A Good Idea That Doesn't Go Far Enough

According to JTA.org, Legislation introduced in January by  New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver would ban state funding to colleges that help fund organizations that boycott in any country that has an institution of higher learning chartered by the Board of Regents of the University of the State of NY.

Silver said it was in response to the American Studies Association’s boycott of Israel and its academic institutions. Some New York based universities have branches in Israel.

“Colleges should not use funds to support boycotts, resolutions or any similar actions that are discriminatory and limit academic opportunities,” he said.

JTA.org says,  “The bill, which currently has 48 sponsors out of 150 members, would cut funding to institutions that pay dues to groups such as the ASA or which subsidize travel to its conferences.”

Excuse me? When is it acceptable for institutions of higher learning to fund any organization with donated funds, regardless of whether or not the recipient is in the practice of boycotting anything? Whose money is being sent to fund these boycotts? Any organization that receives state or federal funding should not be allowed to give that money to anyone else. We should stop giving tax dollars to organizations that have so much money that they can give it away to other groups.

Nether should an organization give funds donated to it to another organization without expressed permission from the individuals making the donations in the first place. How about legislation that would make that practice a crime?

Read more: http://www.jta.org/2014/01/27/news-opinion/united-states/n-y-state-bill-ends-funding-to-schools-linked-to-boycott-groups#ixzz2rjNBaQll

Read more: http://www.jta.org/2014/01/27/news-opinion/united-states/n-y-state-bill-ends-funding-to-schools-linked-to-boycott-groups#ixzz2rjNaUOYr

Will this Turnabout be Fair Play?

Harvey Weinstein is a big time Hollywood producer. He has produced some of the most violent films over the past couple of decades, including Pulp Fiction, U want me to kill him?, Django Unchained, Sin City, and Kill Bill.

To be fair to Mr. Weinstein, he has produced family friendly movies like The Nutty Professor, Miss Potter, and Finding Neverland.

During his career as a producer he has made a boat load of money off violence on film.  By boat load I mean hundreds of millions.

Now he says he’s going to produce a film intended to make the National Rifle Association look like Satan personified. In an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, Weinstein admitted that those who call him a hypocrite have a point.

Regarding the issue of guns he told Morgan, “As much as I want to ignore it, as much as I want to go on with my regular life, I can't shake it this time.”

Personally, I welcome his declaration to make the movie. It may mean he’s turned the corner on movie violence. That would be a good thing. If not, then as he says, he will deserve to be called a hypocrite.

As a gun owner, I will wait and see how much truth there is in his anti-NRA movie. I confess I will be very surprised if there’s much in it at all, beyond the usual knee-jerk reaction to gun violence that would have us restrict the rights of honest men and women in a way that will never, ever, stop violent criminals from committing violent crimes like the ones they’ve grown up watching in his movies.

The Real Evolution is in Science

Over the past 100 years, science has been used against the faith community to ridicule beliefs considered antiquated and anachronistic for these modern times we live in.

Evolutionists scoff at the notion of creation. Anthropologists make light of believing we are made in God’s image. Astronomers point to the stars as proof of the non-existence of God. And on a more personal level, scientists have pushed the idea that since we are nothing more than an elevated blob of tissue we have therefore no more rights on this planet than do birds, or whales, or the animals of the Serengeti.

Less of a right in fact, since whales, and many birds and African animals are protected and take priority over the rights of mankind in public policy.

But science is beginning to become inconvenient for some who have used it over the past 50 years to deny life to the weakest among us. As more and more people are given the opportunity to see an ultra-sound of an unborn child, as more and more children are rescued from troubled pregnancies at earlier and earlier stages of pregnancy, and as more and more is learned of the humanity of the unborn child, science is tipping the scales in the fight for children.

Its been over 40 years since the Supreme Court, using what was already dubious scientific findings, made abortion on demand the law of the land.

On January 22^nd tens of thousands will make a pilgrimage to Washington DC to remind our elected officials that science has come a long way since Roe v. Wade. Its time they did as well.

A Fortune to Give Away

According to Steve Jordan, writing in the December 29th edition of Omaha.com, Warren Buffet is not a success at everything. It seems there’s one thing he’s struggling with.

Here’s what Mr. Jordan has to say,

“Warren Buffett failed to make headway this year in his quest to turn his fortune over to charity. The 30 percent increase in Berkshire’s stock price this year is the culprit.
Despite his July donation of a record $2.6 billion worth of shares in Berkshire Hathaway Inc., the Omaha-based conglomerate he heads, the paper value of Buffett’s holdings increased during 2013 from $47 billion to $59.3 billion.”

How does one fail in a quest to turn one’s fortune over to charity? Did he accidentally misplace the decimal point on the check? Hello, Mr. Buffet, I think I know how to get rid of that fortune.

There are a lot of people out there that are worth a lot of money, and a great many of them give a great deal of it away to charities. Unlike Mr. Buffet though, a lot of people choose not to pass that information on.

The cynic in me is reminded of the rich man who, when Christ told him to give everything away, ended up walking away.

I don’t know Warren Buffet, so I can’t speak to the motives of his heart. Perhaps he wants to be an inspiration so that others will do the same. Personally, I think we're better off when we don't let the left hand know what the right hand is doing.

