Something they should teach in "sex ed"

Phyllis Schlafly notes something that Walter Williams has noted as well; if you want to avoid poverty, wait until you get married before having children, and stay married.  If this advice were followed, and parents pursued responsible jobs, the poverty rate would drop by 80%--and along with that, a large portion of the need for welfare spending would disappear as well.  In a decade or so, millions of children that would otherwise have been raised in single parent homes might, due to judicious discipline by a father, NOT enter the justice system.

Now granted, not every "sperm donor" ought to be accepted as a husband, and not every "egg carton" is going to be a good wife, either.  However, if our government stopped doing things to discourage wedlock (SIECUS based sex ed, TANF telling girls they can have their own place if they simply have a baby, etc..) and taught this lesson of basic economics, it's a good bet that more men would be qualified to be more than a "sperm donor," and our nation would benefit immensely.

Your 401Ks and IRAs are safe, right?

Not if the plan referenced by Human Events is any indication, no.  Evidently public pensions are (shocker this) underfunded, and those "public servants" who are earning twice what the rest of us earn "need" to pillage our retirement funds so they can rest in luxury just before the Department of Justice would have caught up to what they did while at "work."

If you want yet another good reason to vote Republican, this would be it.  H/T Vox Day.

What's going on at ICE

Cal Thomas reports on what is really going on at Immigration; more or less, ICE is cracking down on illegal immigrants who have broken laws (besides coming here illegally), but ignoring their responsibility to police the border and remove immigrants who have not broken laws not related to immigration.  Pat Buchanan concurs.

Interestingly, it's said that Mexican mayors are complaining about the criminal deportation program, noting that it's unsurprisingly raising their crime rates as criminals come home.  In other words, the liberal idea that illegal immigration poses no difficulty for our crime rates is (like most liberal ideas) just plain wrong.    Who would have thought that when a person breaks the law by entering and residing in a nation, they might also be likely to break other laws?

I mean, besides sane people, of course.  We can welcome and love virtually any number of legal, law-abiding immigrants, but sensible people would like to know that ( a la the crime wave from many Marielitos when Castro emptied his jails to send criminals here) they indeed are law-abiding.  That is, after all, why we have, and should enforce, immigration laws.

Now I feel really old

The cashier at the grocery store accidentally gave me the senior citizen discount today.  On the bright side, I saved six bucks, and we all had a good laugh about it.

Thoughts on the "One Nation" rally

When I heard that the SEIU and like-minded people were holding a rally to "counter" the Glenn Beck rally in DC, it occurred to me that it would be really fun to go there with Soviet flags and red star caps, singing the Soviet national anthem--and see if anyone would notice they were being spoofed.

Well, either a lot of people had the same idea that I had, or I could have done it without anyone noticing.  Check out these photos.  Judging by the grammar and spelling used, I'm inclining towards the idea that, yes, the far left is still nostalgic for the man from Georgia, and I'm not talking about Jimmy Carter.

Interesting thought about those "unlearned men," the Apostles

In theological circles, especially those like those I inhabit, it is often very popular to note how God can use "unlearned men" as He did the apostles.  In fact, sometimes it seems as if many churches consider book learning larnin' to be a positive disadvantage for the ministry.

Let's consider that in light of the example of the apostles. Their everyday language as Galileans was Aramaic, but they had learned, and continued to learn, the Old Testament in its original Hebrew.  Paul, Peter, Matthew, and John obviously learned Greek--and given the location of their deaths, I'm guessing Paul and Peter probably picked up some Latin as well.  "Doubting Thomas" established a church in India, and is reputed to be buried in Korea--so I'm guessing he must have picked up Hindi (or other Indian languages), Chinese, and Korean along the way.  Other New Testament writer who were obviously multilingual were Luke, James, Jude, and the writer of Hebrews.

So were they unlearned men by the standards of their time, or ours?  I'd have to suggest that they were only unlearned men in the standards of our  their (oops!) day, illustrated by this joke:

What do you call a man who speaks three languages?

Trilingual.

What do you call a man who speaks two languages?

Bilingual.

