New Look.

I finally moved She's Right over to a Blogger beta (which is no longer in beta) template. It's my new look for the new year. Actually, (1) it's not the new year yet and (2) I will not be keeping a winter theme for the whole year.

Anyway, I have mixed feelings about the move. On the plus side, I like the categories feature, personally, though I doubt many visitors will use it. On the minus side, many of the templates I was planning to use in the future are not compatible with the new widget system Blogger is using.

Anywho, here's the new look.

Things Said by Atheists That Are Untrue or Otherwise Irritating (part three)

Be sure to read part one and part two.

When I was first seeking God, I read a lot of stuff by atheists. I think I was trying to convince myself that He did not exist. I am not the type that likes to be told what to do. At that point in my life, I had no one telling me what to do. I was a stay-at-home mom, so I was the only boss. The idea of there being someone bigger than me was not so appealing.

The fall back line was always the same, though usually not credited, "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

I read this the other day on Five Before Chaos, referring to a Sam Harris piece, who credits the line to historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71).

This is often thought to be a clever way to put an end to the discussion, but it is really flawed at its heart.

There is a much bigger difference between me and an atheist than there is between me an someone with different religious beliefs.

If you read the first two posts in this series, I have not yet gotten to why I believe in the God of the Bible. I have only established that I have had very real experiences with a supernatural, seemingly all-knowing being. That right there puts me in the same boat as most other religious adherents, but not with those who profess that there is no god at all.

If I strip away all of the differences between religions that have a god, or even gods, I am still left with the basic belief in a supernatural being, which an atheist does not have.

The claim is: "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Let me understand, then.

Why do I dismiss all other possible gods? That's a good question. Actually, I never really dismissed all other possible gods. I never believed in a god before. It was through Christianity that God reached out to me.

I guess the next question would be why do I believe, solely based on my supernatural encounters, that the Bible is true?

I believe it because it works. I believe it because every time I test it, it works.

Does that disprove all other gods? No. At a minimum, to me anyway, it proves what I call the "Joan of Arcadia" theory.

In the show, "Joan of Arcadia," Joan was surprised when God shows up at her friend Grace's bat mitzvah. God explained that the different religions are necessary for reaching different people.

If that was true, we are all worshiping the same god, but in different ways because that is how God connects with us individually.

I don't think that is the case, but I am not really concerned with convincing other people with differently held religious convictions that they are worshiping the wrong god. That is between them and God.

The reason I choose to believe in Christianity can be best explained by tackling another thing atheists say; Religious people are living for the afterlife.

That is in no way true. Eternity starts the minute you accept Jesus Christ, not when you die. Jesus came to earth to redeem us from our sin - our separation from God. Once that bond is restored, one can begin to live with God right then. It does not take death to restore that bond.

The reason I believe in the gospel is because I have experienced transformation from the inside out. Maybe I needed forgiveness. Maybe that is how I needed God to connect with me, but I didn't just feel magically forgiven because I accepted Jesus. In fact, I didn't feel any different at all. After praying repeatedly, and almost giving up on feeling any substantial change in me, I just felt this warm feeling that I cannot really describe and I was forever changed.

It took my husband even longer to feel any real change. I don't want to share his testimony without his permission, but this man who I have loved for eight years is not the same person he was even a year ago. He is a totally new creation in Christ.

He wasn't a louse or a drug addict or anything. He was just a regular guy with regular pains deep inside that we all carry, but he is now healed and he is a better person for it. He is experiencing the freedom that comes from Jesus Christ.

I don't care where the Bible came from, who wrote it, when it was written, if there are any truths contained in any other religions, if Jews get to heaven, or Muslims for that matter, both of whom believe in the same God, but reject his Son.

All I know is that the Bible works. The words in it inspire and guide my life into places I never dreamed. The teachings that others derive from it work in my life. And, most importantly, I am enjoying the benefits of a life with God by my side.

Does that tell me why an atheist dismisses all possibility of the existence of God? No. It really doesn't. That is why I find that line so utterly annoying.

I've hit on all of the main irritating and/or untrue things I had in my outline, so in part four, I will discuss whether or not morality can exist outside of religion, at the request of J.D. Ryan.

Things Said by Atheists That Are Untrue or Otherwise Irritating (part two)

(If you are just joining this discussion, you can read part one here.)

Another thing that atheists say often is that religion relies on a "blind faith" and a lack of questioning and skepticism.

