Posts Tagged ‘reality’

Haiti and the Mouse that Roared

Posted: February 1, 2010 by datechguy in opinion/news
Tags: , , ,

Do you remember the movie The Mouse that Roared? It was about a country that decided that the best way to get itself into shape was to be taken over by the US after being defeated in “war” (unfortunately things get mucked for them as they accidentally win).

Apparently they haven’t much left in Haiti but they know reality when they see it

The needs are extraordinary, and the common refrain is that the Americans will provide.

“I want the Americans to take over the country. The Haitian government can’t do anything for us,” said Jean-Louis Geffrard, a laborer who lives under a tarp in the crowded square. “When we tell the government we’re hungry, the government says, ‘We’re hungry, too.’ ”

Code pink, International Answer, Hugo Chavez and the late Howard Zinn not withstanding people understand what America is and what it means. They haven’t read Eject-Eject-Eject but they know when they are starving and hungry and desperate who will help them and who exploits them. As C.S. Lewis said (and as I’ve quoted before)

The characteristic of Pains and Pleasures is that they are unmistakably real, and therefore, as far as they go, give the man who feels them a touchstone of reality. Thus if you had been trying to damn your man by the Romantic method—by making him a kind of Childe Harold or Werther submerged in self-pity for imaginary distresses—you would try to protect him at all costs from any real pain; because, of course, five minutes’ genuine toothache would reveal the romantic sorrows for the nonsense they were

Rhetoric doesn’t trump reality when you are starving.

Update: American Glob reminds us that the HuffPo should be on that list too.

Update 2: Add voodoo priests to the doubter list above.

Crazy Uncle Syndrome strikes again

Posted: February 1, 2010 by datechguy in catholic, internet/free speech
Tags: , , , ,

A while back I talked about Crazy Uncles, the proposition that 1% of any given population is composed of “Crazy Uncles” people who might be normal in a bunch of ways but whose views are very out there.

In any crowd you are going to have some crazy uncles. At the Boston Tea Party there were a few Ron Paul guys, at least two LaRouche guys and one vulgar sign about Barney Frank that I think crossed the line.

It added up to 5-10 guys out of 1000. The Boston Globe would have surely highlighted it…if they bothered to cover the rally.

Highlighting the crazy uncles in a group is method that the media has used to discredit movements that don’t have their imprimatur. One of my early disputes with Charles Johnson on his blog that led to my eventual banning at LGF (I posted there under my name not DaTechGuy) was my critique of his use of the Crazy uncle method to go after the Tea Party rallies.

The danger comes when you use that 1% of “crazy uncles” to reinforce your view of a group you already hate. By painting with that broad brush you don’t have to engage, your own bigotries and prejudices of the other 99%. Thus can a person sit back in the comfortable chair of affirmation. The certainty of their own moral superiority, unchallenged by the pesky facts around them…

…and that brings us to Joe My God’s post today. He has found a radio host who is a crazy uncle. A host I’ve never heard of or listened to. A host I’ll bet a lot of other Christians don’t know much about, and uses him to paint Christians with a broad brush:

Remember folks, the Christianist right is not about hatred and bigotry. It’s about the gentle redemptive love of Jesus, forced upon you at the barrel of a gun in prison as they beat the gay out of you.

According to this site 71% of Americans self identify themselves as Christians. 159 million adults (2001 figures). I have been a Catholic all my life and have spoken to Catholics and other Christians for all of my life concerning religion. I’ve heard ministers preach and been around their congregations. I’ve never heard any priest or minister advocate anything remotely like this. If I had to think of all the Christians I’ve known in my nearly 5 decades, maybe 2 might share this guys opinion and his twisting of scripture to his own ends. It is highlighted for the same reason why Chris Matthews goes after the birthers, it’s low hanging fruit and easier than going after Churches sending millions to Haiti; after all that doesn’t fit the template.

But such an acknowledgment wouldn’t support the “Christianist” template. So let’s play a game, let’s ask a few intelligent questions and invite our friends who use the term “Christianist” to enlighten us:

1. Define “Christianist”

2. Does belief in Roman Catholic Doctrine make one a “Christianist”

3. Name the protestant denominations that are by definition “Christianist”

4. If you are “bible believing” christian, does that make one a “Christianist”

5. Is the current Pope a “Christianist”, was the previous one a “Christianist”? If you answer yes to both, can you name one that wasn’t?

6. Can one by definition avoid the label “Christianist” without rejecting the Bible?

It will be interesting to hear the answer to these questions.

The cut to the chase business on Abortion.

Posted: January 29, 2010 by datechguy in opinion/news
Tags: , , , , ,

Yesterday I was listening to the pro-choice argument of a person I knew, the whole: “I don’t like abortion but I think I don’t have a right to forbid someone from having one.” argument. The gentleman who volunteered his thoughts sounding so reasonable so tolerant, asked my opinion on the subject.

I had been talking about covering the protest downtown and hadn’t specified my own position on the matter. So I answered him directly that I was pro life.

He asked me in return if I felt I had the right to forbid a woman from having an abortion? My answer was equally blunt: Yes.

Although throughout history that would not be a controversial answer, today it is positively anathema. The type of answer one doesn’t give in polite company.

As he recovered from his surprise, not only from my answer but from the matter of fact way I gave it, I asked the bottom line question: “Is abortion the killing of a human life?”

That is when the gentleman started to hem and haw about when life began and when it should be protected, hen it has value. I pointed out that the government had no problem protecting a bald eagle’s egg unhatched, why not a human?

This is the cut to the chase, the argument that we have ceded to the determent of millions for the sake of politeness and inoffensiveness.

Bottom line: If abortion does not end a unique human life then there is no reason to forbid, restrict or even consider it the least bit of controversial. The filming of it would not be an issue the sight of the “bodies” should be no more odd than a trip to the butcher shop and psychologically it should be no more traumatic than any other simple surgery. There would be no reason to want to reduce abortion, after all it’s just another same day operation, in fact we would want to encourage it for the monetary savings to the public.

When people talk about abortion as a “tragedy“, as something that should be “safe, legal and rare” as something we all “want to reduce” they reveal that they know the truth behind it, that we are talking about human life. We are ending a human life for the sake of convince, hardship or panic. We are willing to let it go, discarding it like any other piece of unwanted property, just so long as we don’t have to talk about it.

Like a town the day after a lynch mob strikes or a person at a party of a plantation owner who visits the slave quarters in the evening, we know something is wrong, but we don’t want to embarrass our neighbors and friends by saying a word.

Because once we say that word, we acknowledge reality instead of feigning ignorance. Once we KNOW then we are committed to make our choice. Do we stay silent and hope it goes away or do we act when that action will make others uncomfortable to the point where you are the target? In a society where being “judgmental” is the highest sin that takes more bravery than many people think they have.

It is for that reason why Planned Parenthood opening a office in a small city with a high unemployment rate, an action that should gather no attention at all gains national coverage and protesters. It is why as many people turned out on a snowy day on short notice in Fitchburg (pop 40k)to oppose Planned Parenthood as did in the entire city of San Francisco (pop 744k) to support abortion a mere week ago.

Within sight of the parking garage where the pro-life protesters held their signs. Less than a block away sits a monument to Captain Ebenezer Bridge and the forty-two men who when confronted with an uncomfortable reality on the 19th of April in 1775 made a decision to march putting their lives and reputation against one of the greatest powers in the world.

I’ll wager almost none of the protesters know Ebenezer Bridge’s name, but unbeknown to them, they are his successors carrying on that same Fitchburg tradition of confronting an uncomfortable reality for the sake of their children.

Update: A double thanks to Adrienne’s (Catholics) Corner for both the link and the donation to the CPAC/I’ll do it myself Tucker fund.

“He has to follow through”

Posted: January 29, 2010 by datechguy in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,

“The soldiers like the thin mints.” said the girl scout when asked and the rest nodded. The thin mints joined the box on the side of the table where people buying cookies for the troops put them. As the girls took the money the two scout mothers, cold but uncomplaining, watched with approval as their troop plied their trade outside of the church.

“I was very surprised when he won.” said the taller of the pair and her fellow nodded in agreement. A native of the midwest who settled in Massachusetts after marriage, she was surprised at how democratic and liberal her new home was. Usually on election days her husband and herself voted the same side. This time however her spouse supported Republican Scott Brown.

Once the name was spoken the young scouts started talking about how cool they thought he was. This was in diametric opposition to the two leaders both of whom cast votes for Martha Coakley on the 19th.

The kids interest was not unique, at the school where she works the students reaction pleasantly surprised her. “The 8th grade students were really excited by the election.” she noted, “I had never seen them interested in any election in the past.” Like her own household the support was divided by gender. The Boys liked Brown and the girls were for Coakley, but it was their attention to the race that pleased her most.

Other Coakley supporters also expressed surprise: “I can’t see how he can credibly support the Massachusetts Healthcare plan and oppose the national one when they are basically the same thing.” said a 40 something system tech preparing for a night of Dungeons & Dragons. Another man who voted Coakley at the same game thought it odd that democrats would vote against their party “…because someone doesn’t play nice?”

Yet that was the very sentiment of a 30 something mother at the butcher shop who changed her mind on election day. It was the non stop negative ads that finally turned her away from the Candidate that only 4 days before she had supported happily to my face.

The Coakley voters surprise existed among Brown supporters as well, unable to convince themselves that their candidate would overcome the power of the Massachusetts Democratic Machine. When asked what they thought made the difference in the end, there was one constant answer. “I don’t think the heath care plan is a good idea”, expressed a Brown supporting woman at the local bakery. That sentiment was repeated over and over by voters on both sides. Martha Coakley’s unwavering support for its passage was costly and the President’s appearance only emphasized that fatal support.

Yet consider: Against an unexciting candidate supporting the most unpopular position of an administration declining in popularity, a strong dynamic candidate with a solid background, a personable touch to delivering a positive appealing message only managed 52% of the vote. Photoshops and victory parties not withstanding he needs to take that number to heart.

With only 2 years till he is up for election the question becomes: With healthcase resolved by then, how can Scott Brown win that majority when he faces a more prepared candidate running a better campaign? What will he have to do to persuade voters who voted for him once (and those he who didn’t) to pull the lever for him a 2nd time?

Among the gamers they accepted that he wouldn’t be supporting the healthcare bill that he so vigorously opposed but their issue was the Republican Caucus. “If he is just going to vote in lockstep with the Republicans to block everything he can’t get my vote.” (they might take heart from this story from the Herald today).

For most, both Brown and Coakley people the answer was the same. “If he can fulfill his promises he can win my vote” said the shorter of our Girl Scout Leaders. The mother of 4 thought he deserved a chance to see what he can do, expressing hope that the election would persuade democrats statewide to be more attentive to the people and less in lockstep with the Boston Machine. Her fellow agreed on both counts as did the woman in the Bakery and her husband. “He has to follow through.” she declared saying it’s one thing to promise changes, it’s another to actually make them happen.

The question really becomes a matter of voter perception. Will they see him for what he is: a junior senator of the minority party with one vote among 100, or will they imbue upon him all the hopes and dreams for a different direction in Washington? If they see the former then he is likely to succeed, if the latter then they likely will be disappointed.

However I suspect one person at least will not be. When asked what she will need from Scott Brown to earn her vote a second time our last minute decider answered with a single word: Integrity!

Older Entries
Newer Entries