Smarter Than Thou!

THE QUALITY OF MERCY IS… NON-EXISTENT

   IMAGINE the following scenario.  A medical doctor, a specialist, is on a TV program discussing some important new procedure.  While explaining it he says the following.  “The new medicine works on the liver, causing it…”  The host interrupts and points out that the medicine is intended to treat pancreatic cancer.  The doctor says, “Oh yeah.  You’re right.  I get confused with all that stuff inside the torso.  All those things look the same.”

    This should appear to be ridiculously absurd.  It is.  I wrote it to make a point.  This doctor, unless he were very drunk, and/or trying to be humorous, should have credibility destroyed.  In his area of expertise he made a “fundamental” (hint) mistake.  Keep this in mind as I move on.   

    Ralph Reed is the president of the Faith and Freedom Coalition.  This is, I believe, one of those organizations that exist so that their presidents can have something displayed below their names when interviewed on TV news programs, as Ralph was recently.  Ralph is an influence in the Republican Party, being a type of religious leader, that is a Fundy Protestant type.  He was asked about Newt Gingrich.  In case you are not aware, Newt has had a….well, stimulating moral life, regarding marriages.  Ralph was asked if Newt’s previous immorality means that he should not be president.  Ralph’s (sort of) non-answer was that we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans, the Bible).  So far this was fine, if irrelevant. 

    Apparently believing that he was simply repeating the first part of the comment, he added that “we all need a Savior” Who will forgive us and have mercy.  If this seems all right to you then you need to read it again, and again.  It is not.  That is, it can not be right, for Ralph.  I shall give you the key defect.  We need a Savior Who is forgiving AND merciful.  For a Protestant the two concepts must be ontologically, mutually exclusive. 

    Protestantism came into existence because Martin Luther (non King) attacked and rejected the Catholic teaching on Indulgences.  To the Prot forgiveness of sin means that no further effect can exist.  An Indulgence is a lessening of a restorative procedure (pain) due to a forgiven sin.  That is there is a residual effect after forgiveness.  The Catholic holds that he can then be given Mercy from God by gaining an Indulgence.  He can experience both Divine forgiveness and Mercy.  However, the Prot can NOT accept this.  For him a forgiven sin is eliminated, totally and forgotten.  This is not the place to point out the defects in Prot theology (as it would take too long).  This is the place to point out the defects in Prot spokesmen, like Reed.  They say what they feel is nice sounding, and what is pleasing to an audience, and not what they (only) officially hold to be true.  Like my idiot doctor in their specialty they get the most basic positions wrong.  Maybe Ralph does not know them.   

    That is, he speaks like… well, like a (Ralph) reed shaken by the wind.  Such are to be found, as Our Lord pointed out, in the halls of governments, and on TV news shows.  He did not mean it as a compliment.  May He have mercy on Ralph.  

New plays by Oscar Wilde are available on Amazon and Lulu.com (Who’s Afraid of a Long Day’s Journey into the Drawing Room?).  

 

HALF A LOAF IS WORSE THAN NONE

   ONE of the risks of writing something like this is the danger of duplication.  I do believe that I have written something like this, but not precisely this, once before.  I believe that it was published in one of my own publications, namely “Analysis and Explanations.”  Working on this assumption I feel that it is safe to publish it here.  If it were published it was a long time ago, and, I repeat, this is not quite the same, although it deals with the same issue. 

    A long time ago (but not in a galaxy far away) there was a highly imaginative book entitled Defending the Indefensible.  It consisted of a series of essays each one taking as absolutist a libertarian position on many issues, and “defended” (as much as possible) the free choice/trade position. 

    One of the defended issues was the speculator.  The conceit used was a city under siege during war.  The speculator buys up all the food and then, as supplies become scarce, he sells them back to his fellow citizens.  The normal reaction to this is disgust and lynching.  I am not defending the speculator, but I am going to defend something very similar. 

    Consider the same city under siege and the bread is running out.  The rulers can give everyone one half of a loaf a day, or they can give the soldiers two loafs a day.  I add that one half of a loaf is not enough to live on, indefinitely.  And it is not enough to provided energy to undertake heavy exertions. Two loafs is enough to do both. Upon even momentary analysis the choice is clear.   Without strong and well-fed soldiers the city will fall.  However, if the soldiers can still defend the walls then, maybe, they can prevent the enemy from taking the city.   If victory and survival are priorities then the rulers will feed only the soldiers… and let the children starve.    

    The emotional repulsion to this rationality comes also from the desire for equality.  Most of you feel that people should “fairly” share the collective burdens.  Right?  I hope that you have noticed that this is exactly what the current administration and the “Occupy Wall Street” movement want.  They want the soldiers to be weak(er), and the rich to be poor(er).

    In times of peace and prosperity this foolish emotional inclination towards equality may be tolerated, or even (in theory only) embraced.  However, in times of stress, want and crisis the stronger need to be made stronger, even if at the expense of the weaker.  And this means that the rich, namely those who have made a lot of money, and who are greedily trying to get more, should have their loafs increased.  This means that their taxes should be reduced.  That is, they should if the city residents want things to get better. 

    Without going into detailed economic reality, simply consider it in this way.  Which is more likely to happen?  An “extra” $100 given in one sum to a businessman yields a profit (and thus increases prosperity.  The same $100 yields the any general prosperity if it is given in 50 cents payments to 200 poor people.  Of course, no political leader will defend the rich.  Most people would rather die than win, if it means that others profit. 

    How is that for defending the indefensible? 

New plays by Oscar Wilde are available on Amazon and Lulu.com (Who’s Afraid of a Long Day’s Journey into the Drawing Room?). 

 

 

A (NOTHER) MODEST PROPOSAL BY JONATHAN SWIFT

   IT has been brought to my attention, by one of my readers (which means one third of the readership) that, apparently, I posted two similar entries.  What I believe happened was that I wrote the first draft in two places.  I published it.  Then I found it in a second location, and I noted that it had not been corrected.  I assumed that therefore it had not been posted.  So I posted it.  I apologize.  I would say that this would never happen again, except for the fact that I probably will. 

   As a sort of compensation, I invite a guest to offer this entry.  His name is Jonathan Swift.  He is a churchman of the Church of England.  He offers this following commentary that he calls “A Modest Proposal.”  The subject is the evaluation of allowing women to serve in combat situations in the armed services. 

   Take it, Johnnie. 

I modestly propose that females not only be allowed, but also be encouraged to serve in the more dangerous roles in the military.  The arguments advanced against this, though they have some value, become moribund and sterile when compared to the advantages.  I shall offer a few. 

An argument against the policy is that this will cause more females to be killed.  I admit this highly probable conclusion.  However, death comes to all of us.  As we shall admit, if we were honest enough to do so, many people should die, relatively early, as their absence contributes more to a beneficial society than their presence.  The support for abortion rests solely, and firmly, upon the following premise.  Those who are not wanted should not be allowed to live.  Because of legal restrictions (that are, as I write, being weakened) this lack of attractiveness is currently limited to the not yet born.  Further advance of this eugenic principle may be hoped for… especially if the Democrats continue to win elections.   

The society, that is its more intelligent members, decree that some are not fit for life.  As any logical criterion compels us to conclude, the following principle must be followed.  If the ends are desired then the means, even if indirect and unintentional, must also be accepted, if not vigorously advocated. 

Warfare surely will kill mostly young people.  Putting females in harm’s way will cause more young females to be killed.  And who are these, that is who would accept these combat roles?  The feminist would.  The shrew would.  So would the hag.  That is, the least desired among that gender would be full soldiers.  This alone would lead us, and does lead us, to conclude that losses of such individuals would actually be a collective gain.  A society of cranky and rebellious women is conducive to neither public discourse, nor rational polity, nor communal peace, nor serene marriages, nor happy children (that is the ones who are pretty enough so that we allow to be born).   

As I am near the end of my limited space allow me merely to allude and then pass over another advantages.  The more intelligent of us know that world is overpopulated.  The death of young females not only removes them from the total number.  It also removes (by a type of advance abortion) their never-to-be-conceived offspring.  Gentlemanly inhibition prevents me from indicating the sad fact that many “womanly soldiers” lack the conventional standards of beauty and charm.  Thus their elimination will increase the average level of both. 

Such a policy would not cure all the ills of the nation.  However, it would be a beneficial milestone on our current course.  I thank you for the opportunity to express my view. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REDEFINING PROSPERITY

   THERE is one of those Sunday TV morning news talk shows on ABC.  The hostess is some woman with a first name of Christiana.  She seems to try to do a good job.  Maybe this is why she was recently fired.  Perhaps in an effort to hide the fact that she is a lame duck, the normal format of the show was changed.  Instead there was a “debate” between official Liberal and official Conservative politicians and pundits. 

    On the Liberal side was Barney Frank.  Frank is an interesting fellow.  He was one of the people whose job was to oversee the Federal housing agencies that failed.  These agencies were key in causing the housing collapse and then the current recession.  Frank also is an open homo.  In fact, he is more than open.  A “friend” of his ran a homosexual brothel out of his his house in Washington.  Frank claimed that he did not notice what was going on.  Considering how he managed his official duties, maybe this is credible. 

   Frank has a superior ability in expression and polemics.  He is a verbal bully.  He talks over, and through, and past, anyone with whom he disagrees.  He frequently accuses his questioners of lying.  Few can stand up to him.  He has recently announced his decision not to run for reelection.  He wants to pursue other men… I mean other interests. 

    The issues on the show, quite naturally, were the current president’s current policies.  Frank was defending the bail-outs (the ones sponsored by Democrats).  The Conservatives were attacking the same ones, while defending the ones sponsored by Bush.  Frank had an interesting comment on General Motors.  There seems to be some conflicting reports regarding the company.  Maybe it is is doing well, and maybe not.  However, Frank declared it to be “thriving.”  This is the interesting part. 

    I often argue that to understand economics a person needs grounding in microeconomics.  This means examining the small unit, the company, the consumer, and NOT the overall national (or international) economy.  However, Frank seems to me to have established as new standard, a mini-micro standard. 

    In a certain sense GM is thriving.  It used to sell at least eight separate lines of vehicles.  Four of those have been discontinued.   Hundreds, maybe thousands, of dealerships have been closed.  Plants have been shut down   Consider it this way.  A restaurant has 15 tables.  Only one has customers who order food.  They order a great deal, pay a large bill, and leave a good tip.  That PART of the restaurant is doing fine.  If we ignore the empty tables then the entire business is thriving.  And if we ignore a serious, fatal heart condition a patient’s foot may be in excellent health. 

    Politics may make strange (and queer) bedfellows.  It sometimes aloes creates a new reality. 

    Books by the author, both humorous and religious in cause and effect, are available on Amazon and Lulu. com.  

 

INDIVIDUAL RACIAL POLITICS

   THIS is inspired by a Black celebrity who spoke recently on TV.  He was on the Phil McGraw Show.  Phil is a psychologist, who usually has guests with severe social problems. His (black) guest was a “bishop”(sic) Jakes.  What, or who, he is a bishop of, I do not know.  Maybe no one knows.  Jakes was responding to a remark by the black presidential candidate Herman Cain.  Cain had said that American Blacks had been brainwashed into voting, blindly and against their best interests, for liberal Democrats.  

    This bit of conventional wisdom is offered so often as a fact that no one ever denies it.  I do not know how valid the polls are that support this conclusion.  However, I believe it to be valid.  My own experience validates the fact that even Middle and Upper Class Blacks DO vote, blindly and automatically (like Jews), for Democrats.  Blacks are disproportionately dependent upon government programs, so this explains some of this tendency. 

    Jakes said that Blacks are not “brainwashed” into voting for certain candidates.  He pointed out that certain Black candidates did not receive Black support, even when they were liberal.  One was Jesse Jackson.  He may have been right about the lack of support.  I simply do not know.  I also do not know why a Black political/religious celebrity was on a show whose purpose is, officially, to help families with problems like addiction, infidelity and crime.  Maybe Phil got brainwashed by Jakes. 

    The overall theme was to make that case that Blacks are “just like the rest of us.”  That is, they have different views on different issues and make different decisions, based upon different values, exactly as white people do.  Allegedly, despite every bit of demographic data, the Blacks do not vote in a block.  They are, to use an old expression, “passing for white.”  The only reason why this denial would be advanced would be that such a herd tendency would a sign of inferiority that might be racial in nature.

    Let me examine the premise.  Why would block/reflexive voting, or group think, be bad?  IF the Democrats are better for Blacks THEN why should the Blacks not vote for them, as a monolithic conditioned reflex?  Are they blind to their own best interests? This could only be true if they are inherently inferior.  By definition only one of the two parties can be better for Blacks.  If Blacks divided their vote this would necessarily mean that the ones who are voting for the wrong side really are rather stupid, and/or ignorant.  My premise, and it is a good one, is that all honest and intelligent people should vote the same way.  Blacks SHOULD vote as a block.  That is they should vote as I do. 

     And I am not even Black, or a bishop (yet). 

New plays by Oscar Wilde are available on Amazon and Lulu.com (Who’s Afraid of a Long Day’s Journey into the Drawing Room?).