Ha!

I have to laugh when I read that. Let me repeat, I was raised by my mother to distrust and avoid religion. Anytime I had a question about Christianity, I was given a half-answer and told that was the best she could do because it doesn't make sense to her.

When God spoke to my heart, you can be darn sure He was met with a great deal of skepticism. I thought that God has spoken to me, but I did not believe in God. I wanted to, but I had years of doubt planted in my mind by both my upbringing and my years of studying science.

I did make the effort to earnestly seek God out with an open heart and open mind, but I was full of skepticism and doubts.

Even as I saw God working in my life and had prayers answered, sometimes instantly, I still wrote it off as a possible coincidence.

There comes a point when one can no longer deny the truth and can no longer dismiss the divine as a mere coincidence. Once I committed my life to Jesus, it was for keeps. I know He is there. He has done things in my life that removed all doubt as to His existence. That is why I have faith. It is not a blind faith rooted in ignorance and lack of reason. It is a faith rooted in truth and knowledge, that I stand by even when my emotions betray me.

Whether or not God is real is not based on how I feel on any given day. On those days when I wake up feeling like my life sucks and God does not rush in with His tingly cosmic love to warm and comfort me during my self-centered conniptions, I have to rely on my faith. As I grow as a Christian and God's answers for my life no longer come to me as instantly or as clearly as they did when I was first seeking, I have to rely on my faith. Those times when I think I might have a better or more exciting life if I ignored what God wants me to do and did things my way, I rely on my faith in God's plan. That faith was forged through experience that God's plans really do work out better than my own.

Let me put it another way, we all rely on our faith when our emotions betray us. There are some morning that I wake up and cannot stand to be around my husband. I don't mean that he is some kind of jerk - actually my husband is the best husband any woman could wish for. I mean that I am in such a bad mood that all he has to do is breath the same air I do and I am ready to go off on him. In those moments, I have to rely on my faith that no matter how I feel at that moment, I really love my husband.

Sometimes we go through a period of a couple days where we really don't seem to connect for whatever reason. I rely on my faith in our love during those times, too. Even two people as madly in love as my husband and I are have times when their thoughts and emotions are deceptive. In those times, it is faith that keeps us grounded.

That is what is meant by faith - clinging to something more concrete and steadfast than our emotions.

I don't expect my personal experiences to serve as proof to anyone else that God does exist, but I also find it irritating when my beliefs are dismissed as "blind faith" and I am accused of lacking the intellectual capacity to question what I am told.

That brings me to another thing that atheists say that is untrue or otherwise irritating: that religion discourages people to think for themselves. I totally disagree. I have always been encouraged to prayerfully reflect on whatever I am told or taught even by the pastors in our church.

Men are fallible, but that fact does not take away anything from the existence or character of God. There are plenty of bad teachings out there and I do not doubt that there are religious leaders that don't want to be questioned, but that is not required, or even desired, by God. God does not ask us to put our faith in men, but in Him alone.

My husband and I regularly discuss what is taught at our church. We do not accept that the teachings there will always be correct without question.

I have put a tremendous deal of time and thought into my beliefs, which is why I find it extremely irritating when my beliefs are summarily dismissed as the product of blind faith and an absence of questioning.

That is no more convincing than it would be for me to claim that atheists don't believe in God because they have blind faith in what they were taught, they have not really questioned what other atheists say, or they somehow lack the intellectual capacity to realize that they are wrong. Whether or not I think that is true does not make it a convincing argument.

In part three, I will discuss that famous line that just won't die, "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Things Said by Atheists That Are Untrue or Otherwise Irritating (part one)

(As you can tell by the title, I decided to break this down into parts. I have so much to say and not enough time to put it into one cohesive post, so I am going to take this in parts.)

For whatever reason, I read a fair number of things written by atheists. I'm really not sure why.

It might be my ego wanting to make sure that I didn't miss some really good reason to not believe in God that would leave me looking like a fool if I hadn't heard about it.

It might be that I feel strongly that any belief worth having is worth challenging on a regular basis, which would also explain why most of my daily read are liberal blogs.

It might be that I know my boys will eventually face all of the leading criticisms against faith in God, and then some, so I want to be able to prepare them for it. After all, If I can't respond to an atheist's charge against my faith, how can I expect to answer the even tougher questions my children will come up with?

My guess is that all of those reasons play a factor.