What do you call a man who speaks only one language?

An American.

Let's examine the standard economic narrative

As we watch the economy continue in recession--perhaps even veering into a "double dip" recession or depression--perhaps it's about time we examine the standard economic narrative for the past 80 years or so; that somehow the government can generate economic results that will pull the nation out of recession.  Of course, anyone familiar with the real history of the Depression--unemployment never went below 15% until the Wehrmacht was marching into Poland, generating ammunition, food and fuel orders from France and England--would have to dispute this narrative simply out of evidence. 

For that matter, anyone watching the largest stimulus spendumore program in history completely failing to generate hiring would also have to start doubting the usual Keynesian theories--which are modified, but not eliminated, in the monetarist/supply side interpretations of the Reaganites.

So let's consider this; the magic I learned about in intro to macroeconomics is a quadrangle where somehow, a bump in spending would magically transform into four, or even ten, times the economic output as the spending.  I remember listening, almost in rapture, to the presentation.

Unfortunately, I violated a basic premise of logic; I failed to consider the question of "well, if it works so well, why haven't we figured out how to eliminate recessions?"  This is pretty egregious on my part, as I'd grown up with the kids of laid off steelworkers who knew quite well that nobody had done that for my part of the world.  I should have known better.

And so it's time to ask the question; is it really true that the economy is helped more when the Air Force buys a $600 hammer than it is when twenty carpenters buy a $30 Estwing?   Is the economy helped more by an additional. $1000 in welfare checks transfer payments, or when an employer has an extra grand to hire a new employee?

On one level, the results should be equal; the money spent on whatever purpose by whatever entity goes into consumer spending, savings, and so on equally.  On another, however, we should anticipate that government largesse ought to be harmful; when we choose to devote $1000 to transfer payments instead of to hiring in the private sector, we've simultaneously chosen that a certain amount of productivity will be lost.  In real (as opposed to government accounting) terms, the economy is smaller as a result.

Looks like it's time to walk away from John Maynard and towards Ludwig, listening to the lessons that our grandparents learned during the Depression.  Government "help" is, as Washington and Reagan both noted, an extremely dangerous, and often counterproductive, thing.

Here's some good economic news!

According to recent economic reports, 95000 government workers have lost their jobs.  If we accept the logic of von Mises and Bastiat, this is a good thing because it redirects economic resources from nonproductive uses to productive uses. 

And yes, this is probably an application of the new blog motto, as I would have to assume that a large portion of government workers would favor big government programs.  Hopefully this trend continues in November with Democratic members of Congress.

Elections, and judges, matter

It appears that a federal judge from Michigan has, by rejecting a lawsuit opposing the "Obamacare" requirement to purchase health insurance, come to the semantically "interesting" conclusion that the legitimate power to regulate interstate commerce allows Congress to require people to participate in particular kinds of interstate commerce under penalty of fines.

Lessee....does that mean if there is a "rational basis" (the judge's actual words) for the government to require you to buy a new Chevrolet to prevent the UAW GM from going Chapter 7, that will fly too?  According to this Clinton appointee, the answer may be yes.

Reality here is that Judge Steeh needs to consider the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson: "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."  Yup, that's about it, even though I have always carried an insurance policy and quite frankly am thinking that I'll get a Traverse when my Venture wears out. 

New motto

....of "Save your job; fire a Democrat" is courtesy of one "Mickey Moussauoi", a commenter on SayAnythingBlog.

A little memorial to Joseph Sobran

When I was growing up, one of the greatest joys while reading the newspaper or magazine was to see something by Joseph Sobran.  In a world full of predictable crassness, his writing abounded with subtlety, literature, and more.  As I came to adulthood, I became acquainted with others--George Will, Walter Williams, and so on--and in the mid-1990s, I lost touch with his work. 

