Aristotle's Golden Mean philosophy touted that the middle ground was the place where the better good could be found in any disparate disagreement. He felt that in most cases, if a disagreement could be plotted on a line, the best compromise would be somewhere in the middle, rather than on either end of the extreme. This is a rather basic human reaction that avoids extremism and embraces unity, so no prize to Aristotle for being terribly innovative.
In the political world here in the U.S., our traditional two party system has often been at odds with each other, but rarely have the opposite ends of the spectrum been so far removed from one another. In a political field where both sides are hosting runners leaning unnervingly to the left, there is a voting public that is growing ever more polarized on issues that tend to encourage such. While blue and red candidates try to posture themselves as liberal or conservative, using hackneyed tools that long ago should have been abandoned, the American public is waging their own campaign for liberal and conservative positions in churches, schools, and city halls. It is almost as if the public, and the people hoping to represent them one day from the oval office, are at opposite ends of a spectrum too.
One only has to peruse the various right and left wing Internet news outlets to see that a ground level war is being fought for rights to speech, assembly, and expression. Every day, news blogs are pregnant with stories of Christian pastors and activists who have been arrested, imprisoned, fined, and harassed for sharing their faith, telling their story, or speaking their view on any social issue. A pastor in Wichita Kansas was arrested this past summer for walking on a side walk while a so-called "gay fest" was being held in a park bordered by this same side walk. He was not shouting, name calling, expressing lewd gestures, or intoxicated, unlike many of the participants in the "gay fest." A youth in a high school in Colorado was suspended because he ignored threats of punishment if he did not cease to wear T shirts with Christian logo's on them. When he cited the fact that students routinely wore T shirts with alcohol and drug logo's on them, he was told that the school made policy, and not him, and maybe he needed to find a school that accepted his "radical" beliefs. A Christian in North Carolina made a habit of speaking to patrons walking in to the local Abortion clinic on the sidewalk, encouraging them to consider another choice. He was breaking no laws, but when the boyfriend of one patron decided to assail this Christian, the assailant was not only allowed to get away by local police, but was never charged with a crime. Stories far worse than these are as common place in America today as hamburgers. Meanwhile, gay activist groups, ACLU junkies, and atheists are protected, encouraged, and forgiven cart Blanch by law enforcement, judges, and lawyers, while they rail on, sometimes physically, largely unchecked, as they attempt to beat into society their radical, liberal views and beliefs. There is no longer any "Bible thumping" going on in America; soon it may be considered a crime to carry one.
Are the politicians paying attention to this ever-widening chasm between those that are politically, socially, and morally liberal and conservative? Do they have any clue that America is losing its moral compass, while extreme liberal groups and individuals gain a huge voice in public forums, news outlets, and judicial institutions? Can it be that Clinton, Huckabee, and Obama (to name a few still in it) seek to find that Golden Mean, hoping that in the middle, they can secure success?
The obvious answer is that for at least the past 4 decades, politicians running for President have always tried to doctor up their actual position on the liberal/ conservative continuum so as to look centrist, when in fact, most have a permanent residence closer to the extremes. Hillary has never in her life stepped foot within a hundred miles of the middle of the political road. Obama touts himself as the change agent, and yet his true political stances (the few he has revealed in his dearth of political history) are overtly old school liberal. Huckabee, McCain, and Giuliani all would be considered liberal conservatives by the conservative base, and yet they speak often of Reagan as if they are following in his footsteps.
The problem with watering down the image and message is that as politicians seek that elusive Golden Mean, they are being both dishonest and cowardly. It used to be said in political circles that in order to be elected, a candidate from either party needed the flexibility to reach those in the middle of the political spectrum while maintaining a grip on those at the end. That exercise was almost always a losing proposition, as those in the middle weren't fooled, and the base wasn't humored. So, why do politicians, even in this current election epoch, refuse to come out and be forthright, honest, and proud of their true political address? Maybe they don't feel they can trust the American people to honor their honesty. And maybe that says something about the state of those who portend to represent us.
America, like a big slab of concrete, has already passed the cracking stage, and now has entered the separation phase, where opposing sides begin to move away from each other, allowing the chasm to widen and deepen. As politicians run polls to try to determine which side offers them more potential votes, they are losing sight of the bigger picture: someone, from one party or the other, is going to have to live up to their false advertising and seek to bring unity to this nation, using the basic tenets of the constitution as their foremost tool, rather than use the office of president to smear their private, political leanings upon the face of those they represent. America can stand fights among left and right wing political extremists, but it cannot stand a growing gap between extreme views in the public sector.
In an ideal world, a conservative (or liberal) politician would state openly their true views, without shame, and then promise to govern according to those views while they seek to work with everyone who does not share them.
Maybe that's the same ideal scenario every citizen needs to adopt.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
Fun with Constituents
Who would vote for Hillary? For Obama? For Huckaby?
In this very early season of overly zealous candidate posturing, you can bet that demographic studies and surveys are being administered by the various presidential candidates at a manic pace. Each man or woman (they ya go, Hillary) running this time around wants to know EXACTLY who they appeal to, who they do not appeal to, and who is undecided, so that they can change their message, their itinerary, or their look to meet the perceived needs and tastes of a specific demographic niche. The male Clinton went on the now defunct Arsenio Hall show and "played" (with great help from the band and a sound mixer) the saxophone, and sadly, Huckaby recently pulled the "I play a cool instrument" ploy and played his bass on the I Got a Huge Chin late night program. The point being made is that prospective candidates can and usually will do some crazy things to appeal to all. Of course, we know that many of these vain attempts just come off as juvenile and overly contrived.
So, in the quest for more comedy, various lists will now be made to help some of the candidates see what they can do to appeal to different demographic groups. Read on in a spirit of fun...
Top 5 things Hillary needs to do to appeal to the Hip Hop crowd:
5. Shave that moustache
4. Develop her own finger signs (just avoid the one you use for Bill)
3. Employ the use of a '62, slammed Impala when riding from the airport to the speaking engagement location. Make it blue pearl, with a white interior. Don't slack on the dubs.
2. Get Flavor Flave to emcee a hood joint par-tay in Compton, replete with chicken and waffles. Get Gore to karaoke "Bust a Move" in the back yard.
1. Try not to make any more pseudo-racist remarks about Obama, at least until after the election.
Top 5 ways Huckaby might appeal to Muslim's:
5. Try to avoid using a copy of the Q'uran as a coaster
4. Lay off the "Mohammad sucks" remarks when passing a mosque
3. Go to Mecca, buy a coke, look around, pose for a few photo's, and return home. No big whup.
2. Get a really dark tan. Wear sandals more often.
1. Avoid using the words "Hell" and "Islam" on the same day, especially if the liberal media is around.
Top 5 ways Obama could appeal to white, middle aged, church-goin' women:
5. Somehow, very quietly, let it slip out that you may in fact be part Cuban.
4. Avoid using the Bible as a coaster
3. Go on Martha Stewart's show and share your pot roast recipe
2. Drop Oprah. Pick up Barbara Bush.
1. Eat at Ruby Tuesday's every Thursday for lunch. Wear a red hat.
Top 5 ways Thompson may appeal to the pacifist, anti-war, anti-gun, tree hugging crowd:
5. Lay off the growling
4. Remove the Green Peace bumper sticker from the toilet seat in your RV.
3. Don't wear your revolver the next time you do a sit down with Matt Lauer.
2. Replace the Rib eye lunch special with an organic salad and bean sprout, tofu enhanced soup. (just have an aid ready with a big mac and fries in the limo)
1. Offer to take AlGore on a free trip to the Arctic to find that polar bear that is supposedly drowning amidst the melting glaciers. Just you and him. Once there, what to do next will just come to you.
Well candidates, read, implement, and hope for the best. Possibly some of your other running mates will receive similar advice in the near future.
In this very early season of overly zealous candidate posturing, you can bet that demographic studies and surveys are being administered by the various presidential candidates at a manic pace. Each man or woman (they ya go, Hillary) running this time around wants to know EXACTLY who they appeal to, who they do not appeal to, and who is undecided, so that they can change their message, their itinerary, or their look to meet the perceived needs and tastes of a specific demographic niche. The male Clinton went on the now defunct Arsenio Hall show and "played" (with great help from the band and a sound mixer) the saxophone, and sadly, Huckaby recently pulled the "I play a cool instrument" ploy and played his bass on the I Got a Huge Chin late night program. The point being made is that prospective candidates can and usually will do some crazy things to appeal to all. Of course, we know that many of these vain attempts just come off as juvenile and overly contrived.
So, in the quest for more comedy, various lists will now be made to help some of the candidates see what they can do to appeal to different demographic groups. Read on in a spirit of fun...
Top 5 things Hillary needs to do to appeal to the Hip Hop crowd:
5. Shave that moustache
4. Develop her own finger signs (just avoid the one you use for Bill)
3. Employ the use of a '62, slammed Impala when riding from the airport to the speaking engagement location. Make it blue pearl, with a white interior. Don't slack on the dubs.