At any rate, I think it's time I addressed some of the more common things I read that atheists say that are untrue or otherwise irritating.

I began writing this inclusive of all religions, but I think I should just go ahead and get specific to my own beliefs. I am a Christian. Not just any Christian; one of those conservative evangelical Protestant nut-jobs that believes that God is the Creator and that I have a personal relationship with Jesus. I might as well be up front about it. I promise not to quote from the Bible, but I might throw in a line or two from a Christian rock song, for added lyrical value.

The classic non sequitur that find particularly annoying, mostly for the fact that it is a lazy refusal to engage in a meaningful dialogue, is that the only reason people are Christians is because their parents were. Not only is this completely dismissive of the capacity a person has to question one's parents' beliefs, but it completely ignores that fact that (1) many people raised Christian leave the church and (2) many people who are religious do not have the same beliefs as their parents.

I found this survey that indicated that "In the U.S. about half (48%) of adults who stated they have religious beliefs say they share the same as both of their parents." I didn't have time to dig into the reliability of that number, but I have always heard that, among evangelicals, there is a fairly hight percent who do not have the same beliefs as their parents.

Anecdotally, my husband and I do not share the religious beliefs of our parents and most of the people I know that are Christians do not either, including every person who has played a direct role in my walk, except one.

I was raised to distrust and avoid organized religion. And further, the one thing that has caused the largest rift between my mother and I, who have always been very, very close, is my strong commitment to Jesus. She is noticeably uncomfortable with it. Not that I shove it down her throat or anything, but I cannot talk about what is going on in our lives without it coming up because He plays a huge role in our lives. So, my faith has come at the expense of some very important relationships.

Other than the fact that it is just insulting and untrue in my case, this claim bothers me because my kids will hear it, but it will be applicable to them. They will have been raised going to church, praying to God, praising Jesus, and, yes, memorizing scripture. The Devil will have a foothold with this one when it comes to them, but I think they will be able to see through it. All the more reason why it is important for me to know what kind of crap they will be hearing in the world.

In part two, I will examine the charge that religion requires blind faith.

Title? What if I Don't Have a Title?

Lately, I have been reading the blog Five Before Chaos so often that I am going to have to move it up two steps from "Other Blogs that Link Here" to "My Daily Reads" in my blogroll, despite the fact that it is so anti-Christian that it contains a category named "Christofascist."

I have been wanting to do a post about the whole religion/atheism thing, perhaps addressing some of the things I have been reading on blogs like FBC and others, but I just don't know where to start. At times, I can't get two minutes of peace and quiet around here and at others I can't seem to get focused.

So, that's what I am working on. In the meantime, check out this great discussion in the comments thread over at this post on Candleblog.

And if anyone wants to buy/lend me the book "The God Delusion," I'll read it. The library does not have it.

And if anyone wants to start a discussion in the comments, I'm all for it.

Sorry that I have not been posting lately. I was hoping to get to post more now that Christmas is over and the kids are taking a little break from school, but now everyone is getting sick, so I have a whole other set of issues to deal with.

In all honesty, I have had the time. Sick kids need a Mom on call, but there are big swaths of down-time in there. I just haven't been inspired by anything that I see as important enough to take the time to blog about.

On Christmas Eve, we went to church at 11:00am and then headed up to Hyde Park to my mother's house. On the way there we happened upon this accident just as it happened.

Mom and Dad in the front seat of the minivan, with three boys in the back. Hey, just like us. Only their mom is dead and dad was in critical condition as of last news story. I have no idea what the condition of any of them is now. I doubt many care about this story, so there may never be a follow up.

I care. I was there. We were only a dozen or so cars behind the accident. We were there before the rescue squad. Since it happened on a curve, we couldn't see the wreck, but we could see what was going on around it.

We watched as more and more volunteer firefighters arrived at the site, then raced back to their vehicles to suit up. We watched as they pulled out the hoses. We watched the ambulances back up to the crash site and wait for what seemed like an eternity while the bodies were recovered. We saw one rescue worker walk past us, her face white as a sheet, with tears in her eyes. We prayed. We cried. (We turned around and got lost trying to find an alternate route.)

So, yeah, I don't really think that there is anything worth blogging about right now. It just doesn't seem that important.

Scrooge was a Neo-Con

I hope you all had a wonderful Christmas (or a wonderful Monday, if you prefer).

I have little time to post today, but I just thought I would bring you this entertaining bit of left-wing propaganda, courtesy of our neighbors to the north.

