Should the Word Retard be Retired? February 8, 2010

Posted by Adam Graham in : Podcast , add a comment

Sarah Palin has gone after Rahm Emanuel and also Rush Limbaugh over their use of the word retarded. Does she have point or is she engaged in silly political correctness?

Click here to download, click here to subscribe in Itunes.

Links of the Day:

• Mark Crutcher has an encouraging word to pro-lifers as he imagines what America would be like if the pro-life movement didn’t exist.
• Gerard Alexander asks why liberals are more condescending than other political groups.

Cheers and Boos Up February 7, 2010

Posted by Adam Graham in : Idaho Conservative, The , add a comment

This week’s Cheers and Boos is up

Richard Shelby Holds America Hostage

Posted by Adam Graham in : Podcast , add a comment

America held hostage by Richard Shelby. (Hat Tip: Fort Boise.)

Paul Ryan’s tough fiscal medicine.

Two Canadas: 12 year old boy in vegetative state after tonsilectomy while New Foundland Premier heads to the U.S. for heart surgery.  (Hat Tip: Right Wing News.)

Patients in persistent vegetative state can communicate. (Hat Tip: World Magazine.)

Boys who see porn more likely to harass girls.

Maine’s abusive anti-male laws.

Two Indonesian Churches ordered shut.

Music by Stone’s Shadows via the Podsafe Music Network.

Click here to listen, click here to download.

Why I’m Not An Environmentalist

Posted by Adam Graham in : Christianity , add a comment

At a Christian conference I attended this weekend, a fellow attendee suggested conservative Christians don’t want to be identified with the environmentalist movement because it is identified with liberalism and that we have missed our great commission to be green. The idea is that only our petty labeling stops us from working with others for the good of all mankind.

I must disagree. I don’t identify as part of the environmental movement because I don’t view the movement as all that noble.

Certainly, we ought to have clean air and clean water. Who likes polluted streams and unbreathable air? Likewise, we ought to treat God’s creatures with respect and kindness. I remember how angry was when on a visit to the Columbus zoo, a crowd of kids were infuriating the gorillas, teasing them until they would slam themselves into the glass. I’m all for banning cockfighting and dogfighting and making them felonies. William Wilberforce opposed cruelty to animals and so do I.

But I won’t identify myself as an environmentalist, and I can’t support the agenda of the groups that identify themselves as environmentalists, for the following reasons.

•1) Environmentalist Initiatives May Not Benefit the Environment

 

I lived in Montana, where we suffered greatly in the Clinton years. The Clinton Administration failed to allow loggers to manage our forests, leading to a build up of fuel, which sparked great wildfires. This was because of the demands of environmental groups with insane policies like “let it burn.”

In my last trip to Glacier International Park before leaving Montana, the air was so full of smoke, I could hardly breathe. We couldn’t make it past the visitor center and left on a very downbeat note.

Other initiatives raise questions. We are told the Earth is warming when three decades ago we were told it was cooling. We’re being told the air we exhale is a pollutant against all common sense understanding of how plants use Carbon Dioxide.

I remain unconvinced that much of the changes called for by the environmental movement are even necessary.

•2) Environmentalism Is About Control

 

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has even admitted that the goal of his department was to coerce us out of cars. Environmentalism is about controling what cars you drive and even where you live. The focus of much of urban planning is on shoving people into high density urban housing and making them take the bus when most people want to live in a single family home and to drive.

Environmentalism demands an increasing role for the state in lording it over the lives of citizens and also demands increasing expenses, and in many cases, for efforts that aren’t even environmentally sound and cause people great expense.

•3) Environmentalism Hurts People

 

As a whole, environmentalism forgets about people. While a bureaucrat in Washington, DC or San Francisco decided it was a great idea to let wildfires burn, its the folks in Montana who had to wake up smelling like hell in the morning. It’s the folks in timber towns like Eureka, Montana, who suffered from double digit unemployment as a result of the closing of lands to logging.

When I moved to Idaho, I was earning less than $11.00 an hour as my family’s sole breadwinner and was required to register my old junker for emissions and it failed. I spent more than $200 fixing the car until it passed emissions. Then that car died. I had to get another junker and spent another $70 getting that one passed. The emissions testing hurts poor people who need to be able to drive and can’t depend on the city’s buses.

In rural Idaho, wolf populations are out of control. Meanwhile, much of North End Boise is so busy worshiping wolves, they don’t care that people’s livelihood is being endangered by a wolf population far larger than the state ever agreed to take on.

Further, environmentalism’s tragic policy of banning DDT has led to tens of millions of deaths around the world as malaria has made a comeback without the protection of DDT.

Most churches try to focus on the warm fuzzy aspects of environmentalism, like recycling and energy conservation, and stay neutral on the hot button stuff the environmentalists we’re supposed to ally with do to hurt people. Even in this lies danger.

•4) Environmentalism Lends to Pharisaic Attitudes

 

One of the few times someone on the left complimented me was when I mentioned I’d been walking to work. In environmentalism, that is a virtuous act. Taking the bus, eating organic foods, recycling, and driving a hybrid are all virtuous to environmentalists.

There’s a danger when the church begins to engage that type of mindset. When one begins to view oneself as morally superior for how you get to work or how you obtain the food you eat, you’ve become like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, who claimed moral superiority for outward works never included in scripture.

This reminds me of the story in Matthew 15, where the Pharisees chided Jesus for his disciples eating with unwashed hands. Certainly, the Pharisees had a hygienic point, but it was not a sin issue. Jesus told his disciples what defiled someone was those things which came out of their heart, but “to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.” (Matthew 15:20) To those who would get hyper Pharisaical about environmental dos and don’ts, it seems likely that Jesus would say, “To drive an SUV does not defile a man.”

There’s a second danger of becoming like the Pharisees: losing sight of the main thing. Jesus noted the Pharisees paid the tithe on their garden herbs (Philip Yancey’s paraphrase) but “have omitted the weightier matters of the law: judgment, mercy, and faith.” (Matt. 23:23)

Environmental stewardship is a mandate to each individual on their own. If a church begins to think planting trees is more important than the child prostitute in Thailand, or the urban ministries, or feeding the hungry in their own community, then they’ve neglected the weightier matters of justice and mercy.

Many churches have avoided this danger. The Vineyard of Boise is heavily involved in community beautification through their Tend the Garden program. They also feed the homeless. They provide assistance to those in crisis pregnancy situations. They have an excellent men’s ministry. They have integrated the environment into their ministry without hurting their other efforts.

Churches can recycle or adopt a highway, but should be cautious about embracing labels like “environmentalist” because those labels have been defined in a way that hurts people, as environmentalism believes people don’t matter. That doesn’t mesh with a God who created us in His image and came down to dwell among us and die for us.

Pro-Abortion Rights Groups Go Nuclear on Tim Tebow Ad February 6, 2010

Posted by Adam Graham in : Abortion , add a comment

My latest column is up at Pajamas Media

Advocates of legalized abortion bristle when pro-life advocates call them pro-abortion. Their typical position is best defined by President Clinton’s position on the procedure: that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.”

Six years ago, I examined the abortion polls, and the polling data indicated Americans were quite conflicted on the issue. A change of wording changed the whole outcome of the poll.

A 2003 CNN poll did show some amazing results regarding abortion restriction questions asked in straightforward ways. Americans oppose abortion in the second (68%) and third (84%) trimesters. Americans likewise support informed consent laws (88%), a 24-hour waiting period (78%), parental consent for minors (73%), and even spousal notification for married women (72%).

Yet not many on the left advocate for these policies. Indeed, each restriction on abortion only passes as a result of herculean efforts to shepherd the bill through the legislature and then fend off years of court challenges. While many Americans are sincerely pro-choice, the leftist groups that claim to represent pro-choice Americans have shown themselves to be sincerely pro-abortion.

First consider the Super Bowl ad starring college football standout Tim Tebow. The ad is a thirty-second spot produced by Focus on the Family that tells the story of how Tebow’s mother continued her pregnancy despite complications that threatened her life. Abortion rights groups have gone nuclear with calls for the ad not to be aired and attacks on Tebow and Focus on the Family. (A second ad, also featuring Tebow, was announced by the pro-life group on the Friday before the Super Bowl.)

The ad doesn’t advocate for or against any legislation. It only encourages women to choose to continue their pregnancies. If the goal of pro-choice America is to reduce the number of abortions, why does anyone have a problem with the ad?

My Congressman: Louie Renault February 4, 2010

Posted by Adam Graham in : Mike Simpson , add a comment

Reading Mike Simpson’s attack on the Obama spending spree reminds me of this clip from Casablanca:

He’s shocked, shocked that overspending is going on. He says we need to quit spending money. This is like late Dom DeLuise telling you to stop eating pasta.

Simpson doesn’t just dole out pork to Idaho’s second district but every district in America, and Simpson likes pork whether its the development of a microbial paint shield the pentagon didn’t ask for, Simpson rarely meets pork he didn’t like.

And he apparently didn’t think he was spending too much when he voted for TARP or if he did, he just couldn’t help himself. The same thing happened with the SCHIP extension. Maybe, he’s trying to send a secret message to the people of Idaho. Stop me before I spend again.

Simpson is talking tough because this year his position is probably more precarious than any year since it’s been since 1998. He’s being challenged by conservatives.

Simpson is a member of the House Appropriations Committee and when the NTU lists friends of taxpayers, he’s not on the list. His grade last year “C” ranked #166 in the U.S. House. He’s a big spending greaser of hogs who is slowly spending my generation into bankruptcy.

If Simpson is serious, he should bring forth genuine fruits of change: Agree to refuse earmarks and stop apologizing for Congressional overspending by his chums on the Appropriations Committee. Act as if he swore to uphold the Constitution, rather than swearing to fill the pockets of the special interests that finance his re-election. And fight for the values of freedom and limited government that beat within the heart of Idahoans. It’s time to demand actions, not words. Simpson’s talk is cheap, but his actions are bringing out the economic ruination of a generation.

It is only when Simpson starts acting like a servant of the people rather than a drone for special interests. When his actions show true dedication to fiscal responsibility that he can hope to start a beautiful friendship with Idaho conservatives.

Cheers and Boos: Mr. Unresponsive February 2, 2010

Posted by Adam Graham in : Idaho Conservative, The , add a comment

At the Idaho Press Tribune, we have cheers and boos featuring Vaughn Ward, Dan Popkey, and Judge Deborah Bail. Click here to read.

Democrats Take Out Another Mortgage January 31, 2010

Posted by Adam Graham in : Podcast , add a comment

 

Senate Democrats vote to increase America’s debt limit to $14.3 billion. (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.)

Obama touts 50 green jobs created at $2 million a piece. (Hat Tip: Newsbusters.)

Obama Administration gives $26 million no-bid contract to top Democrat donor.

Washington considers law letting Planned Parenthood design regulations for pregnancy centers.  (Hat Tip: World Magazine.)

Alaskans to vote on parental consent.

China’s one child policy leads to “missing girls.”

Arne Duncan speaks truth on New Orleans education. (Hat Tip: The Corner.)

Pro-life told to remove her pin before entering a federally funded museum exhibit.

German homeschoolers awarded asylum. (Hat Tip: Right Wing News.)

School requires parental permission to watch movie challenging Global Warming but not for watching Inconvenient Truth or getting an abortion. (Hat Tip: Education Watch.)

Mobster runs criminal empire on Facebook from prison.

Music by Elmen Authement via Music Alley

Click here to listen, click here to download.

Ungovernable by Design January 28, 2010

Posted by Adam Graham in : Government , add a comment

Below is an excerpt from my latest Pajamas Media piece:

Matt Yglesias of Think Progress took a lot of heat from the right last month for stating that America has become ungovernable. Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey said Yglesias wasn’t making these complaints when the Democrats were in the minority and obstructing judges and social security reform. Kim Priestap of Wizbang suggested that Yglesias was trying to make excuses for Obama’s flailing agenda.

Yes, Yglesias was being hypocritical. Yes, Yglesias was making excuses. Nonetheless, Yglesias was essentially right. America is ungovernable. It has been for the better part of its history.

Regarding the U.S. Senate, Yglesias complained: “It’s a system in which the minority benefits if the government fails, and the minority has the power to ensure failure. It’s insane, and it needs to be changed.”

Yglesias hit on the left’s problem, but he stopped short. Yglesias and the left complain about the bind in which they find themselves. They can spare 40 votes on any House vote, and they have a Senate majority, but they can’t get anything done. It’s as if a genius schemed against them to thwart their efforts and require impossibly large majorities to accomplish something.

A genius did conspire against the left, but their foe isn’t Karl Rove. In fact, he’s been dead for 173 years.

By fingering the system as the problem, Yglesias identified the system’s creators as the enemy and James Madison in particular. But our founders didn’t set out to frustrate any specific people. They were concerned with one big question: how does one prevent a republic from degenerating into tyranny, as all historical republics had?

While Yglesias worries about the minority ruining a Democratic stampede, Madison worried about something else entirely. In Federalist 51 he writes:

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. …. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.

Madison’s solution was simple.

Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.

Read the rest here:

Sacred Cows Have Followers: A Lesson for Conservatives

Posted by Adam Graham in : Idaho Conservative, The , add a comment

As things stnad now, JFAC won’t get defunded based on what’s coming out of JFAC from Republicans:

Lawmakers on the joint budget committee said they’ve been deluged with calls and emails asking them not to cut out state funding for Idaho Public Television. “Nobody wants us to eliminate funding for public television,” said Sen. Joyce Broadsword, R-Sagle.

Sen. Shawn Keough, R-Sandpoint, said her constituents have been asking her “not to cut it – to find someplace else to cut.” Said Sen. Jim Hammond, R-Post Falls, “The only emails I’m getting from my constituents are in support of public TV.”

Sen. Bert Brackett, R-Rogerson, said, “There’s a lot of support out there, but we have to weigh it against the other needs and wants of the state.”

Now, I’d urge opponents of taxpayer funding of Public Television to contact JFAC, if they’ve got a State Senator on the committee, but it looks like IPTV will continue to be funded, even if the State doesn’t have the money.

Is it because nobody wants us to eliminate funding for public televisions as Senator Broadsword insisted. No. Rather, it’s those who want us to keep spending money on the proverbial “buggy whip” of the digital age are much louder.

Tthe base instinct of the politician is to keep as many people not angry at them as possible. So the squeaky wheel gets the grease.  If they get a lot of phone calls telling them that we need state subsidies of IPTV, they’re going to keep spending money on IPTV.

It doesn’t matter that IPTV would have time to transition. It doesn’t matter if it’s not the proper role of government to do IPTV. It doesn ‘t matter if IPTV is mostly an obselete relic of the three station TV era. What matters is that its supporters want it and most opponents aren’t there.

IPTV may be a sacred cow, but all sacred cows have followers, and if conservatives want to take this or other cows out, they need to have some strength to go with their arguments or lawmakers will ignore them.