2. Get Flavor Flave to emcee a hood joint par-tay in Compton, replete with chicken and waffles. Get Gore to karaoke "Bust a Move" in the back yard.
1. Try not to make any more pseudo-racist remarks about Obama, at least until after the election.
Top 5 ways Huckaby might appeal to Muslim's:
5. Try to avoid using a copy of the Q'uran as a coaster
4. Lay off the "Mohammad sucks" remarks when passing a mosque
3. Go to Mecca, buy a coke, look around, pose for a few photo's, and return home. No big whup.
2. Get a really dark tan. Wear sandals more often.
1. Avoid using the words "Hell" and "Islam" on the same day, especially if the liberal media is around.
Top 5 ways Obama could appeal to white, middle aged, church-goin' women:
5. Somehow, very quietly, let it slip out that you may in fact be part Cuban.
4. Avoid using the Bible as a coaster
3. Go on Martha Stewart's show and share your pot roast recipe
2. Drop Oprah. Pick up Barbara Bush.
1. Eat at Ruby Tuesday's every Thursday for lunch. Wear a red hat.
Top 5 ways Thompson may appeal to the pacifist, anti-war, anti-gun, tree hugging crowd:
5. Lay off the growling
4. Remove the Green Peace bumper sticker from the toilet seat in your RV.
3. Don't wear your revolver the next time you do a sit down with Matt Lauer.
2. Replace the Rib eye lunch special with an organic salad and bean sprout, tofu enhanced soup. (just have an aid ready with a big mac and fries in the limo)
1. Offer to take AlGore on a free trip to the Arctic to find that polar bear that is supposedly drowning amidst the melting glaciers. Just you and him. Once there, what to do next will just come to you.
Well candidates, read, implement, and hope for the best. Possibly some of your other running mates will receive similar advice in the near future.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Happy and Gay?
The Gay agenda in Hollywood is ever increasing in frequency and intensity.
But what exactly is the "gay agenda?"
Almost every group in America, from the NRA to the NEA and even NASA, and all points in between, have been declared to have an agenda, usually by another group that distrusts the other. While it can be rare for an interest group, special cause group, or political group to openly state its obvious and overt agenda, the tree is known by its fruit, eventually, regardless of attempts to mask or water down the specified agenda. So, keeping these points in mind, the question returns.....what is the gay agenda?
The proposed answer here is: "acceptance."
Gay agenda movies are nothing new. The Hollywood machine has churned out such flicks as "The Birdcage," "In and Out," "Brokeback Mountain," and more recently, "I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry." But this list is just a sampling. Even "Mrs. Doubtfire" had overt gay agenda markers all through it, masked as a "family film."
In the more recent "Chuck and Larry" film, two men who are obviously not gay pretend to be so, in order to break the law and supposedly secure financial security for one of the fire fighters. The premise falls flat on its face immediately when the audience member realizes that all the widower fireman has to do is remarry or leave the force. But oh no, that would not bring about the real cause of the film, which was to attempt to prove that dependant clauses in insurance regulations are "unfair" and sexually slanted. The final court scene is a terribly feeble scene of swinging blindly at the windmills of the gay agenda, in the pathetic hopes of persuading the vast heterosexual community that gay people are not only just like everyone else, but deserve special treatment. Never mind that those two last statements are contradictory, as is the overall gay agenda.
This movie, along with copious speeches, rallies, and articles, are vain attempts, at best, to force the heterosexual community (which by all reasonable estimations make up over 95% of the total human population -- gay biased "studies" notwithstanding) to accept the gay lifestyle as "normal." But do heterosexuals ever feel the need to convince homosexuals to accept the hetero lifestyle? Ever thought of that?
The acceptance the homosexual community is seeking is a temporary, outward based acceptance from the hetero world they live in. The homosexual community is full of confused, angry, bitter, misguided, and conflicted people (male and female) who are not at all at peace within themselves. These individuals may not realize this, but they are hoping that if they can find, or force, acceptance among some in the hetero world, that this will appease their inner conflict and help them cope with the same. Translation? Basically, it's the same trite and useless game anyone struggling with sin (rebellion against God) tries to play to appease the guilt and shame they feel when going against God's laws and commands. It does not matter if the issue is homosexuality, theft, deceit, pride, lust, or any other form of human vice, the wrong way to go is to try to find an excuse for the sin, hoping that some degree of "acceptance" of it among peers will assuage the pain.
The homosexual community is wasting its time with trying to force so called acceptance among the heterosexual world. First of all, even the most liberal of hetero's out there inwardly find homosexuality a weird curiosity at best, and repugnant at worst. Secondly, any outward acceptance will not translate to inner peace. Thirdly, anyone who disagrees with human sin and sides with Godly mandates is neither ignorant nor a hate monger....provided they do so with the painful awareness of their own utter depravity before a holy God. Finally, as with all sin, there is a way to find inner peace, but this can only begin by facing the one and only God, and we do this by accepting as our Savior the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ alone has paid the price for our sins and made us right before God. He alone can set us free from the penalty of our sin and secure for us an eternal home with God.
We all waste so much time trying to cover our sins, re-translate our sins, and doctor our sins, hurting and turning on each other in the process. There can be no happiness in our lives until we have peace with God, accepting His laws and commands as He has stated them Himself, realizing that all His laws are good and there for our good. With God, it's all about the relationship, and He has done all the work necessary for us to have a right relationship with Him. He is the Master and we are the servants; He is the King, and we are His subjects. Until we get in line with this reality, we will have no peace, regardless of our best errant efforts.
But what exactly is the "gay agenda?"
Almost every group in America, from the NRA to the NEA and even NASA, and all points in between, have been declared to have an agenda, usually by another group that distrusts the other. While it can be rare for an interest group, special cause group, or political group to openly state its obvious and overt agenda, the tree is known by its fruit, eventually, regardless of attempts to mask or water down the specified agenda. So, keeping these points in mind, the question returns.....what is the gay agenda?
The proposed answer here is: "acceptance."
Gay agenda movies are nothing new. The Hollywood machine has churned out such flicks as "The Birdcage," "In and Out," "Brokeback Mountain," and more recently, "I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry." But this list is just a sampling. Even "Mrs. Doubtfire" had overt gay agenda markers all through it, masked as a "family film."
In the more recent "Chuck and Larry" film, two men who are obviously not gay pretend to be so, in order to break the law and supposedly secure financial security for one of the fire fighters. The premise falls flat on its face immediately when the audience member realizes that all the widower fireman has to do is remarry or leave the force. But oh no, that would not bring about the real cause of the film, which was to attempt to prove that dependant clauses in insurance regulations are "unfair" and sexually slanted. The final court scene is a terribly feeble scene of swinging blindly at the windmills of the gay agenda, in the pathetic hopes of persuading the vast heterosexual community that gay people are not only just like everyone else, but deserve special treatment. Never mind that those two last statements are contradictory, as is the overall gay agenda.
This movie, along with copious speeches, rallies, and articles, are vain attempts, at best, to force the heterosexual community (which by all reasonable estimations make up over 95% of the total human population -- gay biased "studies" notwithstanding) to accept the gay lifestyle as "normal." But do heterosexuals ever feel the need to convince homosexuals to accept the hetero lifestyle? Ever thought of that?
The acceptance the homosexual community is seeking is a temporary, outward based acceptance from the hetero world they live in. The homosexual community is full of confused, angry, bitter, misguided, and conflicted people (male and female) who are not at all at peace within themselves. These individuals may not realize this, but they are hoping that if they can find, or force, acceptance among some in the hetero world, that this will appease their inner conflict and help them cope with the same. Translation? Basically, it's the same trite and useless game anyone struggling with sin (rebellion against God) tries to play to appease the guilt and shame they feel when going against God's laws and commands. It does not matter if the issue is homosexuality, theft, deceit, pride, lust, or any other form of human vice, the wrong way to go is to try to find an excuse for the sin, hoping that some degree of "acceptance" of it among peers will assuage the pain.
The homosexual community is wasting its time with trying to force so called acceptance among the heterosexual world. First of all, even the most liberal of hetero's out there inwardly find homosexuality a weird curiosity at best, and repugnant at worst. Secondly, any outward acceptance will not translate to inner peace. Thirdly, anyone who disagrees with human sin and sides with Godly mandates is neither ignorant nor a hate monger....provided they do so with the painful awareness of their own utter depravity before a holy God. Finally, as with all sin, there is a way to find inner peace, but this can only begin by facing the one and only God, and we do this by accepting as our Savior the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ alone has paid the price for our sins and made us right before God. He alone can set us free from the penalty of our sin and secure for us an eternal home with God.
We all waste so much time trying to cover our sins, re-translate our sins, and doctor our sins, hurting and turning on each other in the process. There can be no happiness in our lives until we have peace with God, accepting His laws and commands as He has stated them Himself, realizing that all His laws are good and there for our good. With God, it's all about the relationship, and He has done all the work necessary for us to have a right relationship with Him. He is the Master and we are the servants; He is the King, and we are His subjects. Until we get in line with this reality, we will have no peace, regardless of our best errant efforts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)