. Not that sharp objects and guns aren't all too easy to get past the minimum wage slackers who staff most security checkpoints. Hey, you get what you pay for. What we've gotten is the outward appearance of commercial aviation security.

Until some schmuck forgets to take his meds and gets blown away for being nuts. Poor bastard, but at least the message is broadcast: our marshals may not know any unarmed combat, but they'll blow you away as soon as look at you if you say the wrong thing.

12.06.2005 | "Mexicans Without Borders"

The title refers to what the WaPo refers to as "a District-based immigrant advocacy group." "District" being, of course, Washington, D.C., the home to all sorts of advocacy groups, and the feeders at the public pork trough, Congress.

In a heart-warming story (sort of), the Post tells of one of those public displays of treacle, this time in the form of this bit of paganism:

...the Guadalupan Torch Race, honors the Virgin of Guadalupe, the patron saint of Mexico, whose blue-robed image is revered throughout Latin America. The torch left the Basilica of Guadalupe in Mexico City on Oct. 9 and is scheduled to arrive at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York on Monday, a Catholic holiday honoring the saint.

I'm just being a cranky monotheist, here. Christians certainly don't worship the "Virgin of Guadalupe," now, do they? I was taught that only God is worthy of our worship. But, hey, that's just one man's opinion.

Well, some of the Mexicans appear to worship that old Virgin of Guadalupe. But, hey, they're just poor illegal immigrants just trying to eke out a living in this harsh, harsh Protestant land. That must mean it's simply "multiculturalism", and who are we to be critical? I mean, these folks are pitiful to begin with, and are simply trying to make a living.

The problem is that their own country, Mexico, is an economic failure, and they send us their huddled masses yearning to eat Big Macs. By the millions, without papers. And we, being thrifty Protestants, hire them for much lower wages than pampered natives would be willing to work.

"Mexicans Without Borders" is offensive, as it seeks to not just normalize, but celebrate that many Mexicans are here breaking the law. I don't have a solution to the problem, but I do know that if laws are routinely broken and such crimes are ignored, then it can only lead to wider disregard of law.

You don't like our immigration laws? OK. How about laws on check-kiting? Or rape? Or murder? Or drugs? Hey, welcome to the American legal cafeteria. You get to pick and choose which laws you like. Ignore the rest. We won't do anything to you. After all, we just love to keep our costs down.

I mispoke above. I do have a partial solution. Catch them. Send them back. With their families, if they are also here illegally. Immediately. No appeal, no due process. Impose hefty fines on businesses that knowingly employ them. The illegals are not citizens, they've not got our rights. By entering our country illegally, they've forfeited those rights.

The only alternative to this? Change the law. But let's stop pretending we can have it both ways and still claim to be "a nation of laws."

12.05.2005 | Just because I could...

Yours for the making -- a customized picture of Einstein scribbling your name on his blackboard. Go here if you must.

12.04.2005 | Christmas un-Christian, or, Bah, Humbug

I always knew that Christmas was un-Christian. Now it's been confirmed by a writer of the Secular Times. The point of this op-ed, by Adam Cohen, is to scourge John Gibson's point of view in his book, The War on Christmas. In a great leap of illogic, and, I suspect, bah-humbuggery, the author also attempts to bring in my spiritual forebears, the Puritans:

The Puritans considered Christmas un-Christian, and hoped to keep it out of America. They could not find Dec. 25 in the Bible, their sole source of religious guidance, and insisted that the date derived from Saturnalia, the Roman heathens' wintertime celebration. On their first Dec. 25 in the New World, in 1620, the Puritans worked on building projects and ostentatiously ignored the holiday. From 1659 to 1681 Massachusetts went further, making celebrating Christmas "by forbearing of labor, feasting or in any other way" a crime.

Now I'm going to lay down my own "Bah, Humbug": Christmas as celebrated has very little to do with Christ. The Puritans had it right. There is no December 25 in the Bible. And, isn't it rather suspicious that the celebration of the Nativity coincides, within three or so days, of the Winter Solstice? In this sense, the Times' author is right on the money. Which is at the root of the modern problem.

I've railed for years against the ugly commecialization of Christmas, which should be a Mass for Christ. Period. The decorations, the forced gaity, the giving and receiving of gifts, the scrum in the box stores after Thanksgiving for the "must have" presents, all stinks to high heaven of paganism. Of worship of self and of things made by the hand of man.

Where the author errs is in thinking that John Gibson and others are proponents of, as he nastily writes, a "commercialized, mean-spirited Christmas." No. Gibson, and I, and many, many others, are proponents of not having Christ forcibly removed from the public square, just because He might offend some. To show the extremism of these enemies of Christ (not just of Christmas, mind you), consider this outrageous statement:

...their campaign to make America more like a theocracy, with Christian displays on public property and Christian prayer in public schools.

Just in case you might have wondered what a "theocracy" might look like -- the giveaway is a manger scene at city hall. Right. This man needs to calm down.

The reality is that Christmas was paganized when its date was fixed to coincide with the pagan rituals, common to many pre-Christian cultures, around the Winter Solstice. The deal was sealed the first time somebody brought in some pine wreaths festooned with holly berries. And those gifts? They were for the Son of God. Not for you or me. Think ye that ye deserve the same thing as Jesus?

| technorati tag | Christianity|

12.02.2005 | Justice, or mercy?

That's the former gangbanger Tookie Williams, now the flavor of the month for guilty white (and black) liberal celebs, and others with far too much time on their hands. Williams is a stone killer, and, just as is written in Exodus 21:12, is scheduled to be executed for his crimes: "Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death."

But wait, some people say: didn't Jesus overturn this Law? Well, yes, and no. What he did do was tell us to love our enemies, and that he would be back to do the final judging. As for the Law, including Exodus 21, he if anything reaffirmed it: "until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18).

Ah, but there's always another hand: On that other hand, Jesus made a counter example of the sinful woman the crowd was about to execute for adultery in accordance with Leviticus 20:10. The morality tale unfolds in John 8:2-11, and the essence of the message is this: "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:7).

Does this apply to those who would execute Tookie Williams? If not, what makes his crimes different as regards the Law in Exodus and Leviticus? Yet we wouldn't think of, for example, executing a child convicted of striking his father (Exodust 21:15). Well, some of you might, but most of us would think this to be, oh, to coin a phrase, cruel and unusual punishment. But from a theological point of view, these cases are not different -- if one views the Bible's truths as unchanging as unchangeable.

So, what might Jesus have done with Tookie Williams? First, he likely wouldn't stop the execution, since Williams has not repented -- i.e. has not confessed publically (he did to a fellow prisoner) nor requested forgiveness for his crimes. The only data we have as to what Jesus would have done is when he was on the cross, between two others condemned to die. Jesus let them die, with a promise to the faithful "thief" (actually a rebel and likely killer) that he would be with Jesus later that day in paradise.

Jesus lived in Roman times, and he was not a political revolutionary. He was content to let the Romans hold sway over the secular world. But we are not Roman pagans. We are a Christian nation, and I'd come down on the side of mercy, albeit unearned, for Williams. Let him live, and continue to do a little good. Keep him locked away, and let God judge him.

12.01.2005 | "Too Affluent for Buyer Assistance"

An alternate title to a news story with this in its title might be, "Nevermind the free market, people should be able to live wherever and however they want." At the least, this would be a better summary.

First, let's define the "problem." There is a potentially real problem, and the bleeding-heart version that is presented in the WaPo. The story focuses on the fact that the housing market in the Washington, DC metropolitan area has caused many middle-income people to not be able to buy what they'd like and still have a short commute to work. This is the "problem" treated by this story, and the left-wingers who populate our local nanny-state governments.

There's an example provided of a woman who earns $60,000 a year, but who "lacks the means to purchase something she likes on the open market." This whiny one

saw a two-bedroom condominium in a Silver Spring high-rise Friday. Looking past the tired brown carpet, the dated appliances, the "little bug" crawling in a kitchen drawer, she saw some potential. But for $199,000, she said, "I would want it to be in better condition than that."

For those unfamiliar with the DC metro area, Silver Spring is a close-in suburb, with some, er, interesting areas that are sorely in need of some redevelopment. This one example is actually a good example -- just not in the way perhaps intended by the elitists who write for the WaPo. Or who staff our local governments.

"Dated appliances?" Oh, the humanity. Hard cheese, missy. You don't like the "dated appliances?" Move out to Frederick, or even Hagerstown, Maryland, where prices are lower. The bottom line? There is no "problem" as defined by the bleeding hearts. The only problem is that some people want something for nothing. Too bad; like the Stones' song goes, "you can't always get what you want."

There is, however, a potentially real problem. It is how to ensure that lower-paid public employees, those essential to the community, will be able to live in the community. This is addressed, partially, in the story:

The beneficiaries [of housing assistance] are mainly public employees who can't afford to live where they work and employers who complain that housing costs force workers to commute too far or leave. Helping a firefighter, teacher or librarian buy a house is the sort of goal few politicians would fail to embrace, given the votes commanded by public employee unions. (emphasis added)

Yes. "Votes commanded by public employee unions." But the reality is that my tax dollars should not go to subsidize a librarian's desire to not have dated applicances. Frankly, I don't care if librarians can afford to live in my town of Alexandria. Police and firemen, however, perform a much more immediate and useful public service. The answer isn't to throw money at the situation. The answer is to set high standards, and high pay for certain jobs. Police and firemen come to mind.

If that still doesn't work, where work is defined as having a sufficiency of police and firemen resident in the community, then provide housing assistance only to those who hold such jobs. And let the city's voters (or county, depending on jurisdiction) have the final say in how this is done.
It all comes down to common sense. Which includes some hard-earned wisdom: if you deny the forces of the free market, you will pay dearly. One way or another, sooner or later. Most likely sooner. There's nothing of material value that's free in this life.