I was looking at the TV listings for a Canadian network we get and I found this little gem:

A Christmas Carol (1951)

Saturday Dec. 23 at 8pm ET - An old miser who makes his excuses through de facto neo-conservative economic ideas learns real compassion when three ghosts visit him on Christmas Eve.

Liberal propaganda is everywhere.

Don't pay any attention to the fact that the term neo-conservative did not exist in 1843 when "A Christmas Carol" was written, or even in 1951 when the movie was made, and therefore has absolutely nothing to do with this movie. Just remember: neo-conservative=Scrooge=bad.

Oh yeah, and enjoy the movie! In fact, watch lots of them. It's easier for us to brainwash you when your brain is mush.

I don't know which one I love more, Canada or the television industry.

This Is a Call Out

I just read that there are only 75 days until Town Meeting Day 2007. I don't have the time to count right now, but that sounds about right.

To normal people, that is an eternity, but to us political junkies, well, we start thinking about these things now. Heck, we are already thinking about the 2008 presidential election.

Next month, "She's Right" on Channel 17 will feature Haik of BurlingtonPol.com. We are going to talk about the election in Burlington, as best we can. See, the final list of candidates will not be available as of show time.

That's where you come in. I need your info. Please leave a comment or send me an e-mail with any leads you have on who's in the running in Burlington this March.

I also want your URLs. If you plan any Town Meeting Day blog reporting, commentating, pontificating, or prognosticating, drop me a line and I will add you to my Town Meeting coverage blogroll. For that, you do not have to be reporting on B-Town, just let me know what town you are reporting on.

Thanks.

I Know You Miss Me; I Miss You, Too.

I am sorry that I have not been able to post lately. There are only five nights left until that fat guy in the red suit comes and my kids are going nuts - unless I keep them occupied continuously. I haven't even had the time to post on my homeschooling/crafting blog with pictures of all of the really cool ornaments the kids and I made.

I am going to make a serious effort to get some posting in, but I can't make any promises.

Until we meet again, take care.

And have a merry Christmas.

Remember, it's really not about the fat guy.

She's Right Podcast Now Up

The podcast is now available of Friday's "She's Right" show about "Feminists for Life."

If I sound out of breath in the beginning, it is because my husband got stuck on the interstate on his way home to stay with the kids while I went and did my show. I literally walked in, sat down, and went on the air, after a major panic about whether or not he would make it in time. I think next month, I will bring the kids with me and have him meet us there.

Speaking of next month, fellow Burlington political blogger Haik Bedrosian, of BurlingtonPol.com, will be my guest on the January 19, 2007 broadcast. We will be offering commentary on the Town Meeting Day elections in Burlington. Mark your calendars.

There will probably be no other post up today because I am not feeling well.

She's Right, Tonight

Just a quick reminder for those in the Greater Burlington Area: She's Right is on tonight, live @ 5:25 pm on Channel 17 (CCTV) on Comcast and Burlington Telecom.

For those outside the viewing area, the podcast will be available next week.

Update: Tonight I will be talking about Feminists for Life - a pro-life feminist organization.

While I am not exactly a feminist, at least not in the modern sense, I agree with their core mission of non-violent, pro-child and pro-woman solutions to unplanned pregnancy and I agree that in order to realistically achieve that, it is essential for our society to support women, who choose life, to be able to continue with their education and their careers, if they want to do so.

I felt that it was important to present this different perspective, that of the pro-life feminist since they are often left out of the polarized discussions of this important issue. So, I will be presenting this organization tonight and discussing information from their website.

The Giving Season

From this morning's Free Press:

The Giving Season needs donations

Published: Friday, December 15, 2006
Free Press Staff Report

About midway through The Giving Season, The Burlington Free Press' annual holiday campaign to help raise money for local nonprofits, contributions are lagging.

Total donations since the Giving Season started Thanksgiving weekend are $7,777. Through our readers' generous contributions, The Giving Season has helped raise $433,097 since its creation in 1994, including a record $70,233 last year.

The campaign continues to focus on three core agencies that provide people's most basic needs: The Committee on Temporary Shelter; the Chittenden Emergency Food Shelf; and WARMTH, an agency that provides heating assistance. This year, in light of devastating and high-profile cases of violence against women in our community, the Free Press added a guest charity: Women Helping Battered Women.

