The Desert of the Real

1/20/2008

A soldier dies in Iraq

Filed under: Politics, General — Shamgar @ 5:44 pm

How many of you, seeing that title, passed over it without a moments reaction? I would dare say that by now, there are very few Americans who even bother paying attention to the number of men dying over there anymore. If they still read the numbers, I doubt many are impacted by them. For certain, I know far too many who consider it not to be an issue, because after all, there are less dying now than there were even a few months ago right? So we should be happy about that.

But what seems to escape the notice of so many people is that even if there are fewer dying, they are still dying. It is probably getting old to a lot of people to hear this – but supporting the troops does not mean cheering for them as they go to their deaths. Yes we should absolutely support our troops. We believe in them. Yet we also owe it to them, to their families and to their friends to ensure that the reason they go to their deaths is a very very good one. That our cause is just and right. We ought to be certain that we have a goal, and that that goal is achievable. Every day of every war we ought to weigh the cause against the cost. The value of even an ideal outcome against the value of the lives of soldiers who are dying to achieve it.

Today I read a story, and I hope that you will read it too. I am not going to quote it here, because I think it needs to be read in its entirety and there is no introduction to it I can give that will do it justice. So read it now, before finishing this post and then come back.

We must remember that our soldiers are not expendable. When we see the death toll reported those are not just numbers. They are men. Many of them good men, with mothers and fathers, wives, children, and friends. All of whom will miss them. All of whom will have their lives turned upside down and destroyed. Mothers and Fathers that will never hear their son’s laughter again, never see him around their table at Thanksgiving or Christmas. Wives who will go on in empty houses, where their now deceased husband’s voice still hangs in the air, but will never be heard again. Children who will never be tucked into bed at night again by their father. Who will not receive another piggy-back ride. Daughters whose father won’t be there when they get married to give them away.

Consider this, consider it well. Then ask yourself two questions. I don’t want to hear the answers, and no comments will be allowed on this post regardless. These are questions for you to answer honestly, to yourself, and consider in your heart.

Why?

Having considered why, I ask you

Is it worth the cost?

Not just the financial cost, that’s a whole different question. Is it worth the cost in the lives of our best and brightest? Every one of us must answer this for ourselves. And every one of us will one day be called on to give an answer for it.

Marines unloading a casket from a plane

1/4/2008

Thoughts on Iowa

Filed under: Politics, General — Shamgar @ 9:16 am

Basically, no big surprise.

Despite how prideful they are about their early caucus and their high opinion of their influence on the overall primary process they are bound and determined to cement themselves as irrelevant to it. Neither Obama nor Huckabee is going to get the nod from their respective parties. So all they’ve really done is thrown both parties into disarray.

First, Huckabee. I know how he came to get his part there. The Iowa voter base is largely made up of ignorant desperate evangelicals. People smart enough to realize that they’ve been abused at the hands of the Republican party as promises have regularly been made and broken in issues that are important to them yet stupid enough to buy into Huckabee’s “I’m-just-like-you” populism. Add to this their unbelievable foolishness in believing that A) the fair tax is somehow better than the income tax we have now and B) that its implementation would actually mean an end to the income tax. Then, throw in a little promises of redistribution of wealth for farmers in the form of subsidies and you’ve got a made for Iowa candidate. He’s credible enough on abortion and on certain evangelical non-political issues that he was an easy pick for those people. Sad that they couldn’t look past that to see his lack of integrity and utter ignorance on foreign policy. That’s without going into his immigration issues, pardoning of felons, and of course his rabid statist views. None of that matters because according to the AFA, God has annointed him so that’s where we vote right?

I’m not that upset about Ron being in 5th. He was within a few percentage points of third at 10%. Given that every poll in Iowa but two were putting him at 4%, and one of the remaining two only had him at 7% that’s pretty good. All of that in the face of concerted media effort to avoid talking about him, and his not doing hardly anything in that state. Plus it feels good to skunk Rudy, even if the victory is a little hollow since he wasn’t really putting any effort in there.

