Mother Teresa

Anyone who is able to read Mother Teresa's writings without getting somewhat uncomfortable is not listening very well to what she is saying.  Consider this passage from a collection of her teachings released under the book titled No Greater Love:

"None of us has the right to condemn anyone. Even when we see people doing bad and we don't know why they do it. Jesus invites us not to pass judgment. Maybe we are the ones who have helped make them what they are. We need to realize they are our brothers and sisters.  That leper, that drunkard, and that sick person are our brothers because they too have been created for a greater love. This is something that we should never forget. Jesus Christ identifies Himself with them and says, "Whatever you did to the least of my brethren, you did it to me."  Perhaps it is because we haven't given them our understanding and love that they find themselves on the streets without love and care."

It is very difficult to follow the news and not find ourselves condemning those we see doing evil to our fellow man.

It's not easy being a follower of Christ.

Gender Confusion Nonsense

Latest sign we are heading somewhere in a hand basket awfully fast. They changed the blood donor screening form (again!) and this time they changed the wording of the gender block. Block used to just be titled "Gender." Now the block is titled "Gender AT THE TIME OF BIRTH." 

I felt like informing the nurse that someone's gender today is their gender at time of birth. You can't change your gender. It is encoded in your DNA. You can dress differently than most in your gender. You can change your name. You can even pay a doctor to mutilate your genitals. However, you can not change your gender. 

Societally, we have harmed millions by sending the message that a scalpel is the tool to use when psychological counseling is the appropriate treatment. If a young girl insisted she were Napoleon Bonaparte we wouldn't dress her in old French military attire after doing various surgeries. No, we would commit her for mental health treatment. Sadly, if same young girl insisted she thought she was a boy, without naming which one she believed herself  to be, we've decided over last few decades that it's appropriate to play along with her delusions and do surgery. 

How barbaric a practice.

What a Difference 40 Years Makes - Or Could the Difference be the Political Parties Involved?

40 years ago President Nixon was hounded from office by the media partly due to unbelievable story regarding 18 minutes of erased tape. Now, an administration claims they lost two years of emails to and from the President Obama's lead IRS henchman (henchwoman?) and media yawns and says "Yeah, that could happen."

IRS Says It Lost Two Years of Lerner E-mails

House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp has hit a roadblock in his investigation of the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups: The IRS says it has lost over two years’ worth of e-mails sent by former agency official Lois Lerner, the one of the chief subjects of the committee’s investigation.

But don't worry, we were assured there's "not a smidgeon of corruption" in the IRS targeting scandal by the president himself during an interview on Superbowl Sunday which was intended to fool the average person who doesn't have time to follow the many scandals of this corrupt administration. Sadly, the current Congress is too cowardly to impeach the president out of fear of being labeled racist which apparently is worse than being known as cowards unwilling to do their duty. UPDATE: Finally got around to finding this iconic picture. Did Lois Lerner stretch like Rose Mary Woods for two years?

Term Limits Are Long Overdue

My libertarian leanings have previously lead me to believe that term limits for congress are wrong. My old argument was that the voters should have no arbitrary limit placed on who they can choose to represent them. My opinion was great in theory, but didn't hold water in practice. The power of incumbency coupled with gerrymandered districts means most congressmen once first elected can be in office nearly for rest of their life. The founders original intention was that our congressional representatives would be accomplished citizens who would visit the capital a couple times a year to provide oversight to the federal government and protect their home state from government tyranny. Now, for good or bad (I obviously believe it is bad), congress is a full time job with sufficient compensation to entice them to stay and make a career out of what used to be public service. This has to change for there to be any hope of government reform. Congressional lifers are too much a part of government to seriously be expected to reform the current bloated mess. The chart below shows some of the worst of the worst. The majority of them were probably decent, idealistic people when first running for office. However, decades in DC corrupted them or brought out the worst in them. Regardless, it is very clear that we'd be better served by selecting tax payers at random from each district to serve for a single term than by continuing the current perverse system of electing congressmen and senators basically for life. Please consider signing the petition to enact term limits. I would also recommend an Amendment to the Constitution to repeal the 17th Amendment. Direct election by popular vote of U.S. senators was an awful idea which has directly lead to a much stronger federal government as senators are more beholden to monied backers than to the states who sent them to DC. If you agree with me on term limits for congress and ending direct election of senators, contact your state representatives and push the idea. These changes have to come from the people. Congress will never be part of fixing congress and nothing else will get reformed (tax code, whatever) without fixing congress first.

Is Barry Switzer Racist? Or is He Just Stupid?

Discussing the upcoming NFL draft in general and specifically Johnny Manziel, Barry Switzer was quoted saying:

I love his ability; Johnny can play," Switzer said. "I've always said I'd never recruit a white quarterback. The only way I'd ever recruit a white quarterback to play for me was if his mom and daddy would have to both be black, and that's the only way I would do it."

In his defense, he went on to explain that it is because of the style of offense he plays. However, I think his explanation merely added fuel to the fire.

"My offense is a quarterback-fullback offense," Switzer continued. "I'd have to have a Jamelle Holieway, J.C. Watts [or] Thomas Lott. Those guys are gonna be my quarterbacks, they're great runners, they're great ball carriers and ... able to pass, complete some, and those guys could. Those guys could throw and run."

My rule of thumb on determining if something is racist is to turn the races around and ask how the statement would then be viewed. His qualifying statement about wanting running quarterbacks does not rehabilitate the comments. Years ago when there was uproar about lack of black quarterbacks in the NFL, coaches often explained it away by saying that black QB's coming out of colleges were not pocket passers, etc. Here is an idea. Ignore everyone's race and hire them or select them in the draft based on their talents and whether they can help your organization achieve its goals. Pretty simple huh? Want to end racism? Stop talking about race as if it is germane to every conversation. People are people. I'll end with this youtube clip of Morgan Freeman on 60 Minutes from a few years back.

The Argument for Post Birth Abortion and Our Cultural Decline

Brit Hume tweeted a link to a Slate.com article which discusses a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics titled "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?"

This disgusting notion has several angles to discuss:

First, I notice that Hume's tweet expressed surprise: 

There are now people seriously arguing for abortion AFTER BIRTH.  http://t.co/iisZuaWc3Q
— Brit Hume (@brithume) February 24, 2014

It can be difficult to clearly express yourself within Twitter's 140 character limit. However, it is safe to say Hume was shocked by the fact that we have serious discussion of murdering children after they are born. Hume is a smart guy, but I can not share his surprise at this development. It is actually very predictable. Many people have connected our passive acceptance of abortion with an overall diminished valuing of human life. Also, since the Roe v Wade decision we have seen a greater acceptance of euthanasia which is just another side to the same coin - deciding some human life has less value than others.

Then when you read Slate's article you realize they are on the side of evil and are actually worried that the "doctors" openly advocating abortion after live delivery from the womb will instead advance the pro-life argument. Consider this segment:

" But it isn’t pro-lifers who should worry about the Giubilini-Minerva proposal. It’s pro-choicers. The case for “after-birth abortion” draws a logical path from common pro-choice assumptions to infanticide. It challenges us, implicitly and explicitly, to explain why, if abortion is permissible, infanticide isn’t."

The problem for pro-aborts is, if they attempt to be intellectually honest with themselves they can't help but realize there is no difference between an in-womb murder (abortion) and a post partum murder besides location and age. I concede we are unlikely to influence the extremists. However, we may see this influence the mildly pro-aborts (that includes those who are indifferent and the "personally opposed but who am I to tell others not to murder their kid?" crowd) When mildly pro-aborts are able to see that their arguments also apply to a new born they in turn should realize there is no difference between killing a two day old child and killing a two year old. Only a completely morally depraved person could remain in favor of continuing down this path. Last item this drive home to me is the question: where are we culturally that we have reached a point that doctors are debating the merits of murdering children.In a decent society the authors of that paper would be shunned and unwelcome in any respectable setting. Sadly, I strongly doubt they will face any negative feedback professionally. Instead they are likely celebrated for being avant-garde and unshackled by conventional positions. We can continue the March for Life, and can support pro-life politicians and what not, but most important thing to do is to pray that people's hearts and minds change on this subject. Slavery wasn't ended because a politician passed a law or issued a proclamation. Instead what happened was a few people recognized that owning human beings is wrong and they made that case in many different ways and convinced more and more people to share their view. In time the few became a majority. In further time that majority demanded an end to an evil they could no longer abide continuing.

Rep Dingell to Retire

A little good news out of DC today with the word that Congressman John Dingell (D-MI) is finally retiring. Dingell exemplified all that is wrong with our federal government. Career politicians fight for continual growth of government and he is the longest serving congressman at 60 years in office. We can add a touch of nepotism to his list of sins since he became a congressman when he basically inherited his daddy's district in 1955. Good riddance several decades too late! Disgustingly, his wife Deborah Dingell (born year before he was first elected to congress) is the early favorite to replace him.