Donations to the four agencies thus far are:

Chittenden Emergency Food Shelf: $1,420

Committee on Temporary Shelter: $2,142

WARMTH Program: $2,615

Women Helping Battered Women: $1,600

The campaign continues through New Year's Day. For more details on the four agencies, along with past stories and other volunteer opportunities, visit www.burlingtonfreepress.com and click on "The Giving Season" logo on the home page, or clip the coupon on Page 2C and send it with your donation.

Last year, they raised over $70,000. This year, they are only at $7,777, so far.

That's kind of weak, unless people are still giving money this year, just to other charities and organizations.

We are giving money to the She's Right compassionate cause for December: Burlington Emergency Shelter and, of course, to our church's benevolent fund, in addition to our regular monthly giving, so we probably won't be giving to the Free Press effort.

I encourage you all to give to this or any cause this Christmas or [insert holiday here]. No matter how little you have, there is always someone with less, who depends on the kindness of caring neighbors like you.

A Promising Abraham Cherrix Update

Last summer, I blogged about Abraham Cherrix. A 16-year-old Virginian boy with Hodgkin's disease, who was being forced by a court at the request of a social services agency to undergo chemotherapy against the will of him and his parents. You can find those posts here.

Another judge overruled the decision and Cherrix was allowed to seek an alternative therapy, although the family is now required to report to authorities on his condition every three months until he turns 18.

I found an article this morning with an update on his condition.

After six weeks of treatment in September and early October, the tumors in his neck and near his windpipe had shrunk, and he showed no active cancer, according to Dr. Arnold Smith, the physician in charge of the treatment.

The article also mentions "Abraham's Law."

Del. John Welch III, a Virginia Beach Republican, has said he will sponsor "Abraham's law" for the General Assembly session that begins in January.

The bill would change the child abuse and neglect statute to state that parents of mature children with a life-threatening condition who have made a well-informed decision not to seek a particular treatment would not be considered abusive or neglectful.

I thought this might be of interest to longtime readers of She's Right and a certain self-proclaimed "civil libertarian" that agreed with the state's forced chemotherapy.

That reminds me, I am planning a post soon about the civil libertarians on the left.

Involved Parents and Failing Schools

I'm going to throw another local story in here because I think it is relevant everywhere.

This week's Seven Days (local alternative weekly) has a story called: "Deconstructing Dovetail: Is a Burlington school program helping, or hurting, socio-economic integration?"

Dovetail is an elementary school program at one of the city's five elementary schools, which integrates K-2, with students following the same teacher each year. There are an equal amount of slots from each school. The placement is done through lottery.

Currently, the Burlington School District is looking at ways to raise the achievement of the kids in the two city schools located in the Old North End (the city's poorest section) by implementing socio-economic integration (SEI) - mixing kids of different income levels in order to increase the educational opportunities for everyone.

Obviously, this is a hot-button issue, so there has been no determination of exactly how to do it.

Proponents of SEI are now arguing that the Dovetail program is hurting the Old North End schools because the involved parents are flocking to Dovetail as a means to get their kids out of Barnes and Wheeler.

Says Stu McGowan, president of the Wheeler PTO at the time Dovetail first launched, regarding the parents who enrolled their children in Dovetail,

“They were the parents who would have done really a lot of good at Wheeler,” he suggests. “The minute they heard about Dovetail, they booked. It was a golden opportunity.”

I hear this same thing said about homeschooling parents. Many of us see the public school system as a failure and we want better for our children's education. Frequently, homeschool critics charge that the involved parents, who care about their children's education and are willing to put the time in to make it happen, are most needed in the schools.

This brings me to the big question: Is is the parents' duty to throw their child under the bus in order to possibly help the school?

I would not want my children attending Barnes or Wheeler. I am deeply sorry if that offends anyone, but my job is doing the best that I can for my own children. I lived in the Barnes district until my oldest son was four. I had to work very hard to find a place that I could afford in the South End, so that my child could attend a better school.

I agree that there needs to be a solution for failing schools. I do not think that solution should be one of forcing the "good" parents to keep their kids in a failing school.

I hate to be the evil conservative that doesn't care about the poor kids, but in reality, it is the poor parents who are limited in their options for their children. Parents who cannot afford private school or homeschool deserve options to get their kids into a better school.

Wanted: A Few Good Candidates

Updated.

I know, I know. We just had elections, but it is time to start thinking about Town Meeting Day already.