Romney coming in second and netting only around 25% of the vote to show for the tidy sum (six million I believe?) he spent in Iowa is good too. It hurts his ‘electable’ argument pretty badly going into NH. This is going to hurt his early primary strategy and leave him netting smaller numbers making Rudy’s strategy look pretty smart on the front end. Time will tell.

Huckabee won’t repeat this performance – though he may hit some high numbers in other states awash with historically and politically ignorant evangelicals. Romney won’t be riding any tidal waves of success either. This means every state’s primaries will be important this year, and frankly there’s only one man right now with sufficient funds and support to make that happen.

As for the democrats – well – basically the same thing. I don’t see Obama getting sufficient national support to take the nomination. Edwards has been in Iowa so much over the last year he might be able to file for residency, and he still only managed to take second. He’s definitely not going anywhere. Hillary is the easy and obvious choice for the democrats here, but this might be a sign of some backlash against the idea of her coronation. She may have to fight, but I’m pretty sure in the end she’s going to get it. If nothing else, Iowa strongly suggests this is going to be a three-way race for the Democrats.

Whatever else happens, this is definitely going to be one of the more interesting election years.

For my fellow patriots supporting Ron Paul, and fighting for the cause of liberty in the face of such odds, do not be discouraged. Remember the words of Thomas Pain,

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”

12/6/2007

Randy Alcorn on Ron Paul

Filed under: Theology, Politics, General — Shamgar @ 11:21 am

One other (at least) has already said it well in the comments for Randy’s post. But I want to add my voice, ignored though it will likely be.

The values voters debate was a setup. The people commenting after the debate (one of whom you quoted) were clearly already set on Mike from the beginning as God’s annointed candidate.

The question and answer period was structured in a way to prevent any sort of rational discussion by reducing it to yes and no answers.

The easy thing here would be to answer the way you know everyone wants you to in that audience. It would’ve been so easy for Ron to tell people what they want to hear. Like some of those other men did. Instead he held fast to his principles even though he knew they’d be misinterpreted by people like you.

People who take no time to actually understand the political ramifications of an idea or decision before weighing in on it. Evangelicals are largely political morons. There is zero appreciation for the double-edged sword that is the use of government power. Zero understanding of the law of unintended consequences.

No, we swing that sword for all its worth with no heed to who is going to be hurt by it, including ourselves. Imagine a three year old with a fully automatic handgun. That’s the typical evangelical in the political arena.

We have a system of government that separates powers. It does so for a reason – a recognition that man is depraved and cannot be trusted with power. It must be divided and set against itself or it will be abused.

Some of us, like me, Ron, and hundreds of others I now know thanks to Ron’s campaign, understand that the national government has a very specific and LIMITED set of powers and responsibilities. Yes Jefferson made that statement, but if you actually bother to read his writings instead of a quote you read on the web somewhere or in someone’s email signature you’ll find that he CLEARLY did not believe it was the responsibility of the national government to intervene in the life of the individual to accomplish that.

The federal government has that job as a priority in the specific areas that it is responsible for. It is the job of the pastor to shepherd the flock. Not for him to shepherd EVERY flock, but the flock he was given. Likewise the federal government has a responsibility to protect life in its management of our national and international affairs. In part that means not sending our people to die in unjust wars.

If Ron were running for governor and was taking those positions I think we’d have a much more interesting debate. However, the fact is that he was running for president of the United States, and he was dead right on every single one of those questions and everyone else was wrong.

This includes the issue of forcing laws on the Iraqi government. We have no place to impose laws on other nations. Instead we ought to lead by example and encourage that result that we want. I am truly horrified by what happens to Christians in Islamic nations. It’s awful. However, it is also being used of God for the benefit of that Church. One of the biggest problems the American church has is that it is not persecuted enough. How about if we follow our constitution and bring this particular problem before God in prayer instead. The utter hypocrisy here amazes me. One of the main reasons most Christians oppose Islam is because of its law and that laws opposition to and attempted suppression of Christianity. (Sadly enough, they’d likely be fine with it otherwise, much like GWB). Then they want to turn around and impose their own law on Islamic nations.

Further, I wholeheartedly agree with you that there are fundamental issues with Islam that many people don’t appreciate. However, there is this seeming belief among many that the majority of muslims are consistent, accurate muslims. That somehow the Islamic world is not possessed of the weaknesses that possesses every other world religion.

But that’s not the case. There simply aren’t that many militant muslims. Or there weren’t before we started bombing them regularly. Most people are not even aware of the regular bombing runs we did leading up to 9/11. And of course, we can’t possibly give any credence to the idea that might make people angry. Maybe even angry enough to join a militant organization to strike back at the US.

Not when we can look at their religion and find reasons there. Surely that explains everything. Why should I be forced to actually think about cause and effect. Why should we possibly ever possibly entertain the thought that maybe we might need to repent of what our nation has done in the past?

What really gets me is that most of that was Clinton era actions. Christians are even defending HIS policies and their consequences. It’s not even typical “republicans can do no wrong.”

Our pride is killing us.

If we put a man like Mike in the office, he will continue to expand the size of government. Sure, he’s a social conservative – mostly. But that’s as far as it goes. He might even lower taxes. But that is meaningless.

This is not a question of whether he can do enough to appear conservative. This is a question of his worldview. Of his ideology. What is his overall approach to government. It’s not conservative. Not in any historical or meaningful sense of the word.

Further, he will do nothing to repair the great damage done by President Bush. Speaking specifically of his moves in regard to Martial law, his repealing of the Posse Comitatus act, his willingness to declare US citizens as enemy combatants and the subsequent stripping of their rights, the warrantless searches, or the patriot act. In particular on that last point, the power granted to the federal eforcement arm to write their own search warrants and then prevent you from telling anyone – even your lawyer – about it.

As a result, if he wins, and that’s a big if, then in 4 years or 8 years or 16 years when the democrats come to power they will have all of that power and they will employ it in ways that will hurt everyone.

And you will be responsible.

10/9/2007

Economics debate

Filed under: Politics, General — Shamgar @ 9:38 pm

Unbelievable! This is definitely the debate everyone should see!

I’m only a part of the way through and I’ve been skipping through it and I’ve heard the most incredible things already. I’ll have more detail and exact quotes later, but so far I’ve heard McCain actually suggest that Ron should read The Wealth of Nations! Yet quite clearly McCain has never read it, nor any of the economic theory that sprang from it. (Or, if he did, he didn’t understand it. Kinda like Otto in A Fish Called Wanda:
Otto: Apes don’t read philosophy!
Wanda: Yes, they do Otto. They just don’t understand it.
Allow me to correct a few things things for you:
     Aristotle was not Belgian.
     The central message of Buddhism is not every man for himself.
     The London Underground is not a political movement.
Those are all mistakes.
)

Then, you had Romney saying he wouldn’t consult congress before he went to war, he’d ask his lawyers. And Ron rightly lays the smack down on the whole group on the issue. Directly following this, Mike Huckabee clearly states that if he asked congress to go to war and they said no, then he’d do it anyway.

That’s without even getting into the exchange between Romney and Rudy that was so surreal I thought I’d stepped into the twilight zone. I mean really, listening to two fakes arguing over who is better at re-interpreting their past to fit their new conservative persona is just bizarre. This must be what it feels like to be on mind-altering drugs.

10/6/2007

Update: James Dobson

Filed under: Theology, Politics — Shamgar @ 3:08 pm

As usual, I want to be fair to the people I discuss on this blog. While Dr Dobson still doesn’t seem any closer to understanding the value of federalism, I am not so sure he’ll be supporting any of the so-called “first tier” candidates. In fact, he may not support a republican candidate at all—which could be interesting on its own.

However, the big thing I want to talk about is that it has come to my attention that he was on Sean Hannity’s show the other day. On that show, Hannity did his best to browbeat Dobson into supporting Giuliani and Dobson wouldn’t budge. Further, he openly rebuked Hannity for his politics of fear, that he would vote contrary to principle out of his fear of losing—and then maybe losing to Hillary later. It’s good to hear someone with some influence reject the “boogieman” approach to politics endorsed my men like Hannity and Jason Engwer.

This is something that really needs to be said and I’m frankly surprised that the person who did it was Dr Dobson, but I’m thankful it was said regardless. He held firm to his refusal to support such immoral candidates and I can’t blame him for that. I’d like for him to get on the federalism bandwagon, but even if we disagree on that I can respect his uncompromising stance.

John Hagee and Israel

Filed under: Theology, Politics — Shamgar @ 8:41 am

I have not as yet been able to confirm this but I have heard that John Hagee has endorsed (or stated he could endorse, it’s not clear) Rudy Giuliani for president.

Now there is a clear display of what an unbalanced and unbiblical eschatology will bring you. Rudy’s pro-Israel position is apparently sufficient (for Hagee) to overcome his other moral failures. Apparently it no longer matters to John that Rudy is an adulterous pro-abortion, cross dressing candidate who has married his own cousin. As long as he supports Israel, that’s enough for him.

Then you have Dobson, who I really don’t know what he wants. He has openly rejected Thompson now (and by implication, Ron Paul as well) because he’s a federalist. Apparently, if you’re unwilling to use the sword of government in an inquisition against all those who disagree with the morals of the AFA you’re not worthy in his book. Even if you ARE willing generally, but for the sake of the election are spouting federalist noises you’re not worthy in his book. He has likewise (rightly) rejected Rudy, and apparently McCain too. Which leaves…Romney. Or maybe Brownback or Huckabee.

(One last thing, Dobson’s argument that states dealing with the marriage issue would result in 50 different definitions of marriage is just ludicrous. Honestly, can the man really come up with 50 substantively different definitions of marriage? Further, as I’m sure you’d guess from my recent post on this topic, I can’t reconcile the idea that a Christian should somehow bow to the state in order to get married. That’s just absurd.)

10/2/2007

Drug Raid in Dallas Frightens Children

Filed under: Politics — Shamgar @ 7:20 pm

Some of my favorite excerpts from this article:

“The kids saw everything, guns drawn [and] masks on the face,” said Kristen Hendrix, the school’s director. “That’s pretty traumatic for four, five and six-year-olds.”

For four, five and six-year-olds? I’m 33 and it’s traumatic for me!
“What they saw they perceived as a high risk, high dangerous maneuver, but in actuality, it was a very low risk, routine type of police investigation,” Capt. Roland said.

It was low risk, so we sent a fully armed SWAT team. And of course, there is the continually disturbing idea that bashing in someone’s door and searching their home for what is most likely a non-violent offense that is hurting no-one but themselves is “routine” police work.

9/24/2007

Richard Paey Pardoned!!

Filed under: Politics, General — Shamgar @ 10:09 pm

Given the general tenor of posts on this blog, I couldn’t resist posting some great news. Richard Paeye has received a full pardon! This is incredible! Frankly, I had lost hope that there was enough enough sense left within our government on these issues to even commute his sentence. Giving him a full pardon just wasn’t even within the bounds of my imagination. What wonderful news for him and for his family.

I wish I could say that I’m encouraged by the things said in this article regarding the obvious problems in the legal system as it pertains to the drug war. Unfortunately, past history shows it’s unlikely anything will be done. Very little is even being done in Alabama, and an elderly woman was murdered.

Ignorance of Civics and History

Filed under: Politics, General — Shamgar @ 10:06 pm

USA Today has a story out about ISI’s study of test results for a quiz they give to college students over History and Civics.

You can take the quiz yourself. (My results below)
(more…)

9/20/2007

General Wesley Clark on Iraq

Filed under: Politics, General — Shamgar @ 10:44 am

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress