September 30, 2003

Thoughts on the CIA leak scandal

Well, I hesitated to say anything, waiting to hear more, knowing someone had to be lying. The Nation actually broke this story a while back, but it was largely ignored until now.

My thoughts on it are that this is probably politically motivated (Wilson was a critic of the Bush administration and even wrote for The Nation, a magazine unmatched for its hatred of the Bush administration. I know, I know - don't attack the messenger (link via Joshua Claybourn), but still, there is some value in knowing the source of what you're reading. Don't base your counter-argument on it, but keep it in the back of your mind that propaganda is not an objective source.

One thing is really ironic about all these calls for an independent counsel however. That law expired back in 1999. I remember getting letters from Ralph Nader telling me to urge my Congressmen to let it expire; it was a bad law. Sure enough, Paul Gigot nailed it when he said that the Democrats would ditch this law when it was turned against one of their own (Bill Clinton). Here they go again: Democrats want Republicans to be held accountable, but want to be able to get away with their own acts of corruption. Dems, the independent counsel is supposed to be independent. You're making a mockery of that concept.

Posted by joelfuhrmann at 09:34 PM | Comments (0)

Miracles of Life

Pia de Solleni writes in National Review, Miracles of Life.

Posted by joelfuhrmann at 09:08 PM | Comments (0)

Questioning The Liberal Authority

Michael Novak observes the liberal game: The Liberal Game Made Obvious. It's based on the debate between Jonathan Chait and Ramesh Ponnuru in TNR (also see Ben Domenech's comments)

Novak asks some pertinent questions of the liberal mindset. Similar to those who put "Question Authority" bumper stickers, Novak questions the liberal authority. He questions whether liberals really want to help the poor; the view that the Left is composed of intellectuals, activists, and those not rich (i.e. that the represent the common man), and the view that they are superior in virtue (burdensome taxes are presented as an example of a lack of virtue).

And speaking of how taxes are not virtuous, here is another column on the subject from Wendy McElroy, Families Pay Price for Government Spending. I agree with her point of view. I'll consider taxes to be reasonable when families with two kids can own a home and only have to have one parent work (I don't have anything against working moms - just that I'd rather see them working by choice, and not necessity). I'd be in favor of a flat tax actually, and to those who say that's hard on the poor, my answer is: that's a good incentive to keep those taxes low.

Posted by joelfuhrmann at 08:52 PM | Comments (0)

More on ACLU

Jeffrey Collins noticed my recent post on the ACLU. I agree with him actually (in fact, I say in my post that my "gun-control-filter" is not an infallible test, and I didn't intend it to be a hard and fast rule). Jeffrey says "every dog has its day", and I say "a stopped clock is right twice a day", because I think the ACLU used to be a pretty strong advocate for rights, and then sometime since 1973 started claiming that abortion is one of those rights, and that just isn't so, as it is inconsistent with the first right, life. I disagree with them on their interpretation of the First Amendment as it applies to religious freedom as well. I don't believe it says people are entitled to protection from exposure to religion. As long as they keep spouting that nonsense, I can't help but think of them as a mirror site for People for the American Way.

Now, as far as the Patriot Act goes, which was also mentioned in my post: I think there are good conservative grounds for criticizing the Patriot Act. For instance, the thing about libraries (though the access to library records is limited, the g-men must get a warrant first, it's not as bad as many make it out to be). The argument that it has never been used, therefore its ok, is really weak - it fails to address how a future administration will use the power. After considering all the criticism however, I pretty much agree with Rod Dreher's and Jonah Goldberg's opinion - that the Patriot Act mainly takes existing police powers and applies them consistently to the Homeland Security department. Now my concern is how much of the government is lumped up in that thing; yes, there is cause for concern here. A little test: for those who think it's a great thing; would you think it's a great thing if the opposite party (the one with FBI records in the White House) were in power?

Posted by joelfuhrmann at 08:20 PM | Comments (0)

September 27, 2003

Adoption plans

Today Amy and I spent all morning and some of the afternoon at an informational meeting for our upcoming trip to China. There were people there who will be going either right around Christmas (before or after, as no overseas adoption-related travel is done at Christmas). From the looks of things (and they caution us to not try to predict a travel date, but it is just so hard not to), we are going to be in the third group going over, maybe about a month between groups, based on a lot of unpredictable factors. We were told what to bring, what to expect, and met a woman who just returned from China in June (last week we met someone else who just returned in May). The excitement is building up! Our adoption agency, La Vida, has pictures of every group going over there.

On the way home, driving through fierce, but spotty thunderstorms, we went around the curve which connects the PA turnpike to the NJ turnpike, and right in front of us was a perfect rainbow, stretching from one side of the horizon to the other, a perfect unbroken arch. I've only once in my life seen a rainbow as beautiful as this. Awesome!

Posted by joelfuhrmann at 06:48 PM | Comments (0)

September 26, 2003

Blog Anniversary Coming Up

September 28 is the anniversary of my first post on Religious Left Watch, the predecessor to this blog.

One of my first posts was on opposition to the nomination of John Ashcroft to the office of Attorney General (well after the fact of course), focusing on an open letter from Unitarian Universalist Association President John Buehrens to the US Senate urging them to oppose the nomination based on his religious beliefs. Here's a link to the letter.

Let me just fisk this thing again, maybe retooling it in light of recent talk of The Patriot Act and the Democrat Religious Test for Judicial Appointments.

First, President-Elect Bush vowed to be 'a uniter, not a divider.' Yet Mr. Ashcroft's views are so extreme that they represent a tiny fraction of our nation's people. The Washington Post, the New York Times, and other credible sources have well documented that Mr. Ashcroft's nomination is a payback to the religious right, who worked stalwartly for a Republican Presidency. The highest post in the land dedicated to protecting the rights of all citizens should not be offered as a reward to religious political extremists.
I, too, lament the division suffered by our country, but I don't think it's the Republicans fault this happened. It was already there, well before the 2000 election. The actions by Al Gore's lawyers in the election aftermath were just gasoline on the fire, making a divisive situation even more volatile. I asked one of my Unitarian acquaintances once if he thought that John Ashcroft did a good thing by conceding his race so quickly, and he said yes. Too bad he never saw the light to say that Al Gore did a bad thing by not conceding in like manner. Now, as for the religious extremism - isn't that a bit of a stretch? To say that extremists were responsible for winning an election? Picture a bell curve for example; how much of the bell curve would you attribute to the extremes? First, the extreme is not the middle, its at the edges. If we use a tight standard and say you've got to be within one standard deviation of the mean to be non-extreme, that covers about 2/3 of your population. The extremists are the rest. If you're more tolerant (one of the UUA values by the way) you may allow two standard deviations which covers about 95% of the population. Then the extremists are 5% or less of the population. Bottom line is: Extremists do not win elections. Ok, you say - Bush wasn't an extremist, but Ashcroft is. Bull - the Ashcroft senate race was close. All indications are that he lost due to the sympathy vote for Jean Carnahan after the death of her husband, and there were voting irregularities related to the hours polls were open. Not that I'm demanding a recount or anything, but stop the lies about him being an extremist already - he isn't. I bet he would've beat Jean Carnahan in a rematch. He let James Talent do it instead. Good for them both.
Second, Mr. Ashcroft has a troubling record in several of the most important areas of our nation's life which he will oversee. His inflexibility with regard to women's reproductive choice and civil rights issues such as affirmative action is a matter of public record. As one who has ministered to victims of shootings outside abortion clinics, and to the families of hate-crime victims, I am concerned with the future actions of the radical fringe of society. While I know that Mr. Ashcroft condemns all violent activism, I am concerned with the legitimacy which his views' stridency and moral righteousness might seem to offer to this radical fringe for the militancy of their viewpoints.
Well, I don't know about the statement about women's reproductive choice and civil rights issues. I think they're exaggerated, but I'll have to do more research before commenting further. As for the statement that his views might offer support to the "radical fringe for the militancy of their viewpoints"; that's just pure bull - accusing him of viewpoints which he has never admitted to, in effect making him responsible for the viewpoints held by others. In any event, John Ashcroft has vindicated himself of this charge by the arrest of Eric Rudolph, a member of the radical fringe Buehrens is complaining about here.
Finally, I am concerned with Mr. Ashcroft's interpretation of the appropriate relationship between church and state. His lack of attention to the complexities of these relationships led him, as a Senator, to introduce sweeping legislation, in his Charitable Choice Expansion Act, which would have undermined our nation's steady progress in understanding these nuances. There are far too many cases documented, internationally and domestically, where religious majorities use government means to do things which are massively insensitive to people with minority religious views. Mr. Ashcroft's appointment as Attorney General paves the way for such insensitivity to become sanctioned at the highest levels.
I, too, am concerned about the proper relationship between church and state. I agree with many liberals in that it is good and proper that members of the clergy do not hold political office while acting as official representatives of their religious institutions. However, I do not agree with the Religious Left with their attitude that people who have "deeply-held religious views" are rendered ineligible for government service by those views. "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (Article VI US Constitution) means that religious views should not even be considered in the debate about one's qualifications to serve our government. Any Senator who voted against John Ashcroft, or any other nominee to any US office, based wholely or in part on their religious views, cast an unconstitutional vote.
Posted by joelfuhrmann at 08:51 PM | Comments (2)