Here in Burlington, we have a city councilor and a school commissioner up for election in each ward. There will also be a school budget to vote on and countless ballot items to be sure.

What better way to kick off the election season than with a great idea like this: a monorail in Burlington.

You read that right. The Green Party candidate for City Council in Ward 5, Rene Kaczka-Valliere, wrote in a letter to the Burlington Free Press published Saturday in response to the proposed Champlain Parkway (the road formerly known as the Southern Connector that has been held up for about a decade longer than this blogger has been alive) that we instead build a monorail. In Burlington. A city of fewer than 40,000 people. No, seriously.

I propose a monorail transit system. Monorails are safe, quiet, environmentally friendly and cost effective. Interstate 189 would exit into the monorail's Park and Ride. The monorail would start at the end of the C-1 section and be elevated above the existing railroad tracks. This monorail will relieve commuter traffic.

It's not too late to think about running for City Council. I did it twice.

I highly recommend it. (Especially if you are a conservative in Ward 5!)

Update: I just got a call from someone who read on my blog that I am running for city council. I am not. When I said, "It's not too late to think about running for City Council." I meant for you. I cannot run this year, but I do not want to be stuck deciding between a monorail-supporter and someone who I have run against twice.

One Punk Under God

For those of you with the Sundance Channel (which unfortunately does not include me), you should most definitely check out this series they are doing on Jay Bakker, called One Punk Under God.

I am so bummed that I will not get to see it. His book, Son of a Preacher Man was one of the first things I read when I became a Christian and profoundly shaped how I approach my faith.

He started this thing called Revolution Church.

To show all people the unconditional love and grace of Jesus without any reservations because of their lifestyle or religious background, past or future. This love has no agenda behind it (I Cor. 13:5). This grace sets no timeline on personal change or standards for spiritual growth (Romans 4:4-5). The idea is to be a part of people’s lives because we truly care for them rather than to fulfill a religious duty; to walk with them through all their struggles as a part of their life, not as a religious outsider.

You may have seen this bumper sticker around town.
That's from Revolution. My neighbors (the ones who lent me Jay's book) have one on each of their vehicles.

One Punk Under God premieres Wednesday, December 13 at 9PM.

Jay Bakker, the only son of TV evangelists Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye Messner, is the subject of this six-part observational documentary series from World of Wonder the producers behind the award winning THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE and director Jeremy Simmons (TRANSGENERATION). Veteran of a troubled adolescence, tattooed and pierced Jay now preaches God's grace and unconditional love to an alternative non-denominational congregation in Atlanta, which meets in a working bar.

In the first episode, Jay recalls his childhood as he revisits the ghostly ruins of Heritage USA, his father's ambitious Christian theme park.

Check it out.



You can also listen to the services at Revolution online here.

Happy Birthday, Libertarian Party

Today is the 35th anniversary of the Libertarian Party.

For your viewing pleasure, here is a You Tube of the History of the Libertarian Party.



An interesting, albeit cheesy, piece. And my first You Tube embedment on She's Right. Yea me!

Note: Please let me know if there is a problem with the You Tube thing in IE. I opened IE to double check how it looked and then I remembered, the whole reason I switched to Firefox in the first place is because I could not get embedded You Tubes to play on the new version of IE I have on my computer. Some lame security BS. So, let me know if there are any issues in other browsers. Thanks.

PS. Firefox is like 100-times better than IE. And I am not just saying that to score geek points.

She's Right on Channel 17

Happy Monday, readers! Or at least, happy that Monday is over, anyway.

I just wanted to post a reminder that "She's Right" is on Channel 17 (CCTV) in the Greater Burlington Area on cable this Friday, December 15, live @5:25 PM.

Be sure to tune in!

Making the World a Better Place through Government

This time of year is crazy for parents, especially a parent that is at home with her kids all day. As anyone with kids can tell you, they are typically very wound up this time of year.

I have not had much time to blog lately, but I will post as often as I can.

I know most of you are busy with family and holiday things, too. Either that or you all just decided that my blog sucks. Traffic has been slower this week and I expect that trend to continue in the coming weeks.

Those of you that continue to stop by, please know that I appreciate your readership and I will post as often as I can.

This week J.D. Ryan and I have been having an ongoing conversation in the comments of this post about the government’s role in regulating business.

That got me thinking about what I see as the major flaws in today’s political thinking in the US.

On the right, there are those that understand the need for smaller government, yet continue to try to use the government to advance their social causes. What they do not seem to understand is that any use of the government to advance one set of beliefs over the other serves as consent for an opposing group to come along in the future and do the same thing, with an opposing set of beliefs.

In my view, we on the right are better off sticking to the small government view and fighting the culture wars in the private sector, preferably in our communities, one-on-one.

On the left, there exists the same tendency to use the government to advance a social cause. The cause takes a different form, though. In their case, it is the cause of so-called “economic justice,” whereby the “rich” have their excess taken and redistributed to the “poor.”

From my perspective both are doing the same thing. Both are trying to make the world a better place by righting wrongs through power of government.

On the right, they just want to save babies from being murdered and return to the days of the married, two-parent family, which experts agree, would solve many of the terrible ills facing today’s youth.

On the left, they just want to help the poor and make sure that in this, the wealthiest of nations, no one is left out in the cold, literally or figuratively.

Yet both sides continue to blame the other for misusing the government. Both thinks the other side is wrong for usurping the rights of the other.

In that regard, both are correct.

The right has no grounds for criticizing the left for their big-government liberalism as long as they themselves continue to call for expanding the government into people’s private lives. They lose the high-ground, even if their cause is just.

The left, too, has lost the high-ground when they point the finger at the right for forcing their values on others, when they too seek to do the same with their own values.

The worst possible outcome is the new group emerging that seeks to fuse social conservatism, with economic populism - the worst of both sides, from the standpoint of freedom and liberty.

Why can’t we just get the government out of it? Can we not trust ourselves as civilized people to do the right thing on our own without a tyrannical federal government?

Iraq Study Group Quick Link Collection

The big news today: The Iraq Study Group report.

For those of you working types, here is the transcript of the press conference that aired this morning on TV.

You can view the PDF of the actual report by going to this site, the United States Institute of Peace.

Here is a Reuters sampling of reaction to the report.

Go here for an ABC story on the details of the report.

For an international angle, go here for a quick look at the Aussie view.

And just to be fair and balanced, here is the FOX News account.

The real fun begins when the blogosphere explodes about this tonight and tomorrow.

Big Government and Small Farms

One of the most interesting chapters in the book Crunchy Con, was the one about food and the revelation by a number of small, organic and free-range farmers that it is actually government regulation that is making it hard for small farms to prosper or, in some cases, even start up.

This fact flies in the face of the oft given response to my call for smaller government on this blog: Big Business is worse than Big Government and we need Big Government to protect us from Big Business.

Here's the bottom line: Big Government is Big Business's best friend. Without Big Government - the tangle of red tape "protecting" us from evil corporations - Big Business would not have the level of competitive advantage over small business that is now has.

I blogged about this here, with reference to a column by John Stossel .

I am reminded of the power of government to snuff out family farms and quash the local food movement by this article about NAIS (link opens government website) in today's Burlington Free Press.

The premise registration and animal identification idea, which is aimed at tracking animals to help prevent the spread of mad cow disease, avian flu and other diseases, has divided the nation's livestock farmers. Some see it as necessary for disease prevention, others say it would be onerous and an unwarranted intrusion by government.

Not surprisingly, Big Meat supports NAIS.

"We believe the program should be mandatory, because if it's not mandatory, it's not really going to work," said Dave Warner, a spokesman for the National Pork Producers Council.

But what do the small farmers think?

"We do not need the government forcing this discriminatory program on producers who will gain nothing from it, but will lose their ability to produce locally grown wholesome food for their customers," said Richard Bean, president of the Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association. "This program has the potential to destroy the sustainable agriculture and local food movement at the very moment that consumers are clamoring for our products."

But we need government to protect us from business.

No, we don't. The government is allowing mega-corporations, with the money and lawyers to navigate the bureaucratic nightmare that is our government, to continue to determine what we can buy and sell. Those of us who care about choice and want the choice to buy small and local are being slowly driven out by the government.

Unfortunately, a majority of the small and local-loving, the Wal-Mart-hating left, are the very same people shouting from the rooftops that we need government to protect us from business.

While we are fighting each other, the Big Government and Big Corporations are both coming out winners.

For more on NAIS, visit NoNAIS.org - a site started by Vermont homesteader, and homeschooler, Walter Jeffries

Side note: I know I never got around to posting about last month's show about the book Crunchy Con. I actually dug out my notes from the show this weekend, so I would remember to do it. I will get to it. Meanwhile, the podcast of the program is available here.

Today's Food for Thought

From "Why We Love Government," by Walter Williams:

I believe that reaching into one's own pockets to help his fellow man is both laudable and praiseworthy. Reaching into another's pockets to help his fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

The bottom line: We love government because it enables us to accomplish things that if done privately would lead to arrest and imprisonment. For example, if I saw a person in need, and I took your money to help him, I'd be arrested and convicted of theft. If I get Congress to do the same thing, I am seen as compassionate.

This vision ought to bother the Christians among us, for when God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless you got a majority vote in Congress.

(Hat tip: SpunkyHomeSchool)

Big-Government Conservatism is Not the Answer

Last week, I linked to a column by Michael Barone, in which he said, "[Big-government conservatism]'s the only realistic conservatism for America today."

My only response was, "Ugh! You have got to be kidding me."

I realized recently that since many of my readers are not conservatives in favor of small government, perhaps this needs more explanation.

If one is of the mind that the government should not be appointed solver of all problems, then Barone's is not a point that one would be willing to concede. In fact, if American conservatism takes this route - the big-government conservatism route - we are in a world of trouble.

Conservatism is a necessary force to keep the expansion of government in check. If conservatives adopt big-government conservatism, then who keeps the government from getting bigger?

What we need is not a resignation to the reality that we will always have big government; what we need is a serious attempt to scale back the role of government, currently.

Reading Barone's column, the obvious question was: If big-government conservatism works so well, why were President Bush and the Republicans in Washington harshly repudiated in the election last month?

Big-government conservatism does not work. American politics needs a force pulling for smaller-government. More than that, a certain segment of Americans want smaller government.

Incidentally, on the same day that Barone's column ran on Town Hall, Larry Kudlow, Economics Editor of National Review Online, ran a column on NRO entitled, "The Era of Big-Government Conservatism Must Come to an End," in which he urges, "The GOP must return to the principles of limited spending coupled with lower tax rates."

The column is a worthwhile read, for it explains the Democratic gains/Republican losses, not in terms of a victory for liberal, government-expanding policies, but in terms of a rejection of the big-spending policies of the GOP.

As poll after poll shows, overspending cost the Republicans dearly in the recent election. According to polling by Pat Toomey’s Club for Growth, two-thirds of voters in 15 key swing districts believed Republicans in Washington have overspent. Democrats, on the other hand, were predominantly seen as eliminators of wasteful spending. By more than two-to-one, voters preferred the candidate who would cut spending. By a similar margin, swing-district voters favored keeping the Bush income-tax cuts, and by five-to-two supported keeping the capital gains and dividend tax rates low. By almost three-to-one respondents desired a repeal of the death tax.

Perhaps the most startling revelation to me was this polling result:

A full 54 percent of respondents to a recent CNN poll said they believe government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Only 37 percent said the government should do more to solve the country’s problems.

There is hardly a revolution for "progressive," government-as-problem-solver politics looming in America.

On the contrary, the majority of Americans still favor conservative policies that limit government, lower taxes, and place the power and responsibility with the individual and private sector.

Now if the GOP could only find its way home, we would be all set.

The Compassionate Conservative

A new month. A new template. A new monthly feature on She's Right.

Liberals are always squawking about how conservatives don't care about the poor, but that's just not so. Conservatives believe in people taking care of the poor, not the government.

In honor of compassionate conservatives everywhere, every month, I will post a new She's Right Conservative Cause - a non-profit organization that cares for our needy neighbors.

What you do with this information is up to you.

This month's Compassionate Cause is the Burlington Emergency Shelter.

The Burlington Emergency Shelter does not receive state or federal funds, so they rely on the generosity of caring people like you.

If money is not something you can spare, there are also volunteer opportunities.

We are always looking for volunteers to provide meals for our guests (enough to feed 25 people). A meal consists of a main dish, a side dish, a bread product, 2 gallons of a beverage, and a dessert. Get together with your friends, neighbors or co-workers and help provide a meal for the Shelter!

And for a fun way to help the homeless, you can volunteer at the Helping Hands Gift Wrap at the University Mall!

This is our second most important fundraiser of the year. We need at least 200 volunteers to make this a successful event. If you are interested in helping out, [click here for more info] or plan to come to the mall and let our volunteers wrap your holiday gifts!

You can check out this page of their website for other ways that you can help.