Leaving Substance for Image leaves little room for true political understanding

Chuck Raasch, writing for realclearpolitics.com, recently published an article titled, "The Death of Writing, and Its Impact on Our Politics."
The author says that since the civil war,

"...we have evolved from word to image creatures, devaluing the power of the written word and turning ourselves into a species of short gazers, focused on the emotions of the moment rather than the contemplative thoughts about consequences and meaning of our actions."

Focusing on the emotions of the moment is the zeitgeist of the 21st century. It is the bedrock that supports Facebook, texting, and tweeting. A picture no longer need be worth a thousand words. It simply has to convey an emotional appeal. Image reigns supreme in today's society. Singers are judged as much on their looks and performance as they are their talent, as are actors and to some extent authors.

Raasch says we are content with sound bites. Even the 30 second sound bite is archaic.
The worst impact of all this is on our politics. We ignore substance and exult imagery. Ask yourself: Who was the last fat President? Who was the last bearded one? Candidates are hyped with flashy advertisements designed not to enhance the understanding of his or her positions on issues, rather the candidate's charisma and style, the ability to toss out a quick barb or derisive comment.

I don't know what to think of Governor Christie of New Jersey, because I am uncertain of his stand on many political issues, but I know a lot of people see him as no more than a buffoon. Why? The comedians and other politicians constantly deride him because of his weight. If they spent as much time studying the issues as they do making jokes, we wouldn't have such a dysfunctional government.

Innocent Fun

As a public affairs host, I get tons of offers to cover topics ranging from dog whisperers to Pastors that can make you a millionaire overnight.

You can call me naive, but here's one I never would have imagined. 

Cheating websites.

And I'm not talking card games. Here was a chance to interview the woman behind one of the most successful marital cheating sites. The idea was repugnant enough for me to delete the email straightaway.

But shortly, another similar offer came.  So I did a search to find out if it was a joke or not.

It was no joke. A customer of the site wrote an article based upon her experiences for a Toronto magazine. She described how a "friend" told her about the site, and how exciting it was. It didn't appear to take long for her to begin fantasizing about discreet relationships with men other than her husband, whom she described at the beginning as faithful, loving, supportive of her career, and a wonderful father.

She catalogued her many attempts to find a man who would excite her sexually, and her frustration with the time it was taking. But she persevered.

Eventually she found a man who met her preliminary criteria. But it turned out, much to her dismay, that he was a flop in bed.

And as pitiful as the idea was to begin with, her reaction was worse. She became disenchanted with the site, because she couldn't find anyone that she wanted to hook up with. After several failed attempts at extramarital sex, she gave up and, as she put it, settled for her devoted and supportive husband because at least he was good in bed.

It takes two to tango, and these sites are rife with both men and women of this ilk. 

Thankfully, all the replies to the articles were unified in their condemnation of her actions and those of the men she wanted to cheat with.

I feel sorry for her. She understands what she is trying to do would destroy her family, but does it anyway.

I feel sorry for her husband. He's being cuckolded and blissfully thinks his wife is pure.

Mostly I feel sorry for their children. That she is who she is, and what influence she might have on them.

Unfortunate Truths

Perhaps the biggest missing piece in the government funding debate is the fact that revenues generated by taxation exceed the amount necessary to cover the interest on the national debt. This important fact has been ignored or glossed over by both left and right. Why?

Political gain and expediency.

For the Democrats, this is an unfortunate truth that belies the notion that the United States must reach a funding accord or the nation will default on its loans. The truth is we need simply to pay the interest on said debt to prevent defaulting.

For the Republicans, this is an unfortunate truth that removes the hammer they wield in the argument over funding the Affordable Care Act.

Another unfortunate truth is that both sides would rather risk the future solvency of the nation than risk losing their jobs. Both parties run to the cookie jar when constituents clamor for more of anything, fearful of the backlash of unhappy voters. Meanwhile the debt grows.

The Republican answer to the debt is to reduce spending. But what spending should be cut? Every dollar spent by the Federal Government is precious to someone who benefits by it. The idea that raising taxes diminishes job growth has helped to underpinned their argument, but not as much as they hoped.

The Democrat answer is to increase taxes. But which taxes? Rich, poor, and everyone in between wants to keep as much of their income as possible. With so much uncertainty in the world, there is a great desire to keep what's been earned for that impending "rainy day." The class warfare angle has helped, but not as much as they hoped.

The answer will come from "We the People." And I'm afraid we won't like the result.

Another unfortunate truth. Without a change in the hearts of citizens, chaos will inevitably ensue. We see it already. The rule of law is becoming an anachronism. From the smallest things, like ignoring red lights and stop signs because they are inconvenient or the rationale that no one will get hurt if I simply don't stop, to students willing to cheat en masse through cell phones rather than study, to elected officials openly admitting they will not obey the laws of their state and nation.

Jeremiah 17:9 says

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it"

The influence of Judeo-Christian values once mitigated much of the damage done in society, but that influence is eroding quickly. The backlash against such influence is fueled in large part out of a desire to fulfill the needs of self over the needs of the many. Truth that inhibits an individual's personal choices is not only inconvenient, it is seen as unfair. Tolerance is the byword, but like the rule of law it is disbursed judiciously, and only when it doesn't conflict with self gratification.

Law breeds contempt. Contempt breeds chaos. Chaos breeds anarchy. Anarchy breeds Destruction.

Jeremiah 17:10 says

I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds."