I'm allowed to do that here, right? :-)
My most recent article at The Federalist has gotten noticed by a few other sites. First, it was linked by Instapundit and Hot Air. I knew about those. But I recently discovered that it was also mentioned at The American Conservative as well as a couple of other blogs. WOOT, Or maybe that should be . . . TOOT!
Showing posts with label Current Events. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Current Events. Show all posts
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Sunday, August 11, 2013
I wonder
Lately I have been thinking about the average German citizen during WWII. It is often asked how people could stand by while their government did the things it did. How could they not take a stand against the evil that was occurring? How could they look the other way? As I see what is happening to my country I wonder if the answer, for some, might be that they did try. They did their best. They voted. They talked to their friends. They taught their children. They prayed. But no matter what they did it seemed it didn't matter. No one listened. No one understood, or if they did, they also had no power to change things. And so eventually they gave up. They quit paying attention to the news. They quit hoping for change. They resigned themselves to a world out of control and turned their focus to doing what they could for the people in their immediate sphere of influence, hoping that at least there they might make a difference.
Anyway, that's what I wonder.
Anyway, that's what I wonder.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Two Must Reads
A solution to the problem of the national debt that just might work: "Can We Privatize the National Debt?"
The resignation letter of Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, upon departing the American Physical Society after almost 70 years of membership. Why? Because the APS continues to promote the myth of global warming, which Dr. Lewis calls "the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life."
The resignation letter of Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, upon departing the American Physical Society after almost 70 years of membership. Why? Because the APS continues to promote the myth of global warming, which Dr. Lewis calls "the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life."
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Coming Up for Air
Yes, I've been quieter than usual. It's the result of several things. One, lack of time due to several social engagements this weekend, my husband's birthday, and general busyness with other things.
Two, I've been having too much fun with another project I am involved in. It's not one I can tell you much about. But if it keeps going the way it is I may have to drop back from posting here daily to posting every two or three days. I trust you'll understand and keep reading. Right? Right???
Three, these days I am more and more at a loss for words. I feel kind of like this. I look at the world and just don't know what to say. It seems pointless to try. Better to listen to some good music, read some good books, watch some movies, spend time with my family, and pray. Unceasingly.
See you soon.
Two, I've been having too much fun with another project I am involved in. It's not one I can tell you much about. But if it keeps going the way it is I may have to drop back from posting here daily to posting every two or three days. I trust you'll understand and keep reading. Right? Right???
Three, these days I am more and more at a loss for words. I feel kind of like this. I look at the world and just don't know what to say. It seems pointless to try. Better to listen to some good music, read some good books, watch some movies, spend time with my family, and pray. Unceasingly.
See you soon.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
"Nothing Else Matters"
How fitting that the two things I most feared about an Obama presidency have come front and center in the same week: national security and the Supreme Court. In particular, national (and for that matter, international) security dwarfs everything else. Forget the bailouts and the tax increases and the stock market and the falling dollar. Forget the spectre of nationalized health care and the chimera of global warming. We're back to living with THE BOMB. And Obama has said no to taking any real steps--such as preemptive strikes or anti-missile defense--to keep that from becoming our new reality.
James Lewis at American Thinker lays it all out. Read, if you dare.
James Lewis at American Thinker lays it all out. Read, if you dare.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Old Men and Young Men
Sometimes wartime presidents are portrayed by their opposition as old men who lightly send their young men into battle. The implication is that it's an easy thing for them to do because it doesn't place them personally in harm's way. I would wager that every president who has ever done so has grappled with his decision, especially as he immediately sees the consequences in the separation of families, the injuries large and small, and tragically, the premature deaths of young people who should have lived another fifty years.
I wonder if some of the old (and not-so-old) men who are now making plans to borrow from the future so that we can keep living it up today have given any thought to those future generations, some children of which are as yet unborn, who are going to have to pay for all of this. If so, they have apparently decided that since they won't personally be around to help pay the bill, it doesn't really matter.
I have more respect for the president who makes tough decisions that yield immediate consequences he will have to face and take responsibility for than the one who makes easy decisions with consequences that extend so far into the future that he may not even be around to help clean up the mess.
I wonder if some of the old (and not-so-old) men who are now making plans to borrow from the future so that we can keep living it up today have given any thought to those future generations, some children of which are as yet unborn, who are going to have to pay for all of this. If so, they have apparently decided that since they won't personally be around to help pay the bill, it doesn't really matter.
I have more respect for the president who makes tough decisions that yield immediate consequences he will have to face and take responsibility for than the one who makes easy decisions with consequences that extend so far into the future that he may not even be around to help clean up the mess.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Stop the Presses!
Or maybe, since we're in the blogosphere, I should say "Stop the blogging" or "Stop the posting." However you want to put it, if you're a confessional Lutheran--especially a confessional Lutheran with children enrolled in any of our LCMS institutions of higher learning--you should drop everything and take a few minutes to read this. And be warned: you're not going to like it.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Our Changing Military
Have you heard about this?
Married troops living together in Iraq
My gut tells me this is not a wise change in policy. But I am not a soldier, nor do I have an immediate family member serving overseas right now. I would be interested in hearing from my readers who fit into either of those categories. Do you think this is a good idea?
Married troops living together in Iraq
My gut tells me this is not a wise change in policy. But I am not a soldier, nor do I have an immediate family member serving overseas right now. I would be interested in hearing from my readers who fit into either of those categories. Do you think this is a good idea?
Monday, March 3, 2008
Spengler on Obama
A writer for the Asia Times Online who publishes under the pseudonym "Spengler" (there has been much musing about his/her identity, but no one apparently knows the truth) has offered up a frighteningly insightful analysis of what makes Mr. Obama "tick" and why the American public is so enthusiastically embracing him. A fairly lengthy excerpt (and the conclusion to the piece) is quoted below; you can read the entire article here.
Barack Obama is a clever fellow who imbibed hatred of America with his mother's milk, but worked his way up the elite ladder of education and career. He shares the resentment of Muslims against the encroachment of American culture, although not their religion. He has the empathetic skill set of an anthropologist who lives with his subjects, learns their language, and elicits their hopes and fears while remaining at emotional distance. That is, he is the political equivalent of a sociopath. The difference is that he is practicing not on a primitive tribe but on the population of the United States.
There is nothing mysterious about Obama's methods. "A demagogue tries to sound as stupid as his audience so that they will think they are as clever as he is," wrote Karl Krauss. Americans are the world's biggest suckers, and laugh at this weakness in their popular culture. Listening to Obama speak, Sinclair Lewis' cynical tent-revivalist Elmer Gantry comes to mind, or, even better, Tyrone Power's portrayal of a carnival mentalist in the 1947 film noire Nightmare Alley. The latter is available for instant viewing at Netflix, and highly recommended as an antidote to having felt uplifted by an Obama speech.
America has the great misfortune to have encountered Obama at the peak of his powers at its worst moment of vulnerability in a generation. With malice aforethought, he has sought out their sore point.
Since the Ronald Reagan boom began in 1984, the year the American stock market doubled, Americans have enjoyed a quarter-century of rising wealth. Even the collapse of the Internet bubble in 2000 did not interrupt the upward trajectory of household assets, as the housing price boom eclipsed the effect of equity market weakness. America's success made it a magnet for the world's savings, and Americans came to believe that they were riding a boom that would last forever, as I wrote recently [1].
Americans regard upward mobility as a God-given right. America had a double founding, as David Hackett Fischer showed in his 1989 study, Albion's Seed. Two kinds of immigrants founded America: religious dissidents seeking a new Promised Land, and economic opportunists looking to get rich quick. Both elements still are present, but the course of the past quarter-century has made wealth-creation the sine qua non of American life. Now for the first time in a generation Americans have become poorer, and many of them have become much poorer due to the collapse of home prices. Unlike the Reagan years, when cutting the top tax rate from a punitive 70% to a more tolerable 40% was sufficient to start an economic boom, no lever of economic policy is available to fix the problem. Americans have no choice but to work harder, retire later, save more and retrench.
This reversal has provoked a national mood of existential crisis. In Europe, economic downturns do not inspire this kind of soul-searching, for richer are poorer, remain what they always have been. But Americans are what they make of themselves, and the slim makings of 2008 shake their sense of identity. Americans have no institutionalized culture to fall back on. Their national religion has consisted of waves of enthusiasm - "Great Awakenings" – every second generation or so, followed by an interim of apathy. In times of stress they have a baleful susceptibility to hucksters and conmen.
Be afraid - be very afraid. America is at a low point in its fortunes, and feeling sorry for itself. When Barack utters the word "hope", they instead hear, "handout". A cynic might translate the national motto, E pluribus unum, as "something for nothing". Now that the stock market and the housing market have failed to give Americans something for nothing, they want something for nothing from the government. The trouble is that he who gets something for nothing will earn every penny of it, twice over.
The George W Bush administration has squandered a great strategic advantage in a sorry lampoon of nation-building in the Muslim world, and has made enemies out of countries that might have been friendly rivals, notably Russia. Americans question the premise of America's standing as a global superpower, and of the promise of upward mobility and wealth-creation. If elected, Barack Obama will do his utmost to destroy the dual premises of America's standing. It might take the country another generation to recover.
"Evil will oft evil mars", J R R Tolkien wrote. It is conceivable that Barack Obama, if elected, will destroy himself before he destroys the country. Hatred is a toxic diet even for someone with as strong a stomach as Obama. As he recalled in his 1995 autobiography, Dreams From My Father, Obama idealized the Kenyan economist who had married and dumped his mother, and was saddened to learn that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr, was a sullen, drunken polygamist. The elder Obama became a senior official of the government of Kenya after earning a PhD at Harvard. He was an abusive drunk and philanderer whose temper soured his career.
The senior Obama died in a 1982 car crash. Kenyan government officials in those days normally spent their nights drinking themselves stupid at the Pan-Afrique Hotel. Two or three of them would be found with their Mercedes wrapped around a palm tree every morning. During the 1970s I came to know a number of them, mostly British-educated hollow men dying inside of their own hypocrisy and corruption.
Both Obama and the American public should be very careful of what they wish for. As the horrible example of Obama's father shows, there is nothing worse for an embittered outsider manipulating the system from within than to achieve his goals - and nothing can be more terrible for the system. Even those who despise America for its blunders of the past few years should ask themselves whether the world will be a safer place if America retreats into a self-pitying shell.
Barack Obama is a clever fellow who imbibed hatred of America with his mother's milk, but worked his way up the elite ladder of education and career. He shares the resentment of Muslims against the encroachment of American culture, although not their religion. He has the empathetic skill set of an anthropologist who lives with his subjects, learns their language, and elicits their hopes and fears while remaining at emotional distance. That is, he is the political equivalent of a sociopath. The difference is that he is practicing not on a primitive tribe but on the population of the United States.
There is nothing mysterious about Obama's methods. "A demagogue tries to sound as stupid as his audience so that they will think they are as clever as he is," wrote Karl Krauss. Americans are the world's biggest suckers, and laugh at this weakness in their popular culture. Listening to Obama speak, Sinclair Lewis' cynical tent-revivalist Elmer Gantry comes to mind, or, even better, Tyrone Power's portrayal of a carnival mentalist in the 1947 film noire Nightmare Alley. The latter is available for instant viewing at Netflix, and highly recommended as an antidote to having felt uplifted by an Obama speech.
America has the great misfortune to have encountered Obama at the peak of his powers at its worst moment of vulnerability in a generation. With malice aforethought, he has sought out their sore point.
Since the Ronald Reagan boom began in 1984, the year the American stock market doubled, Americans have enjoyed a quarter-century of rising wealth. Even the collapse of the Internet bubble in 2000 did not interrupt the upward trajectory of household assets, as the housing price boom eclipsed the effect of equity market weakness. America's success made it a magnet for the world's savings, and Americans came to believe that they were riding a boom that would last forever, as I wrote recently [1].
Americans regard upward mobility as a God-given right. America had a double founding, as David Hackett Fischer showed in his 1989 study, Albion's Seed. Two kinds of immigrants founded America: religious dissidents seeking a new Promised Land, and economic opportunists looking to get rich quick. Both elements still are present, but the course of the past quarter-century has made wealth-creation the sine qua non of American life. Now for the first time in a generation Americans have become poorer, and many of them have become much poorer due to the collapse of home prices. Unlike the Reagan years, when cutting the top tax rate from a punitive 70% to a more tolerable 40% was sufficient to start an economic boom, no lever of economic policy is available to fix the problem. Americans have no choice but to work harder, retire later, save more and retrench.
This reversal has provoked a national mood of existential crisis. In Europe, economic downturns do not inspire this kind of soul-searching, for richer are poorer, remain what they always have been. But Americans are what they make of themselves, and the slim makings of 2008 shake their sense of identity. Americans have no institutionalized culture to fall back on. Their national religion has consisted of waves of enthusiasm - "Great Awakenings" – every second generation or so, followed by an interim of apathy. In times of stress they have a baleful susceptibility to hucksters and conmen.
Be afraid - be very afraid. America is at a low point in its fortunes, and feeling sorry for itself. When Barack utters the word "hope", they instead hear, "handout". A cynic might translate the national motto, E pluribus unum, as "something for nothing". Now that the stock market and the housing market have failed to give Americans something for nothing, they want something for nothing from the government. The trouble is that he who gets something for nothing will earn every penny of it, twice over.
The George W Bush administration has squandered a great strategic advantage in a sorry lampoon of nation-building in the Muslim world, and has made enemies out of countries that might have been friendly rivals, notably Russia. Americans question the premise of America's standing as a global superpower, and of the promise of upward mobility and wealth-creation. If elected, Barack Obama will do his utmost to destroy the dual premises of America's standing. It might take the country another generation to recover.
"Evil will oft evil mars", J R R Tolkien wrote. It is conceivable that Barack Obama, if elected, will destroy himself before he destroys the country. Hatred is a toxic diet even for someone with as strong a stomach as Obama. As he recalled in his 1995 autobiography, Dreams From My Father, Obama idealized the Kenyan economist who had married and dumped his mother, and was saddened to learn that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr, was a sullen, drunken polygamist. The elder Obama became a senior official of the government of Kenya after earning a PhD at Harvard. He was an abusive drunk and philanderer whose temper soured his career.
The senior Obama died in a 1982 car crash. Kenyan government officials in those days normally spent their nights drinking themselves stupid at the Pan-Afrique Hotel. Two or three of them would be found with their Mercedes wrapped around a palm tree every morning. During the 1970s I came to know a number of them, mostly British-educated hollow men dying inside of their own hypocrisy and corruption.
Both Obama and the American public should be very careful of what they wish for. As the horrible example of Obama's father shows, there is nothing worse for an embittered outsider manipulating the system from within than to achieve his goals - and nothing can be more terrible for the system. Even those who despise America for its blunders of the past few years should ask themselves whether the world will be a safer place if America retreats into a self-pitying shell.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Deja Vu
Does anyone--anyone?--remember what our country was going through 10 years ago at this time?
In case you've forgotten, here's a little walk down memory lane.
Do we really want to do this again?
Oh, and here are some thoughts about how the mainstream media covered the whole mess, including this chilling observation about our supposedly free and independent press in this country:
"But in recent decades, we have all been forced into the same news community, and not by choice. Few now live in cities served by more than one daily newspaper, all of which tend to offer the same set of national and international stories. This has happened largely because of the economics of newspapers, the impact of TV news, and the dominance of a network of newspapers that, under the banner of the “Associated Press,” operate as a competition-suppressing cartel. The single set of national stories we now receive are hatched each night in a front-page-coordinating phone call between the New York Times and Washington Post, which is then dutifully copied by other outlets."
HT: Pajamas Media
In case you've forgotten, here's a little walk down memory lane.
Do we really want to do this again?
Oh, and here are some thoughts about how the mainstream media covered the whole mess, including this chilling observation about our supposedly free and independent press in this country:
"But in recent decades, we have all been forced into the same news community, and not by choice. Few now live in cities served by more than one daily newspaper, all of which tend to offer the same set of national and international stories. This has happened largely because of the economics of newspapers, the impact of TV news, and the dominance of a network of newspapers that, under the banner of the “Associated Press,” operate as a competition-suppressing cartel. The single set of national stories we now receive are hatched each night in a front-page-coordinating phone call between the New York Times and Washington Post, which is then dutifully copied by other outlets."
HT: Pajamas Media
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The Surge
The Long War Journal is a nonprofit news site that describes itself as "dedicated to providing original and accurate reporting and analysis of the Long War (also known as the Global War on Terror). This is accomplished through its programs of embedded reporters, news and news aggregation, podcasts, and other multimedia formats."
The Journal's recent posting entitled Iraq by the Numbers charts "Overall Weekly Iraq Attack Trends" from September 2004 to the present. The most passing glance at the chart cannot fail to notice the precipitous decline in all categories of attacks since June of this year, which I think is about the time General Petraeus pronounced the surge fully in place. Associated Press is reporting the same thing. It would appear to my eyes, then, that the surge is working, and working mightily.
What I don't understand is why this is not front page, nightly lead-off story news and why the entire country is not celebrating the surge for the success that it is. Nancy Pelosi should be calling a joint press conference with General Petraeus and President Bush to celebrate this national achievement and congratulate our troops. Because whether one agrees or disagrees with the President's Iraq policy and the waging of this war, the facts cannot be ignored: there has been significant improvement in the levels of violence since the completion of the surge, and no matter what your view on the war, this is something to be proud of.
I know people have differing views on the war, and I respect those whose principles lead them to think differently than I. But I do not respect those who refuse to acknowledge the facts simply because it is easier to oppose a policy that is not succeeding.
The Journal's recent posting entitled Iraq by the Numbers charts "Overall Weekly Iraq Attack Trends" from September 2004 to the present. The most passing glance at the chart cannot fail to notice the precipitous decline in all categories of attacks since June of this year, which I think is about the time General Petraeus pronounced the surge fully in place. Associated Press is reporting the same thing. It would appear to my eyes, then, that the surge is working, and working mightily.
What I don't understand is why this is not front page, nightly lead-off story news and why the entire country is not celebrating the surge for the success that it is. Nancy Pelosi should be calling a joint press conference with General Petraeus and President Bush to celebrate this national achievement and congratulate our troops. Because whether one agrees or disagrees with the President's Iraq policy and the waging of this war, the facts cannot be ignored: there has been significant improvement in the levels of violence since the completion of the surge, and no matter what your view on the war, this is something to be proud of.
I know people have differing views on the war, and I respect those whose principles lead them to think differently than I. But I do not respect those who refuse to acknowledge the facts simply because it is easier to oppose a policy that is not succeeding.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
So Much for a Democratic Russia
Former world chess champion Garry Kasparov has completed a 5-day jail sentence after being arrested for participating in an anti-Putin rally. He had appealed the sentence, but his appeal was denied.
The U.S. response has been decidedly weak, with vacuous comments about one friend (I guess that would be the United States) counseling another (our buddy Russia) not to do things that are detrimental to its own well-being.
I am disappointed that our government did not greet this action with the condemnation it deserved. And I think this is one brave man.
The U.S. response has been decidedly weak, with vacuous comments about one friend (I guess that would be the United States) counseling another (our buddy Russia) not to do things that are detrimental to its own well-being.
I am disappointed that our government did not greet this action with the condemnation it deserved. And I think this is one brave man.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
A Golden Opportunity
Take note: the Chinese government has presented the the free world with a golden opportunity to stand up for human rights:
Bibles Banned from 2008 Olympics
Let's hope someone besides Neil Cavuto decides this is worth reporting.
Bibles Banned from 2008 Olympics
Let's hope someone besides Neil Cavuto decides this is worth reporting.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Pew Poll on American Religious Beliefs
On one of my recent automobile excursions I found myself listening to the radio call-in program of Dr. Dean Edell. (I know, I know, he's a anti-religion liberal, but I'm a sucker for talk radio, and this being a weekend rather than weeknight evening, the pickings were slim.)
On this particular program, Dr. Edell was (as he is wont to do) straying from purely medical topics into more political arenas as he shared the results of a recent Pew Research Center study on Americans' attitudes toward religion. Dr. Edell, a secular humanist, was celebrating the poll results as reflecting a positive movement in the American psyche from a reliance on the irrational--namely, faith in God--to the rational--namely, faith in human reason. As I listened to the statistics from the study, I became increasingly discouraged. Here's why :
"In Pew surveys since the beginning of 2006, 12% identified themselves as unaffiliated with a religious tradition. That compares with 8% in the Pew values survey in 1987. This change appears to be generational in nature, with each new generation displaying lower levels of religious commitment than the preceding one. . . . In addition, political differences in levels of religious commitment are larger now than in years past. Republicans are at least as religious as they were 10 or 20 years ago, based on the numbers expressing belief in God, citing prayer as important, and other measures. By contrast, Democrats express lower levels of commitment than in the late 1980s and 1990s."
Interestingly, although Edell was equating the erosion of religious faith with greater reliance on human endeavor, the study reflects a younger generation that is increasingly skeptical about the future in general as well as about government's ability to solve problems. Those same young people are also less likely to be politically informed and to exercise their right to vote. Hmmm, maybe lack of faith leads to cynicism?
Other trends noted by the poll include increasing acceptance of homosexuality; rising support for affirmative action; declining numbers of people describing themselves as subscribing to "old-fashioned values"; rising support for government welfare, even if it means increasing debt; and a declining percentage of people who describe prayer as an "important part" of their daily lives or who say they never question the existence of God. All of the above trends are particularly pronounced among younger voters. (And once again, it is ironic that people who express cynicism about government are simultaneously looking to government to play the leading role in solving societal ills.)
I think it is that aspect of the study--not the trends themselves but the fact that most of them are manifested to the greatest extent among younger voters--that I was most struck by. The responses of each generation (pre-Boomer, Boomer, and Generation X) have remained fairly constant over time. But in each successive generation the percentage of people describing themselves as atheist, agnostic, or religiously unaffiliated has risen, culminating with almost 20% in the youngest respondents (Generation Y).
What does this all mean? To me it is crystal clear. Our largely secular, liberal public school system is succeeding in its indoctrination of America's youth, assisted by an equally secular, liberal popular culture. Considering that the average American child is probably awake no more than 16 hours per day, and that half of those hours are spent in school and another 3 or 4 hours are spent watching programming and listening to music that celebrates immorality in the name of tolerance and freedom, the results of the Pew study are no wonder at all.
Listening to the radio and reading this study, I felt myself becoming extremely discouraged at what sounds like a significant shift in American opinion. For the last generation we have seemed to be moving towards embracing more traditional, "family" values. But this poll suggests a major turnaround.
But I take comfort in the knowledge that notwithstanding the results of this poll, I see all around me increasing numbers of parents who are deeply concerned about the values their children are receiving at school and as a result are pulling those children out of school and taking them home, where their parents can have a greater influence on the worldview that they are being taught.
I also take comfort in the knowledge that because of their embracing of life and family and faith, many of these same parents are expressing their hope for the future by having children at greater than the "replacement" rate, building a generation to which they may impart their values and which in another 20 years may spearhead another sea change.
Click below to read either a summary of the study or the full report.
On this particular program, Dr. Edell was (as he is wont to do) straying from purely medical topics into more political arenas as he shared the results of a recent Pew Research Center study on Americans' attitudes toward religion. Dr. Edell, a secular humanist, was celebrating the poll results as reflecting a positive movement in the American psyche from a reliance on the irrational--namely, faith in God--to the rational--namely, faith in human reason. As I listened to the statistics from the study, I became increasingly discouraged. Here's why :
"In Pew surveys since the beginning of 2006, 12% identified themselves as unaffiliated with a religious tradition. That compares with 8% in the Pew values survey in 1987. This change appears to be generational in nature, with each new generation displaying lower levels of religious commitment than the preceding one. . . . In addition, political differences in levels of religious commitment are larger now than in years past. Republicans are at least as religious as they were 10 or 20 years ago, based on the numbers expressing belief in God, citing prayer as important, and other measures. By contrast, Democrats express lower levels of commitment than in the late 1980s and 1990s."
Interestingly, although Edell was equating the erosion of religious faith with greater reliance on human endeavor, the study reflects a younger generation that is increasingly skeptical about the future in general as well as about government's ability to solve problems. Those same young people are also less likely to be politically informed and to exercise their right to vote. Hmmm, maybe lack of faith leads to cynicism?
Other trends noted by the poll include increasing acceptance of homosexuality; rising support for affirmative action; declining numbers of people describing themselves as subscribing to "old-fashioned values"; rising support for government welfare, even if it means increasing debt; and a declining percentage of people who describe prayer as an "important part" of their daily lives or who say they never question the existence of God. All of the above trends are particularly pronounced among younger voters. (And once again, it is ironic that people who express cynicism about government are simultaneously looking to government to play the leading role in solving societal ills.)
I think it is that aspect of the study--not the trends themselves but the fact that most of them are manifested to the greatest extent among younger voters--that I was most struck by. The responses of each generation (pre-Boomer, Boomer, and Generation X) have remained fairly constant over time. But in each successive generation the percentage of people describing themselves as atheist, agnostic, or religiously unaffiliated has risen, culminating with almost 20% in the youngest respondents (Generation Y).
What does this all mean? To me it is crystal clear. Our largely secular, liberal public school system is succeeding in its indoctrination of America's youth, assisted by an equally secular, liberal popular culture. Considering that the average American child is probably awake no more than 16 hours per day, and that half of those hours are spent in school and another 3 or 4 hours are spent watching programming and listening to music that celebrates immorality in the name of tolerance and freedom, the results of the Pew study are no wonder at all.
Listening to the radio and reading this study, I felt myself becoming extremely discouraged at what sounds like a significant shift in American opinion. For the last generation we have seemed to be moving towards embracing more traditional, "family" values. But this poll suggests a major turnaround.
But I take comfort in the knowledge that notwithstanding the results of this poll, I see all around me increasing numbers of parents who are deeply concerned about the values their children are receiving at school and as a result are pulling those children out of school and taking them home, where their parents can have a greater influence on the worldview that they are being taught.
I also take comfort in the knowledge that because of their embracing of life and family and faith, many of these same parents are expressing their hope for the future by having children at greater than the "replacement" rate, building a generation to which they may impart their values and which in another 20 years may spearhead another sea change.
Click below to read either a summary of the study or the full report.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Another Thinking Blogger
Not long ago I ran across a blog that I found sufficiently intriguing to inspire repeated visits (and a spot on my list of links). Like me, the author is a wife, mother, conservative, and Christian, and those vocations are reflected in her posts, which cover a broad range of topics with particular emphasis on the political. She is also a fine writer whose viewpoints are not always strictly in line with typical conservative Christian opinion (if there is such a thing).
Here are links to two recent posts reflecting a level of reflection and independence of thought that I find worthy of consideration:
The Anchoress on Ann Coulter
The Anchoress on Christians and the Third Party Gambit
For a rollicking good laugh, you might also want to follow the links in her October 16th post to some real-life college essays as well as a mother's firsthand account of explaining the facts of life to her son (spew alert!).
Here are links to two recent posts reflecting a level of reflection and independence of thought that I find worthy of consideration:
The Anchoress on Ann Coulter
The Anchoress on Christians and the Third Party Gambit
For a rollicking good laugh, you might also want to follow the links in her October 16th post to some real-life college essays as well as a mother's firsthand account of explaining the facts of life to her son (spew alert!).
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
More on Fred
Last week I did some musing about the Republican primary race, particularly the candidacy of Fred Thompson, and linked to two opinion columns highlighting various doubts about whether he can mount a successful presidential run.
Several days ago I came across another analysis with a very different point of view. The writer strongly believes that Thompson will win not only the Republican nomination but also the White House. A confident Republican? Yeah, it got my attention, too. To read more, click here.
Several days ago I came across another analysis with a very different point of view. The writer strongly believes that Thompson will win not only the Republican nomination but also the White House. A confident Republican? Yeah, it got my attention, too. To read more, click here.
Monday, October 1, 2007
He's Not Running
Click here to read the Fox News story on Newt Gingrich's announcement two days ago that he will not be seeking the Republican nomination for president. Apparently he discovered that to even explore a candidacy while heading up the non-profit organization American Solutions had the potential for violating campaign finance law. Unwilling to leave his new project so soon after its inception, he has ruled out running for president at this time.
On the one hand, I have a lot of respect for someone who says "I made a commitment to this vision and I'm not going to toss it aside just because of the possibility of catching an even bigger fish." There is no guarantee that a presidential run would have been successful, whereas American Solutions seems to be a movement with a future. On the other hand, I have to say I find it surprising that a guy as smart as Gingrich would not have researched the law well enough before now (or had his lawyers do so) to know what was at stake. But maybe that's just a testament to the complexity of McCain-Feingold: even Gingrich didn't fully understand it.
I for one am disappointed. I was looking forward to a Gingrich run, for reasons previously outlined. Now it looks like I have to give up on that possibility and accept that the Republican dance card is pretty much filled and that it's time for me to start getting to know all of these candidates a bit better so that I can make an informed decision next year.
I just wish my card had one more name on it.
On the one hand, I have a lot of respect for someone who says "I made a commitment to this vision and I'm not going to toss it aside just because of the possibility of catching an even bigger fish." There is no guarantee that a presidential run would have been successful, whereas American Solutions seems to be a movement with a future. On the other hand, I have to say I find it surprising that a guy as smart as Gingrich would not have researched the law well enough before now (or had his lawyers do so) to know what was at stake. But maybe that's just a testament to the complexity of McCain-Feingold: even Gingrich didn't fully understand it.
I for one am disappointed. I was looking forward to a Gingrich run, for reasons previously outlined. Now it looks like I have to give up on that possibility and accept that the Republican dance card is pretty much filled and that it's time for me to start getting to know all of these candidates a bit better so that I can make an informed decision next year.
I just wish my card had one more name on it.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Get In, Newt!
My husband, who is as cutting edge an individual I know when it comes to political news and current events, received this piece of information in his inbox yesterday:
"Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) may have concluded that Thompson is a flop, thus spurring him towards a run. Gingrich had made it clear he would not run if Thompson appeared a viable late entry. Now, Gingrich has indicated he wants to jump in if he can secure a pledge of $30 million." (Source: Evans-Novak Political Report, Volume 42, No. 20A, September 26, 2007)
I find this to be very good news and will be watching with interest to see what happens next. From what I know of him Gingrich is a true conservative who is nevertheless able to "think outside the box" and who is not afraid to speak the truth. I hope he decides to run and I may very well support him if he does. He is so smart that I think his mere presence on the debate stage would make all the candidates think (and work) a little harder!
Newt's own website has some additional musings on the topic of a presidential run here and here.
"Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) may have concluded that Thompson is a flop, thus spurring him towards a run. Gingrich had made it clear he would not run if Thompson appeared a viable late entry. Now, Gingrich has indicated he wants to jump in if he can secure a pledge of $30 million." (Source: Evans-Novak Political Report, Volume 42, No. 20A, September 26, 2007)
I find this to be very good news and will be watching with interest to see what happens next. From what I know of him Gingrich is a true conservative who is nevertheless able to "think outside the box" and who is not afraid to speak the truth. I hope he decides to run and I may very well support him if he does. He is so smart that I think his mere presence on the debate stage would make all the candidates think (and work) a little harder!
Newt's own website has some additional musings on the topic of a presidential run here and here.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Straw Poll Thoughts
Thanks to everyone who has so far voted in this site's presidential straw poll, linked at right. You are invited to continue voting on a weekly basis and to encourage anyone else you know to visit and do the same. The Pajamas Media poll is, of course, not at all scientific, but I find it fascinating to get a peek at the preferences of those who frequent this blog, and I will be interested to see if the results change over time. So please keep voting! (Last week's poll has closed but there should soon be a new one.)
Right now among voters at this site, Fred Thompson is leading the GOP contenders and Bill Richardson is leading the Democratic ones. I find it interesting to note that these results mirror those of the national Pajamas straw poll but that they are in stark contrast to the Real Clear Politics average of leading national polls, which this week shows Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton ahead in their respective races.
Reflecting on this divergence, I have a couple of theories (about which I am the first to admit I could be totally mistaken). First, the Pajamas poll in its un-scientificness reflects the more conservative leanings of Pajamas Media readers. Second, I believe the Republican result in particular reflects the high hopes conservative voters have for the candidacy of Fred Thompson. As I have talked with other conservatives in recent months, I have often heard reflected in their opinions my own struggle to find a candidate I can enthusiastically embrace combined with my curiosity about the possible candidacies of both Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich. Now that Thompson has announced, I think a lot of conservative voters are eagerly anticipating his emergence as a candidate who can compete nationally while representing them as a social as well as fiscal conservative.
I have shared in that anticipation. Yet in the first few weeks of Thompson's candidacy I have begun to have doubts about whether he is THE ONE. I will admit that this uncertainty is a result less of my own impressions of his performance in the last few weeks--due to personal circumstances I have just not been following national news very closely--and more of the observations of some analysts whose opinions I respect. I have also become aware and concerned that in head-to-head match-ups of Republicans against Hillary Clinton (who as we all know is the almost certain Democratic candidate), Thompson does not fare as well as either Giuliani or--surprise!--John McCain. Yes, we need a candidate with the right views. But we also need a candidate who can win.
If you, like me, have been waiting around for the Republican knight on a white horse who is going to ride in and save this election, and if you have been hoping Thompson might be our hero, you may wish to read the following columns by two savvy political pundits who suggest that may not happen. If after reading you can offer some rebuttals to the concerns they raise, I encourage you to do so, because I would like to hear the case for Thompson.
If you are a committed Thompson supporter, please know that I have not yet decided on a candidate, and it is not my intent to attack him. But I do think that when he was on the sidelines it was very easy for frustrated conservatives like myself to idealize him, endowing him with whatever attributes we were most missing in the announced candidates. Now that he is in the race, the political honeymoon is over, and the scrutiny has begun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)