September 25, 2003

Does the ACLU really stand for civil rights?

In the Dallas Morning News (registration required) Rod Dreher comments on The Patriot Act.

Like Josh Claybourn, I haven't actually read the act (I tried reading bills on the House and Senate websites, but it isn't easy to do, they get real technical, and unlike Josh, I didn't get a law degree), but I think that ACLU-type criticism is overblown. I apply a little litmus test - I'll admit it's not infallible, but it suits me pretty well. Any group that doesn't believe that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution gives me a right to own a gun is not qualified to tell me what a tyrannical government looks like. So all the ACLU arguments get discounted right away just on that basis.

Posted by joelfuhrmann at 09:56 PM | Comments (0)

Three Theological Words

Excellent reading over at Boundless, just put on the web today, 3 Mysterious Words, by Steve Shadrach.

Other excellent, and new, articles concern a student's questions about why homosexuality is wrong, Ask Theophilus, and a devotional/commentary on human frailty and God's strength, Human Clay: Thoughts on Spiritual Poverty, by Jessica Inman.

Posted by joelfuhrmann at 09:37 PM | Comments (0)

September 24, 2003

School for Congress members' Kids

Many members of Congress send their kids to private schools while denying that opportunity to Washington kids.

I wonder if school-choice advocates might be able to frame this argument a little better: submit legislation making it illegal for members of Congress to send their kids to private schools which are unavailable to the general public, or take a paycut so that they cannot afford private schools. When they balk, accuse them of elitism and setting themselves apart from the people they claim to serve. Then watch the schools improve, or see Congress's opinion change about school choice.

And addressing one common criticism from People for the American Way: it's not a violation of church and state to give people vouchers: not all private schools are religious, and public schools are more religious (to ABC-Anything But Christianity) than liberals like to admit. I spend my money as I see fit, and so do the parents who pay the tuition bills. No church is established by letting them do this of their own free will. If we want to make it more explicit, we could just give people tax credits instead of vouchers, it's cleaner that way anyway and we'll save money on the check printing too.

(one quick aside: I just noticed in PFAW's pdf file linked above, that they are critical of a Supreme Court decision that vouchers do not violate "church-state separation". A little inconsistent isn't it? When people criticize the Supreme Court decision concerning Roe vs. Wade, PFAW gets on their soapbox about abortion being a fundamental human right by Supreme Court decree)

Posted by joelfuhrmann at 10:33 PM | Comments (0)

Wesley Clark

I don't know why, but I never knew that much about Wesley Clark until recently. I did follow some of the news about the Kosovo campaign, but I just don't seem to remember Clark's name in the news all that much back then. To me, it seemed like the news was all about President Clinton. I remember being kindof in favor of our intervention, but thinking we'd have to go in with ground troops someday (and we did of course, after the "war" was over, and they're still there - peacekeeping). Funny that I didn't hear Democrat voices complaining about the "quagmire" we were getting ourselves into back then.

Jonah Goldberg says his opinion about Presidential candidate Clark in this opinion piece, Clark boomlet ignores issues, ideology. I think he describes the Democrat hype pretty well. Just beat Bush, at any cost, no matter if the candidate who beats him has no vision, qualifications, or character for the job. The more I read about Clark, the more I agree with this opinion by Richard Brookhiser; Clark is just another McClellan. To which I add that President Bush could be another Lincoln. War-wise, I think he nails it. Now I'd like to see him take a Republican-like stand for human rights for those whom Democrats think are less than human, namely the unborn. I'm not demanding that he end all abortions now; I don't think that's possible. But I would like to see the discussion move toward putting some common sense restrictions and regulation on the industry. Parental notification laws at least - denying that has got to be one of the most family-hostile acts by our courts.

Posted by joelfuhrmann at 10:05 PM | Comments (0)

Aftereffects of abortion

The blogsite After Abortion is an excellent resource for reading about abortion's effects on the women who have them. What about the abortionists? An excellent article, The Nightmares of Choice, I saw today over at Touchstone.

Posted by joelfuhrmann at 09:04 PM | Comments (0)

September 23, 2003

Republican strategy on filibusters

I don't know enough about Senate rules, but this article (link via WorldNetDaily) has shed new light on how I see the filibuster issue. The author claims that the Democrats can keep the filibuster going with one Democrat Senator present, while Republicans would have to have at least fifty of theirs there to protect their side. I wonder about this, is this right? It makes it sound so easy to filibuster anything. This filibuster is definitely corrupting the process of judicial nominations. I hope the Democrats pay dearly for this. It is time to start enforcing the Constitutional rule about there being no religious test for any government office, and hammering the point home with the voters how people who have "deeply-held religious beliefs" are being barred from serving in government.

Posted by joelfuhrmann at 10:00 PM | Comments (3)

Senator Kennedy comments on Iraq

From the Corner, Senator Kennedy criticizes President Bush on Iraq.

Just this morning, the New York Times reports that "the White House goals is to show substantial improvement in Iraq before next fall's reelection campaign.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to show substantial improvement by a certain important deadline. Indeed, it's the bedrock of the corporate performance review. We have objectives and deadlines. Meet them and you're blessed. Ignore them, and you're cut off. Senator Kennedy's criticism is just bluster.

Posted by joelfuhrmann at 09:46 PM | Comments (0)

Marriage & Wisdom

Dennis Prager on how marriage hurts Democrats.

Mr. Prager puts the issue in partisan terms, saying that since married people are wiser and more mature, they will be less likely to vote for Democrats. Heh!

I agree, but the partisan nature of the argument doesn't have to be expressed to note that marriage and family does make people wiser. When a man takes a wife, he must be concerned for her well-being as well as his own. Whatever he did by instinct, or just determined self-reliance, is now extended to two people, and more when children come. Wisdom results.

I noticed this in my life too. Even when I was living in unbelief, I viewed my marriage as a beneficial event in my life. If I hadn't met Amy when I did, my life could have taken a very bad turn. In my Unitarian Universalist Congregation, with no standards for sexual integrity (except to leave children alone, and there are forces lining up to take that one down in the future), I don't know where I'd be today if not for the vows I made to Amy. I'd say it made me a lot wiser. Jump ahead seven years, and I'm wondering if I have what it takes to make the marriage last to a golden anniversary, and I have serious self-doubts. After a three-month struggle to repent of my resistance to God's call, I give in and give everything to Him. I'm wiser again.

I'll have to share more about this when our adoption is complete, but let me just say now that learning about Marriage and Family is starting to dominate what I pray about, what I think about when I read the Bible, and I can tell that God is working in my life here. I definitely believe that having children makes us wiser still, and I can see it in my life, though I have so much still to learn.

Posted by joelfuhrmann at 09:25 PM | Comments (0)

September 18, 2003

Inconsistencies of the Religious Left

In today's National Review Online, John Derbyshire laments the Age of No Consequences. I lament it too, John.

His article reminds me of a post that's been brewing in my head over the last few days, one I'd like to commit to writing before I let it go - the idea of inconsistencies in thought from Religious Left types.

I know people who hate the Religious Right because they say radical-right-types are just out to tell everyone how to live. One of them is a member of PETA, which is just as actively trying to get people to commit to vegetarian diets, even going as far as picketing seafood restaurants near the Jersey shore (they consider cooking lobsters in boiling water to be inhumane-apparently there is a fundamental right of all animals, with the exception of certain classes of human beings, to be free from pain). So coercion is a tactic employed by both right and left, and there must be another reason for their disrespect for the Religious Right: namely, different values, though some values are just too flaky to state explicitly I guess.

Our Constitution recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms, noting that the existence of well-regulated militias is an important component of maintaining a free state. Our Constitution does not mention abortion, or even reproduction. So what's a Constitutional right: the so-called "right to choose" or the right to buy a handgun? You can tell a lot about someone's political views just by noting their answer to this one question.

Speaking of abortion; abortion is considered to be a fundamental human (or women's) right because of a single judicial decree: Roe vs. Wade. The institution of slavery is justly considered to be a great evil in spite of a similar nineteenth-century judicial decree protecting it, the Dredd Scott case. It is just not true that past Supreme Court decisions define fundamental human rights.

After 9-11, Unitarian Universalists and other liberal religious groups, such as The Interfaith Alliance, who usually decry mixing church and state, fell over themselves in supporting the Islamist cause, choosing to overlook the fact that in countries implementing sharia law, there is no freedom from a state-imposed religion (and it isn't Unitarian-Universalism either - UUA churches would be banned along with all those with plus-signs on them)

Another aspect of sharia law, is the practice of dhimmitude (discussed here by Batt Yeor in National Review Online), where Christians and Jews are forced to live in conditions worse than what existed here in the USA under Jim Crow. Almost all Americans rightly consider the Jim Crow period of our history to be a grave injustice, but liberals seem to think that dhimmitude doesn't exist, or if it does, is just a neutral aspect of Muslim culture, for all practical concerns, none of our business. Who are we to judge?

I'm sure that I could think of many more examples of inconsistent thinking; indeed I could come up with some from the right: (Why in the world did President Bush ever sign the Campaign Finance Reform bill for starters? He believes in free speech!) If you want to add some via comments, I'd sure appreciate seeing them.

Posted by joelfuhrmann at 09:04 PM | Comments (0)

Stormy Thursday

I've decided to break the blog-fast, having all my Thursday evening agenda canceled by Isabel.

A pleasant wedding anniversary yesterday, not too festive, as I had to work (and a little bit late at that!), as my job involves working with Microsoft security fixes, and a whole slew of them were released last week. I've actually done my part, but there are support issues, including some rogue users who have steadfastly refused to upgrade from Office 97, in spite of Microsoft officially denying support for that product. Oh well, at least it's Y2K compliant - man that seems so long ago now. I spent that night, 1-1-01, in the office just about a mile up West Street from the World Trade Center. Now I work in an office about two miles from the Trenton airport, so if you're familiar with New Jersey and New York City, you may know who I work for, but I'm not allowed to say.

Posted by joelfuhrmann at 07:55 PM | Comments (0)

September 14, 2003


I'm going to take a vacation from the blog this week so I can dedicate time to other activities, the most important of which is our anniversary on Wednesday, followed by a weekend getaway in Long Island and a wedding on Sunday.

Going back a couple of posts, its relevant that I said we we told we might be going to China in January. We just got a packet in the mail from La Vida, telling us what to do to get ready, including what to pack for our trip. No commitment on a trip date, but testimony from others is telling us to get ready to go over there sooner than my original target of Mothers'-to-Fathers' Day 2004. We may have our daughter or son home by Valentine's Day. I'm going to have to put pictures on this website by then.

We also just found out this morning that our church is about to split its adult Sunday School class in two because it's getting too big for its classroom. The new class will be dedicated to parenting, and the teachers are another couple who adopted a daughter from China, five years ahead of us. This looks just like what we were asking prayer for, so let me close this post with this Word of praise:

Rejoice in the LORD, O you righteous!
For praise from the upright is beautiful.

Praise the LORD with the harp;
Make melody to Him with an instrument of ten strings.

Sing to Him a new song;
Play skillfully with a shout of joy.

For the word of the LORD is right,
And all His work is done in truth.

He loves righteousness and justice;
The earth is full of the goodness of the LORD.
Psalm 33:1-5 NKJV

Posted by joelfuhrmann at 10:04 PM | Comments (1)

September 12, 2003

Nighttime at Liberty State Park

Last night, on a whim, I decided to take a drive up to Liberty State Park to see the lights shining from the World Trade Center site. Beautiful. Walked up to the edge of the edge of the Ellis Island Ferry pier where I could look down on the Hudson River and sat down on a bench to just look at those two lights shining up into the sky. A lot of people were there, but it was really quiet, not a lot of talking, just contemplation.

Posted by joelfuhrmann at 10:34 PM | Comments (0)

Diane Knippers reflects on 9-11

Diane Knippers, President of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, reflects on 9-11 (scroll down for her comments, by her picture). She would also be grateful for your prayers, she has been diagnosed with cancer.

I remember 9-11 as a sad, but not overwhelming, event; actually, I think I was more angry than sad, and my anger was mainly directed at those who blamed the US for the attacks, or who danced in the streets at the news.

I was a new Christian at the time, about three months into my new faith walk, and found a foundation of strength from it. In mid-October I went to Washington for the 20th anniversary celebration of IR&D in the Senate Hart Office Building. Imagine my surprise when about a month later I found out that that building was associated with the anthrax attacks which rocked our nation right afterwards. I asked my doctor about it and he told me not to worry about it unless I had the symptoms or was exposed to some tainted mail. No reason to worry.

Posted by joelfuhrmann at 10:30 PM | Comments (0)

September 09, 2003

More on light blogging

Blogging continues to be light, due to increased activity away from the computer. The end of summer brings increased activity at my church in my church choir, demanding rehearsal time with the choir and on my trombone.

I also got into a phase of "blog burnout" I admit, and I wanted to step away from it for awhile. I want to regain a focus on what I want to address in this medium, and right now I just feel too scattered to do so. By the end of this month, I hope to be back in the habit of blogging three to four times a week again. That will be in time to celebrate this blog's birthday!

Our adoption process is now in the last stretch and friends who have already adopted from China tell us we may be going over there sooner than we originally thought, maybe as soon as January (I've been telling people we'd be there between Mothers' Day and Fathers' Day). The prospect of becoming parents for the first time is giving us a bit of stress, getting ready to be a dad (and Amy, a mom). Concerned readers are invited to pray for us. Even if you're not concerned, pray, it's good for you, and good for us too, if you mention us.

Some special anniversaries are coming up:
September 11: The attack on the World Trade Center. May God give peace to the families and friends of all who died on that day.

September 16: anniversary of Amy's decision to follow Christ two years ago.

September 17: Our wedding anniversary! 9 years!
It's also the anniversary of our Constitution, btw, so if you're in Philadelphia and you go to Independence Hall, they might give you a button that says "I signed the Constitution!" We did! (no guarantees on the button, we did it many years ago)

September 28: My first and second blog entries on Religious Left Watch.

Posted by joelfuhrmann at 09:37 PM | Comments (0)

Thoughts on 9-11

One year ago, on September 11, I was walking during my lunch hour, choosing to fast that day. I was walking outside on a path that goes around our corporate campus. It was very windy, so windy in fact, that I was beginning to be afraid of a tree limb falling on my head. I went around the whole circle safely though. I heard later that the wind started during the ceremony in New York, when the reading of the names of the 9-11 victims was started, and that it promptly ended when the reading was finished. Many people were wondering if that was coincidence or if it could have been a sign of God. Most seemed to think it was a sentimental thought, but just a coincidence.

Several weeks later, thinking of this, while walking on the same path, this thought came through my head, almost as if it were spoken to me: "Why is it so incredible that I would choose to share my presence with you, to show you that I too, hurt on that day, and to show my presence with you by doing this?" I believe that God was there, that the wind was caused by Him (I didn't hear of any bad things happening from the wind by the way), and that somehow, in a way I cannot comprehend, He allowed 9-11 to happen so that a greater good would come about, yet grieved with us as we mourned that day. Maybe He will share His presence with us again as people observe moments of silence and words of remembrance on Thursday morning.

Posted by joelfuhrmann at 08:59 PM | Comments (1)

Christianity and Taxes

Excellent commentary in National Review today, by Doug Bandow: Taxes for God?

This ties in to a lot of what I've previously blogged on taxes and personal responsibility: that God's commandments for me to be compassionate to others are more appropriately answered by me opening my own wallet rather than yours. Of course the commandments are for each and every one of us, but the appropriate response is the same - give from your own, not your neighbors'.

A couple of other comments related to this issue: Liberals say that higher taxes are more compassionate. How can this be? To believe this is to believe that somehow it benefits the poor and disadvantaged to take money from the rich and give it to government bureaucracies. This is untrue on its face. I don't make the sixteen year old kid working at McDonalds any richer by paying higher taxes. I may make him richer by eating at McDonalds more often, but I certainly won't do that if all my money is already spent on taxes. The same thing is true where I work. I don't get any richer just because the CEO of my company, or the company itself for that matter, pays higher taxes. No, I get richer if they give me a raise, which is actually more likely if they pay less in taxes rather than more. So the argument that higher taxes are more compassionate is false on its face.

Posted by joelfuhrmann at 12:55 PM | Comments (0)

September 05, 2003

God has everything under control

In spite of the anger I expressed in the previous post, I've got to respect what I heard in a sermon a long time ago. A preacher held up his fist, like he was angry, and he released his fingers one at a time, with the words: God - has - everything - under - control. Whenever we think the world is broken, he said, remember that: God has everything under control.

The LORD sat enthroned at the Flood, And the LORD sits as King forever. The LORD will give strength to His people; The LORD will bless His people with peace. Psalm 29:10-11 NKJV
Posted by joelfuhrmann at 06:37 AM | Comments (1)

Thoughts on judicial appointments

I am deeply ashamed of the senators from my state, New Jersey, for their participation in the filibuster of President Bush's judicial appointees. Now that Miguel Estrada has bowed out, my anger at Senators Corzine and Lautenberg is even stronger. I can't even vent it in 2004, as they aren't up for re-election.

What really bothers me about how this filibuster has been conducted is the lying, just pure bald-faced lies coming from the Democrats. Estrada isn't answering our questions! Yes, he did, all those that you offered, which I seem to remember you declined to do. The Solicitor General issue was a red herring, no SG has submitted their writings, ever.
Priscilla Owen is an extremist! She voted against parental-consent laws! Huh? Tell me how that makes her an extremist. That was the law in Texas, and she enforced it. There is no constitutional case to be made for minors being able to obtain abortions without parental consent.

One bit of good I hope comes out of this: I hope enough voters realize the mendacity of the Democrats and special interest groups such as People for the American Way when it comes to respecting true individual rights. Life is the most important right, not abortion.

Posted by joelfuhrmann at 06:31 AM | Comments (0)