Posts Tagged ‘Control’

CNN, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves!

There was a time that CNN lived up to its name as a “Cable News Network”.  These days, it seems it’s anything but the news.  It’s opinion and even then, poorly formed and ignorant opinion.  (I’ll discuss the pit bull, Chris Cuomo, another time!)

As I often do during the day, I’m reading through CNN.com/US and there’s an article about gun control.  The author, Jeff Yang, suggests that an answer to the “epidemic” of gun violence is to make owners of guns get insurance.  The article is stupid enough on its own but simply the fact that CNN would publish it is amazing!

Let’s walk through a few counter-thoughts for a moment:

  1. Requiring doctors to have insurance doesn’t stop malpractice from happening.  It only provides a means for the survivors or victims’ families to carry on, at least financially.  The patient is still injured, suffering, or dead.
  2. Requiring drivers to have insurance hasn’t stopped car accidents from happening.  It only provides a means for financial recovering in the wake of a crash.  The damage is still done, injuries still happened, and in some cases, the dead are still dead.

There is no case I can think of where requiring insurance has prevented a potentially negative event from occurring.  In fact, “requiring” insurance is not always enforced even in cases (such as driving) until or unless an event occurs that brings it to light.  The fallacy of those who think like Mr Yang is the thought process that believes a law will prevent something from happening.  Obviously Not!  Even with all of the thousands of laws on the books today–if not millions–crimes and law violations occur on a regular basis.

Insurance may cause a law-abiding citizen to reconsider gun ownership if the cost of that insurance is too great.  For the criminal, die hard, or mentally ill?  Not necessarily.  And even if a person has insurance for a legally obtained firearm, there is no guarantee that in the heat of the moment, someone will not end up dead.

CNN’s Andre Spicer has an equally ineffective idea:  Let’s convince retailers that selling guns isn’t in their best commercial interest!  Great!  So that takes care of Walmart and introduces more shops that are “gun free” like Starbucks.  It doesn’t get guns off of the streets.  It also does nothing to stop a destructive person from walking into an elementary school with a gun and killing people.  How much more gun-free can you get than an elementary school???

Well, those signs in the windows or at the curbs that says “Gun-Free Zone” were REALLY effective, weren’t they!?!?!?!!!

The only answer to gun violence in this country–or anywhere in the world–is a complete revocation of any rights regarding gun ownership with full surrender, then confiscation, and then extreme punishment for anyone found to own a gun.  At that point, there would almost have to be immediate incarceration on a felony charge with the possibility of life in prison or the death penalty before things would change significantly.

I don’t advocate any of this, by the way!  I don’t advocate anything mentioned up to this point!!!

HOWEVER, I do agree that doing nothing is not the right answer, but there needs to be an unemotional, logical, reasoned out approach, hammered out by liberals and conservatives, and then simply implemented.  Doing SOMETHING and doing the RIGHT THING are not one and the same though.  A change may mean that the Constitution is amended–it has been before and likely will be again.  Not an easy path or a likely one at that.  But if and when it does occur, be prepared to either live by the new rules or to move into the criminal class when you don’t.

And be prepared in that day to live with a lot of other changes that will leave the United States of America less great, less free, and less united!


Read Full Post »

Khapra beetle

Khapra beetle

Supporters of a monetary tithe almost invariably point to how the US is no longer an agrarian society.  They contend that we as a society no longer produce from the ground and therefore are to tithe on our income.  Some take it further and say it should be on our “increase”, whether that be income, found money, or money won in gambling ventures (even if the denomination itself is against gambling).

Back to farming.  Imagine my pleasure on reading an article about an invasive beetle species called the Khapra beetle that was recently found in a shipment from China!  (http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/19768048/detail.html)    The article quotes a customs expert as saying “One-third of our gross domestic product is from agriculture…” and so of course I had to go find out what that works out to.  According to Wikipedia, our 2008 GDP was $14,264,600 million, which would make one third of that $4,754,866 million.  That’s a pretty penny for a non-agrarian society! (Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal

So what’s the point?

  1. A Biblical or Spiritual truth is not to be interpreted or applied based on the temporal nature of a society.  (One cannot arbitrarily take what God said to a people thousands of years ago and say “We don’t do that, but let’s apply it here instead“—especially when there ARE Christians living in other countries who subsist on agriculture.  There is no industrial dispensation for Western society!)
  2. The US is more agrarian than many people realize.  A whole 1/3 of our GDP!!!
  3. You cannot say that the tithe law applies to money simply because you deny #2 above.
  4. You cannot say that the tithe law applies to money simply because you say people don’t farm.  But even if you they did farm, they are no longer under the Law as Believers anyway.

All this from a tiny beetle.

Read Full Post »

benbovaThe first science fiction book I ever remember reading was Ben Bova’s The Weathermakers (1967).  I was probably in 4th grade at the time (1970) and it hooked me on sci-fi.  As I remember though, the idea of man controlling the weather just didn’t work the way it was supposed to.  (Ironically, I have never read Danny Dunn and the Weather Machine (1959), “Danny” being no relation as far as I know.)

Fast forward 39 years to the Obama administration’s John Holdren and his suggestion to devise methods for cooling the atmosphere.  The surprising thing is the seriousness with which the proposals are being discussed.  On the lighter side, I really appreciated the reaction I saw on CNN yesterday morning when the reporter said “So he (Obama) wants to control the weather now too?” (If Punxsutawney Phil can’t get it right after all these years, how will Obama???)

What a relief that President Obama wasn’t around during the last ice age!  Global warming was a good thing then.

Of course, in our microscopic view of the way the world should be, it seems natural that we would look at conditions today and say to ourselves “let’s keep it this way”.  The problem is that the world is changing as it has been doing since it was created.  john_holdren_1209982cWe do not have the right to say to the world “STOP!”, nor do we have the right to experiment with it in such a way that might have catastrophic results for others around the globe.

Unfortunately, we’ve already done that in some measure through nuclear testing, rocket launches, burning of fossil fuels, manufacturing and the production of toxic waste—the list could go on.

There are those who say we should do nothing—that the science is spotty and not well supported.

Then there are those who say the danger is imminent and that we must do something.  Our cities and infrastructure will be threatened by rising seas and increasing temperatures.  Plants and animals will die off.

And then there are those who recall that the Sahara was once a jungle, that glaciers slid across the Ohio River valley, and that the list of extinct animals is quite extensive already.

Climate change occurs and there is probably little that man does to create it, and most likely little he can do to control it—a dream of man for centuries.  No-one has the intellect or wisdom, individually or collectively, to take on this province of God.

This is one area where maybe Rush Limbaugh should also hope that President Obama fails.







Read Full Post »