I found out somewhat later that there was a reason I'd lost touch with Sobran's work; after the first Iraq war, Sobran had started to make an animus against Israel's foreign policy a key part of his work, leading to his firing from National Review and the end of his newspaper columns.  Themes perfectly acceptable at the United Nations were, of course, not acceptable to William F. Buckley and others.  (this is of course a good thing--at least for National Review, but of course not for the UN)

Sobran chose to self publish, went on to add the theme that Jews were overrepresented in various movements he deemed subversive, and even appeared at Holocaust denial conferences.   So what do we make of the last 17 years of his life?  Was he simply a more erudite Mahmoud Ahmadinijab?

I'm not convinced he was; rather, I believe that he fell into the trap of failing to test his own hypotheses.  Ironically, this was one of the things I loved about him at the beginning; he forced you to think.  However, in the case of his writings about Israel and Jews, he largely lost this focus.

A great example is the "sinister" note he gave (linked in the link above) about Jews being overrepresented in various movements he considered subversive; the clear inference is that there is some kind of plot going on.  Now is that the case?

Well, let's introduce a more general hypothesis; literate people who know they may periodically be chased from their homes by Cossacks will tend to choose jobs where you don't need to have a lot of capital.  That is, of course, exactly what we see; this people has wisely chosen professions not requiring a lot of capital like law, education, medicine, and yes, politics--the last being also a nice way to see what can be done about reducing the funding for training Cossacks. 

So is it the threat that one might infer from Sobran's work, or is it about as surprising as finding a fishing rod in a Minnesota home?   We ought to infer that a wonderful way to honor Sobran's life is........to remember what he initially brought to the table, and live for that.  Rest in peace, Joe.

Watch out meter maids!

Apparently Randy Moss may be coming back to play for the ViQueens.

Who should you fear....

....if you're going to be around an abortion clinic that has pro-life protesters outside it?

Nope, the abortionist, if this report from South Carolina is indicative.  In fact, since 1973, dozens of abortion doctors have been convicted of violent felonies--and the fact that it's not making page 1 of the mainstream media would, yes, be an argument that they're mostly seeing what they want to see.

Thoughts on megachurches

Of course, I should preface this by admitting that my current church has Sunday attendance of about 40, so if anyone wants to attribute everything I say to jealousy, have at it!  :^)

OK, to be serious, the recent travails of Atlanta pastor/Rock Star Eddie Long bring this to mind--along with the real life examples of Joel Osteen, John Piper, Charles Spurgeon, John MacArthur, Ted Haggard, and for better or worse, a host of others.  Those reading the list will likely find some names they love, and some they absolutely abhor, and perhaps some (praise God!) they don't even know about.  We can even add the fact that the church grew to several thousand members on Pentecost, so Peter and the other disciples were megachurch pastors in a sort of way, too.

Perhaps the example of Peter gives us all we need to know about the megachurch; Acts records that the disciples quickly found themselves serving tables for the widows and orphans of the church instead of preaching the Word--see Acts 6.  So what does the Word command the pastor whose ministry is growing to do?

Obviously, He commands the successful preacher to give his ministry to others, as Peter did in creating the office of the deacon (and Moses did by delegating judging much earlier), and this is the crucial difference between successful megachurch pastors (Peter, Piper, Spurgeon) and those who bring shame on the Church (Osteen, Haggard, Long, etc..).  For that matter, it is also the difference between successful small churches and unsuccessful; is the pastor giving his ministry to others?

Sounds a lot like Matthew 28; it really does come down to the Gospel.  While I would argue that large churches give special temptations to pastors to act selfishly and carnally, and it's far harder for a megachurch pastor to know his congregants well and minister to them, the real issue at hand here is whether the pastor is training his replacements and "making disciples."

This also illustrates why so many churches have difficulties after building; they are concentrating on bricks and mortar, not....

....making disciples. Again, it comes down to a mature understanding of the Gospel.  Is the pastor making copies of himself, or of Christ?  Your church's health and future depends in large part on the answer to that question.

More fun with Rahm Emanuel

Given that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel apparently has voted in Chicago despite having rented out his home there in 2009, I would suggest it's time to initiate a vote fraud investigation of him.

And, of course, this indicates that should he become mayor despite clearly not meeting Chicago's residency requirement (doncha have to live there?) and thus participating in vote fraud, he would have certain shades of Richard J. Daley in his tenure there.