About Me

Name: Aaron Miller
Location: Spring, TX
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

California hasn't changed

Much is being made by some commentators of the recent referendums in California. Even though little more than 20% of eligible voters participated, according to Glenn Beck, voters overwhelmingly voted against raising taxes or giving the state government more money.

This does not mean that Californians are fed up with spending gone wild. That's a possibility, but I doubt it. The more likely scenario is that Californians are not willing to pay for the programs and services they demand.

Let's face it -- affordability is rarely mentioned by politicians when they ask us what we want.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

clarity with Notre Dame

This controversy with Notre Dame can be made much clearer than it has been in mainstream media reports and interviews.

The Church believes that abortion is the killing of human children. President Obama supports the killing of millions of children. Notre Dame cannot honestly claim to represent the Church's teachings while awarding an honor to someone participating in such extreme evil.

That's it. It's that simple. By simply understanding that the Church perceives Obama as a powerful supporter of infanticide on a massive scale, it becomes obvious that Notre Dame cannot honor Obama without rejecting its Catholic identity.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

abortion wordplay

The pro-life movement does itself no favors by letting liberals frame the discussion in their own terms.

We need to stop talking about "fetuses" and start talking about "unborn children". The word "fetus" is a scientific term which distances us from sympathy. It's like talking about "males and females" instead of "men and women", or "progeny" instead of "kids". Science is indeed vital to good arguments against abortion, but the considerations of "what is humanity?" should not be separated from considerations of "what is a person?".

Never let abortion advocates ignore that we're talking about the lives of people and not mere lab experiments.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

fascism on the rise everywhere

This article on censorship and diversity policing in Britain is insane!  If half this stuff is true, I fear for my British friends. I've read about similar things happening in Canada and Australia over recent years, but the stories in the article are particularly bad. The same movement has been occurring here in the States, of course, but we're not so far down that road.

Censorship of this kind rises through social rules and business regulations before it becomes law. In the U.S., making a joke at work about a college team or about sailors or something might get you a disapproving look, but making a gay joke will get you fired. If a white guy gets into a bar brawl with another white guy, it's an assault charge at most. But if it's a white guy and a black or gay guy, then it's a hate crime. Fascism seems to be on the rise all over the world. In the West, it's liberal fascism.

You know, Hitler was involved in public service projects, too. He commissioned the Germany's highway system, the Autobahns. He employed people and created activities for the youth. Fascism often gets associated with right-wing ideologies these days, but many dictators have been of a liberal bent. Hell, Hitler was a painter, and we all know how artists tend to be.

When I see Obama being more than civil to people like Hugo Chavez, it doesn't give me hope for America's future.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

hope in people, not in government

I pointed out yesterday that history suggests American government can't return to its former self. Well, after watching Rush Limbaugh's excellent CPAC speech, I want to clarify that statement.

I am not saying conservatives should give up, that there is no hope for us. There is hope, but not hope in everything. Hope, like love, is something we spend a lifetime learning. It's not enough to merely say "I have hope". What do you hope for?  Not every hope is reasonable.

What I was saying yesterday is that our government is extremely unlikely to ever shrink, to give up power and dominion. It could, theoretically, but that would require the majority of politicians and judges to be not only reasonable but willing to face the wrath of millions of unreasonable voters. It would require extraordinary selflessness. Such heroism does occur, but it is never the norm... never so common that we can expect hundreds of government officials to simultaneously abandon the customary corruption of our present operations.

What is worthy of hope is change in the hearts of individual Americans. No matter what happens in government, we individuals can act according to our values. Governments come and go, but souls are forever. We will remain who we are, do what is right, and help our fellow Americans to flourish despite government.

Rush is absolutely correct that America as it was originally founded has helped individuals around the world to flourish in countless ways. But the ideological foundation of that government is that government does not define us. Government is not the centerpoint in our lives, and our founders knew that. Liberty is not a gift from politicians; it is a gift from God. No matter what politicians dictate to us, we will continue to live as Americans.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

freedom in advertising

During the half-time of the latest Super Bowl, my family and I wondered at a cryptic advertisement that seemed to involve adultery. When we typed in the web address listed at the end of the ad, we were shocked to discover that the site is blatantly devoted to facilitating marital affairs! How could such an ad get airtime during the Super Bowl?

The day after the game, I hopped onto a variety of national news sites. I was shocked again to see that nobody was talking about this! Then I turned to Google and found many articles, published before the Super Bowl, saying the adultery site's ad had been rejected by NBC. Now, I was really confused. What do you mean it was rejected? I just saw it!

Finally, an explanation arrives, courtesy of Brent Bozell III. NBC did reject the ad, but Houston NBC-affiliate station KPRC accepted it. My family and millions of others did see the ad during the Super Bowl, but it was not aired nationally.

That said, I'm still amazed this story was not covered more (if it was at all) in national news. I contacted conservative media figures like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh at the time; but, to my knowledge, they never reported on the issue.

So what's wrong here? It's been said that even despicable businesses should be able to exist and advertise. I agree.  The AshleyMadison "service" is plainly destructive and irresponsible, but such a business does have a right to exist in our free market. However, nothing requires KPRC Houston or any other media company to accept ads from such businesses. KPRC has clearly demonstrated that it values profit over persons.

I thank NBC for choosing not to air the adultery ad during the Super Bowl (imagine how that would have endeared us to the rest of the world), assuming the company's motivation was social concern and not PR fallout. Unfortunately, NBC also rejected, along with CNN, a tasteful and subtle pro-life ad. It is their right to do so, but this also reflects company priorities.

You can run a shameful business in a free society, but no one has to host your ads. Your company can host what ads it pleases, but customers don't have to support those ads through purchases.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

call my Congressman? why?

People are often advised to contact their Congressmen as a way to affect government. Contacting politicians certainly doesn't hurt, but I'm unconvinced that it typically has much of an effect.

Odds are, Congress already knows many voters are for and many voters are against whatever it happens to be doing at the time. A thousand letters and phone calls might or might not be representative of a Congressman's constituents, so getting a flood of feedback doesn't mean much. Hell, these days, petitions and marches are a dime a dozen.

If your political reps are somehow impressed by your feedback, what then? They're under pressure from their fellow Republicans or Democrats to vote the party line. And they're always comprising. "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" is D.C.'s motto, right? Are your Congressional representatives even in a position to affect what's happening? We just witnessed almost a trillion dollars of spending via a bill that nobody has read. That might be exceptional, but every piece of legislation is a similar amalgam of disparate issues. Whatever it is you and your Congressman don't want passed is probably mixed in with something you do want passed. Such is the deception of legislative debate.

And, odds are, Congress has already heard your argument, whatever it is. If they haven't, they're not reading the news.  Fresh arguments happen everyday, but let's face it... most political commentary you hear is old news or is being parroted by a million of your closest friends.

Again, I'm not saying you should not contact your political representatives about government issues. And I don't doubt that my view is colored by a general pessimism when considering the topic of federal government. I am merely furthering my argument that Americans too often focus on politicians when we should be focusing on individual voters and citizens. Culture, not government, is the key to a healthy nation.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

turning points

Most historical turning points can't be pinned down to a particular day. Oh, we try, but most of the moments we recognize as... well, momentous... are really just symbols of larger movements and events.

In 1775, Patrick Henry of Virginia gave a moving speech which includes the famous line "give me liberty or give me death!".  Though Henry is credited with inspiring the men of Virginia to join the Revolution against Britain, the Revolution had already begun. In his own words, "Our brethren are already in the field!". Doubtlessly, many men made an important decision to join the war that day. But we remember that speech to this day because it symbolizes the American spirit and why our forefathers fought that war, rather than because it was a vital moment in history.

I was reminded of Patrick Henry's legendary speech as I was reading this article about Rick Santelli's popular CNBC rant the other day and the White House response. Will Santelli's speech and this video of frustrated Chicago traders be the catalyst for a profound change in our nation's history? Probably not. But it strikes me as a moment which might well symbolize the tragic story of this current societal shift.

Anger and mistrust are on the rise in America, as conservatives are being steadily disenfrachised from our government and culture. I don't know where the country is headed, but whatever is ahead ain't pretty.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

race and culture

Eric Holder's misunderstanding of race relations is typical of the liberals I've known. He sees people gravitating toward their own races when socializing as evidence of unwillingness to meet and learn about each other. This misunderstanding is linked to the liberal ideal of multiculturalism... the idea that culture is ultimately whimsical, almost aesthetic, and that all persons should strive to learn about and be at peace with all cultures.

More often than not, race and culture are linked. Nobody belongs to a culture because of skin color, but physical traits in combination with clothes usually do hint at a person's culture. If a discussion of race does not include discussion of culture, then it is not an honest discussion. Race relations are the way they are because of cultural differences.

By the way, if you are by some miracle oblivious to the fact that American blacks have a subculture of their own, then I suggest listening to Martin Lawrence, Chris Tucker, Dave Chappelle, Richard Pryor, or any other black comedian. Not all blacks are part of that subculture, but those of the culture do associate it with skin color. Anyway...

Contrary to the multiculturalism dogma, there's nothing wrong with being comfortable in your own culture and preferring to spend most of your time with others of that culture. Like is drawn to like -- it's human nature. It might be problematic at times, but that basic desire to be with someone similar to yourself is perfectly innocent and even good.

In fact, it's love. Love is fundamentally about togetherness: the desire to be together, the will to be together, actions taken to bring people together, etc. It's easier to be together with, to love, someone with whom you share likes and dislikes, beliefs and goals, backgrounds and expectations, and so forth. Certainly, each of us should strive to love those with whom we have little in common. But how do we do so? By finding or creating commonalities.

Simply learning about our differences does not bring us together. If I'm into fishing and you're into cars, is discussion of those passtimes sure to bring us closer? Of course not. We'll know more about each other, but we might not be sharing anything. If an Amazon tribesman tells you his son is the result of killing a man from a neighboring tribe, stealing that man's wife and raping the woman before she accepted her fate, is that knowledge -- insightful to his tribal culture, though it may be -- necessarily friendly bonding? Of course not.

People of a particular race can be avoided unreasonably, due to hate, mistrust, or whatnot. But assumptions of such motives are often unfounded and themselves divisive. Actor Morgan Freeman had it right when he said that the path to improved race relations is to stop bringing it up.

I'm currently taking a Spanish class at a local community college here in Houston. My class includes several students from Nepal, two students from Iran, and several black students... two of which are from New Orleans. Guess what?  Despite regularly interacting with other students, all the Nepalese students sit together and the Iranians sit together as well. As for the blacks, the five from Houston sit together on one side, the two from New Orleans sit on another side, and the one from a different socioeconomic class sits apart from both groups. As I said before, culture is at the heart of such behavior. And you know what? It's fine. We all get along and there's no animosity.

It's people like Eric Holder, Barack Obama, and Al Sharpton who cause animosity between races. They divide us into political categories, instead of allowing our cultures to naturally interact and come together through everyday living.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's magical mystery tour

It's too early to know whether or not this decision by Obama to go on the road -- rather than, you know, actually work from the White House -- is indicative of his presidential style. He's not even a month into office yet, so I'm not sure what the early media tour means. Of course, my hunch is that this behavior epitomizes the President's political philosophy, which has been demonstrated time and again over the past year: perception is everything.

The heart of Obama's power rests in his ability to woo and deceive the public. He's not going to simply negotiate with Congressman, administrators, companies, or any other group. He's going to bully them into submission through manipulation of the mob. When he's not fingering their wallets, Obama's whispering in the ears of their constituents, their employees, their consumers. His campaign never really ended.

Conservatives need to be campaigning also... and not as groups, but as individuals.

Much of the reason we're in this mess is that generations of Americans have been taught to focus on distant politicians instead of their neighbors, on institutions instead of persons, on laws instead of values. We're lost in abstracts and representations, forgetting that it's all merely instrumental to the real stuff of life: human relationships.

Most Americans call themselves Christians. Why do you think that Jesus, a Roman citizen with access to the ears of politicians, never appealed to a government official?  Crowds of people followed Him from city to city, yet when did Jesus ever even suggest to those crowds that they should appeal to their governors?  When did He lead them to protest? When did He tell them to demand anything of anyone?  There's no record that Christ even made a political appeal to his fellow Jews (the Sanhedrin)!

Jesus was not ignorant, nor dismissive, of government and social problems. No, He fought for change, but He fought in a way which bears no resemblance to the protests, the petitions, the marches, and the loud complaints of modern Americans. How did Christ bring justice and goodness to the world? He focused on individuals. He focused on changing hearts, one at a time. And He did so, not as an organized effort, but as an ordered way of life... a way of being in every moment, with every person.

How do we fight Obama and the crazed liberals? By focusing on the individuals right in front of us and directly around us. Any system is only as good as the people running it -- that includes capitalism and democracy. Change the people, and the system will reflect their virtue.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »