San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, February 26, 2016

The Colorado Rockies In 2016

I have been checking various gambling sites and the over/under for Colorado Rockies victories this season is anywhere from 69 to 72.  That means the people who are establishing the betting lines believe the Rockies will lose somewhere between 90 and 93 games this year.  The Rockies lost 94 games last year and finished in last place in the National League West.  In 2014 the Rockies lost 96 games on the way to another last place finish.  The hapless Rockies also lost 88 games in 2013 and 98 games in 2012.  I guess it makes sense for the handicappers to assume they will lose at least 90 games again this season.
Did the Rockies do anything during the off season to improve their chances at escaping another 90 loss season?  Unfortunately they did not.  When the team traded Tulowitzki to Toronto late last season I assumed the way had been paved for some serious trades that would bring some quality starting pitching to Colorado.  What did we get instead?  We got a wife-beating loser on the downside of his career that the team is stuck paying $22 million in salary for this year.  Jose Reyes used to be a good player.  I don't know for sure but I would guess he has always been a violent loser who beats his wife.  He is no longer a good player but he continues to beat up his wife.  I don't know why the Rockies did not trade him away this past off season but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that whichever team picks him up also picks up his ridiculously high salary.  The fact that the Rockies were willing to take on that burden just to unload Tulowitzki tells you something about how much Tulo was valued around here.  I agreed with the Tulo trade as I never saw the Rockies winning with him on the team but I thought we would at least get something in return.  We didn't and the future is bleak.
The Rockies are apparently required to keep Reyes on the team while his domestic abuse court case goes forward.  Under some new set of rules about domestic violence, baseball teams now have to comply with a bunch of regulations about what they can and cannot do when a player is accused of whooping up on his woman.  As I understand the situation the Rockies are in limbo until the trial is over.  The Reyes trial is scheduled to start April 2nd.  In the meantime, we wait.
The Rocks did make a couple of off season acquisitions in an attempt to shore up their battered bullpen.  Pitching has always been the issue in Colorado and last year they had the worst pitching staff, measured by ERA, in the league.  What did they do to fix that?  They did nothing with their starting pitching and they added Jason Motte and Chad Qualls to their bullpen.  They also acquired Jake McGee from Tampa bay in a January trade.  All three pitchers are quality acquisitions.  Motte has appeared in 368 games in his career and has put together a very good 3.16 ERA.  Qualls has been in 781 games and sports a decent 3.80 ERA.  McGee, the youngest of the group at 29 years of age, has a 2.77 ERA after 297 appearances.  I conclude that the Rockies have done a good job solidifying their bullpen.  That is a good thing because if the starting pitching does not improve they will be going to the bullpen a lot in 2016.
The Rockies front office claims that the starting pitching will be better this year provided the younger pitchers improve, the injured pitchers remain uninjured and the top prospects perform up to their anticipated ability.  Those are a lot of things to hope for.  I don't have such high hopes.  Year after year I have given the Rockies the benefit of the doubt and hoped that the starting pitching would improve and year after year it has not happened.  It is not for a lack of talent that the pitching does not do well.  Many pitchers have gone on from the purgatory that is Colorado to other teams and done well.  Whether it is the altitude, the coaching or something in the water, good pitchers come to Colorado to die.  I wish I knew what it is that kills pitchers in this beautiful state but I don't.  Apparently, neither do the big wigs in the front office or the coaches on the field.  Until a couple of starting pitchers can put up a couple of years with ERAs lower than 4.00 I will continue to believe the Colorado pitchers are cursed and jinxed.
On the other side of the ball, there is much to be excited about offensively.  I fully expect the Rockies to lead the league in offense, as they almost always do.  I also expect the Rockies to be very good defensively, as they almost always are.  So if you are a fan of offense, the Rockies are the team to watch.  If you love seeing defensive gems, the Rockies are the team to watch.  But if you love good pitching, and I do, the Rockies will frustrate you to death.
A couple of players are worthy of note.  If any of the players I am going to mention below were playing on either the east or the west coast they would be talked about incessantly.  Playing in the mountain time zone in a decidedly small television market and after the evening Sports Center show has already been recorded essentially guarantees that these fellows will labor in obscurity. 
Nolan Arenado is simply the best third baseman in baseball.  He may, if he is able to stay healthy and string together a fifteen to twenty year career, be the best third baseman ever to play the game, and that includes Brooks Robinson.  You have to watch him to believe him.  He has tremendous range, tremendous quickness and a powerful and accurate throwing arm.  It is worth the price of a ticket just to sit and watch him play third base.  Last year he also upped his offensive output and hit at a .287 clip while leading the league in home runs (42) and RBIs (130).  If he were playing anywhere other than Colorado he would be the toast of the town. 
DJ LeMahieu is an All-Star second baseman.  He has made a grand total of nine errors over the past two years, while playing almost every game.  He also has great range and a tremendous vertical leap that has robbed many a hitter of a Texas-league single.  He is remarkably fast for a big man, stealing 23 bases last year.  His hitting is consistent and he had a .301 average last year.  In any other market he would be a perennial All-Star selection.  In Colorado he labors in obscurity.
The starting outfield of Carlos Gonzales, Charlie Blackmon and Gerardo Parra is maybe the best in the league.  All are All-Star players with great fielding skills, strong and accurate throwing arms, and the ability to hit for average and power.  Blackmon is the quintessential lead off hitter, with an OBP of .347 and 43 stolen bases last year.  Gonzales is another player I would pay just to watch him play.  He ended up hitting 40 home runs last year after a slow start due to a slow recovery from a previous injury.  I am expecting great things from him this year.
So will the Rockies avoid losing 90 games this year?  I don't see how.  Pitching wins games and they have miserable starting pitching.  Nevertheless, they will still be fun to watch and I plan to spend many a fruitful hour in front of my television, screaming over and over things like, "I hate walks," "throw strikes," "challenge the hitter," and "pull him before he gives up any more runs."  I can't wait.

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Lawrence Vance Is Wrong About Adultery

A couple of days ago I read an article from the noted libertarian political philosopher and Arminian theologian Lawrence Vance.  Mr. Vance is a frequent contributor to LewRockwell.com, one of my favorite websites for extremist right-wing propaganda.  I get a lot of my ideas there, as you probably would have guessed if I hadn't told you.  I generally find myself nodding my head in agreement with Mr. Vance as he writes about a wide variety of topics of interest to me.  He does an especially good job skewering Evangelicals who are in love with the abominable warfare state found in this imperialistic empire.  The instances in which I take exception to his views are those times he switches his hat from libertarian to theologian.  As an Arminian I find that we have nothing in common whatsoever.  That is what happened as I was reading a piece he has recently written in which he presented his argument for why the government of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika should abolish all laws that criminalize and punish the act of adultery.  Let's consider that for a bit here today.
The standard libertarian argument for the abolition of all laws related to what they refer to as victim-less crimes is the same.   The civil government, they say, should exist for the purpose of punishing those who use aggression against others, and nothing else.  The non-aggression principle is fundamental for all libertarian political and legal  philosophy.  If a person does not commit an aggressive act against the life, freedom or property of another person then that person, according to the non-aggression principle, has done nothing wrong or immoral.  The application of the principle of non-aggression explains why most libertarians believe prostitution, adultery and fornication to be either morally neutral or morally good behaviors.  In each of those actions the folks who are participating in the act are doing so voluntarily.  If aggression is not used in the commission of an act, then that act, by definition, is moral or morally neutral and outside the realm of civil punishment. 
Mr. Vance cited several examples, from various states, of laws that are still on the books that criminalize and punish adultery.  In several of his examples there have been movements by career politicians in those districts to remove the laws against adultery from the legal code.  In the situations cited by Mr. Vance, all of those efforts have failed and the extant laws against adultery are still on the books, although everyone admits they are rarely applied.  Lawrence, if I may call him that, believes that since the two parties to an adulterous relationship are acting voluntarily there is no crime being committed.  Ironically from my perspective, I believe Lawrence would label adultery as a sin, but not a crime.  I believe, without putting words into his mouth I hope, that he would argue that a sin is an improper action that is committed in the eyes of God exclusively.  Since no human being is aware of or harmed  by the act, there is no basis for the state to interject itself into the situation by applying a civil punishment.  God, I believe Lawrence would declare, can deal with the matter Himself.
The problem with Mr. Vance's position has nothing to do with his libertarian philosophy, which I believe he has applied with logical consistency in the case of adultery.  The problem that he has has everything to do with his Arminian theology.  I do not believe that Mr. Vance will ever change his Arminian theological views so this critique of his position will fall upon deaf ears, both for him and other followers of Arminius.  Nevertheless, bad theology creates bad practice and the belief that the civil government should be uninvolved in cases of adultery is very bad practice.  That belief has lead to the widespread practice of no-fault divorce and no-fault divorce has lead to the financial and emotional ruin of many an innocent spouse.  There are several arguments all Arminians must, by won't, consider.  I present three of them here.
God has revealed His will about adultery.  He has clearly stated that adultery is a sin/crime worthy of the death penalty.  Any person who commits adultery should be put to death by the civil government.  When God declares an act to be worthy of death He is stating His opinion that the act in question is one of the most pernicious and heinous of all sins.  God commands the death penalty because any penalty enforced by men is not sufficient to meet the gravity of the sin.  By executing the sinner/criminal the state ushers him into the presence of God where He can, just as Mr. Vance believes, deal with him appropriately.
The problem for Mr. Vance is that he no longer believes the laws of the Old Testament apply.  All Arminians are also antinomians.  They have all adopted the heresy of Marcion and believe that either God has changed His nature and no longer feels the same way about adultery or He has simply ceased to exist.  Arminians are proud to speak of the "Old Testament God" as if He is somehow different than the God found in the New Testament.  That, of course, means they believe in the mutability of God and that is a heresy.  God has not changed.  His moral nature has not changed.  His opinion about adultery has not changed.  Of great importance to this issue is the fact that God's requirement for the civil magistrate to carry out His law has not changed.  The civil government would do well to enforce the law of God and execute adulterers.  Those career politicians and members of the judicial system who refuse to do so are endangering their eternal souls.
That brings me to the second argument in favor of the death penalty for adulterers.  Arminians, and most Reformed theologians as well, have adopted the functional position during their interactions with the civil government that postulates the reality of a morally neutral ground where we can meet to discuss issues.  Certain Dutch Reformed theologians have called this the "myth of neutrality."  There is no morally neutral arena in which Christians and non-Christians can hammer out positions on civil issues that will satisfy both camps.  All non-Christians are, according to the Bible, haters of God and His people, the Church.  When a Christian agrees to allow a non-Christian to set the terms of the debate he has already lost because the non-Christian begins by declaring the Word of God to be obsolete.  The one thing that is constantly forced upon Christians in the public square, and the one thing they consistently agree to submit to, is the idea that the Word of God will never be used to frame any of the discussion or the policy that might come from the discussion.  In that way God is quite effectively removed from the public square forever.
The third problem for Mr. Vance has to do with the doctrine of sola scriptura. I don't know if Lawrence believes and adheres to the doctrine or not.  The doctrine of sola scriptura asserts that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is sufficient to determine all matters of both theology and life, including the civil arena.  All reformers during the time of the Reformation held to this doctrine.  They believed that all mankind, both believers and non-believers, needed nothing more than the Bible to order their lives properly.  If the Bible is truly "suitable for all matters of faith and practice," as so many Christian confessions profess, then there is no need for additional laws about adultery.  God has already told us what to do and now it is our job to do it.
I said I would present three arguments but please allow me to present one more that cuts to the heart of the libertarian view of adultery.  Despite what Mr. Vance says, adultery does create a victim.  The innocent spouse is always a victim of adultery.  The Christian doctrine of "one flesh," which I believe Lawrence would believe in, declares that when a marriage covenant is formed the two parties to that covenant become "one flesh."  As one flesh they both give up authority and control over their own bodies.  The basis of this teaching can be found in the book of I Corinthians, which happens to be a New Testament book.  When one member of a marriage covenant decides to join his flesh to someone other than his/her spouse, a gross violation of the sanctity of that marriage covenant takes place.  Although there is no physical violence perpetrated upon the innocent spouse, there is most certainly a serious dose of spiritual and emotional violence employed.  Anyone who has ever been a victim of adultery knows exactly what I mean.  So I believe that Mr. Vance, to be truly consistent with his non-aggression principle, needs to acknowledge that adultery is an aggressive act that must be punished by the state.  Furthermore, God has told us that an adulterer must die.  I see no reason why that principle has changed.

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Fool Me Ten Times.....I Am An Idiot

Remember the old slogan about fooling me once?  If you fool me once, shame on you.  If you fool me twice, shame on me.  But what happens if you are able to fool me ten times?  I believe that if you are able to fool me ten times I am a blithering idiot.  I was thinking about that old slogan the other day as I considered the increasingly comical political machinations of the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika as they watch the battle for next King of the country unfold before their very eyes.  Let me tell you about that today.
I have been legally permitted to vote in the last ten presidential election cycles.  I actually voted during my first opportunity to do so, back in 1976, for an evangelical Christian named Jimmy Carter.  My guy won, whooppee!  I celebrated for a day or two and then watched King Carter inflate the money supply of the SDA so dramatically we were stuck with double digit rates of inflation for years.  The wealth of fixed income investment holders was stolen and destroyed by King Carter.  Fortunately for me, I was in college and had no investments.  But I did learn a valuable lesson from my act of voting and the events that followed thereafter.  Fool me once....
It did not take me long to realize that presidential politics, as well as all other minor versions of political office-seeking, always play out according to the same script.  I have never witnessed a candidate for any political office come forth and say something like this: "Things are pretty good in this country.  We are richer than everyone else in the world.  We are not being bombed or attacked by anybody and we are bombing and attacking people all over the world.  We have more money today, on a per capita basis, than any people in the history of the world.  Even people considered to be under the 'poverty line' today, whatever that is, are richer than the average citizen of this country was in 1950.  My promise to you is to do nothing and let the good times continue to roll!"
Every candidate for political office says the same thing.  Every candidate for office says that this country is going to hell in a hand basket and putting him or her into office will turn things around and make us all healthy, wealthy and wise.  I guess that is the nature of the beast.  Who is going to vote for a candidate who tells us things are going along nicely?  If that is true, why not just keep the current politician in place?  So in order to unseat the current politician and launch a new person into the position of career politician it is important to paint things as they are today as bleakly as possible.  The problem is, if we are truthful about life in the SDA, we all have it pretty darn good and what is not good is almost always associated with government itself. 
Another thing that I quickly figured out about the political process in this envy-filled land is that people vote for the person who promises to give them something for nothing.  I just visited Hillary's website, found here, to discover what she is promising to give to those who vote for her.  She wants to give  $2 billion per year to people, and their families, with Alzheimer's disease.  That money will come from taxpayers who do not have Alzheimer's disease.  Hillary will initiate programs, with no price tag attached, to stop sexual assaults on college campuses.  The taxpayers will bear those costs.  Hillary also will subsidize inefficient green energy programs and put additional taxes on oil and gas.  Taxpayers and consumers will bear those costs and the greenies will benefit from transfers of money and wealth to them.  She also promises to "ensure that no student has to borrow money to pay for college."  She does not say how she is going to do that but it will most certainly cost taxpayers billions of dollars.  Taxpayers will lose and students will win.  Hillary will enforce mandatory government preschool across the land.  The cost of that will be borne by the taxpayers and those with children, especially single moms, will be the winners.  Hillary will raise taxes on the rich, whoever they are, and "invest" in her favorite crony-capitalist enterprises in order to raise employment and make everyone rich.  Taxpayers will pay the bills for those programs and her crony-capitalist friends will be the beneficiaries of the largess.  Hillary affirms that health insurance is a civil right and reaffirms her support for Obamacare.  Under Obamacare the taxes paid by the top 49% of the income population in the SDA pay for the health insurance premiums of the lower 51%.  Hillary wants to strengthen labor unions.  When she does members of labor unions will profit and everyone outside the union, including laborers, employers and consumers, will bear the costs of her support.  Hillary also wants paid maternity leave for all.  Employers, and eventually consumers, will pay the costs of that program and pregnant women will receive the payments.  This is just a small sample of what Hillary wants.
Did you notice anything about what Hillary wants?  I am not just picking on Hillary here.  I could have done so with the other members of the big five (Cruz, Rubio, Trump, Sanders and Clinton).  Although they favor different programs they all have a long list of programs funded by taxpayers that benefit special interest groups.  All of them couch their plans to steal from one group to give to another in terms of civil rights, compassion, civil defense, defense of the environment, whatever that is,  and economic growth.  Strangely however, none of them dare call what they want to do stealing.  I wonder why?
There is no such thing as a free lunch.  When civil government, and the career politicians and bureaucrats who populate it, seeks to go beyond the protection of our God-given rights to life, freedom and personal property it goes too far.  Without exception every single government program that goes beyond our three legitimate civil rights creates a system in which one group ends up losing and another group ends up winning.  Without exception the members of the losing group experience some sort of financial loss and, conversely, the members of the winning group receive some sort of financial windfall, less 20% for government handling.  Is there nobody in his sinful land besides the Welsh who understands that this process is immoral precisely because it legitimizes theft?  Is there nobody in this sinful land who realizes that voluntary participation in this process makes you an accessory to theft?
I can hear the screaming objections, from the three people who read this blog, to what I have just written.  Those objections are always of the same sort and I will address them right now:
  1. Not voting allows the greater evil to win.  We must vote, even if it is for the lesser of two evils.  My response:  voting for evil, even if it is a lesser form, is still evil.  Who among us would say that it is proper for a rapist to only fondle a woman rather than rape her because it is the lesser of two evils?  Evil is always evil.  Participating in evil is always evil.
  2. We must vote in order to defend ourselves from the depredations of others.  At least this mindset recognizes one fundamental truth about civil government in this immoral country....the act of voting is really an act of violence in which the vote is used to either defend oneself from attack or attack someone else.  Do we not have the right to defend ourselves, you might ask?  If it were that simple I could agree with this position.  But it is not that simple.  No candidate that I am aware of is campaigning on a platform that is restricted to protecting our rights to life, freedom and personal property and eliminating all those programs that assault the taxpayers.  Every candidate has his own bag of goodies to spread around to his friends and those goodies are always paid for by someone else.  Give me an example of a candidate who will only vote for programs that do not create winners and losers and I will vote for him.
  3. We live in a democracy and voting is not merely a civil right, it is a moral responsibility.  My response:  Give me a break!  While it is true I live in a democracy where the majority always wins, I have no desire to live under such conditions and I will oppose the immoral aspects of democracy with all of my being, and that includes the state sanctioned sacrament of voting.  Only a grossly perverted doctrine of morality would declare that I am morally required to cast a vote in favor of a person who has already admitted his goal is to commit theft.  In fact, just the opposite is the case.  A person with any moral conscience whatsoever would oppose any act of theft, whether it is done by himself, his neighbor or majority vote.
  4. We, as a society, have decided to operate this way.  We, as a society, have decided to tax the rich and use it to create a "safety net" for the poor and disadvantaged.  My response is:  I am a member of society and I do not want to do any of those things.  Furthermore, I know many people who agree with me.  Let's admit it, shall we?  "We" is simply a synonym for "the majority."  We live in a democracy and whatever the majority wants is what we all end up with.  The minority is always abused and never protected.  Those who use this defense are, oddly enough, asserting a version of the old "divine right of Kings" argument.  Under the divine right of Kings it was understood that what the King pronounced to be the law of the land was right and proper because he was the God-ordained King.  Under democracy the terms have changed  but the principle remains the same.  Whatever the majority declares is right because it is the will of the God-ordained majority of desperately sinful human beings.  The fact that this is the way we operate does not make it right or moral.  Just the opposite is the case, democracy is one of the most immoral forms of government known to mankind.
I stopped voting 39 years ago when I realized that all I was doing was sanctioning and endorsing theft.  My conscience will not allow me to do that and, quite frankly, I do not understand why everyone else in this country does not share my view. I was fooled once.  I will not be fooled again.  As for you, how many times have you been fooled?

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

A Dangerous Precedent For Condominium Owners

I have spent most of my adult life living in condominium complexes.  I have used them for my residences because they were cheap and easy to maintain.  As a struggling janitor, seeking to build a janitorial business, I did not have money to spend on a single family home.  I was also unwilling to spend money on a fancy condominium so I spent the majority of my adult life living in two complexes in sections of the Denver metropolitan area that are usually considered to be less than desirable.  I certainly never saw any Yuppies in my neighborhoods.  While living in those complexes I witnessed gunfire, drug deals, fist fights, drug abuse, drunkenness and a whole host of criminal human behavior.  In one unit that I lived in a crack-head had murdered a prostitute, spilling her blood all over the unit.  While living in those complexes I also held positions on the Board of Directors, in a vain attempt to enforce the restrictive covenants upon the generally immoral, lying, thieving, low-life people living there.   I still own one of my condos, keeping it after finally making the decision to purchase a small single family home in a better part of town.  All of this is to say that I know something about what it means to manage a condominium complex and own a condominium unit.
In a story that is now almost a year old, but that just came to my attention, a condo complex in Albuquerque that I am familiar with just lost a lawsuit that will, if not overturned, effectively rob all of the owners of their property.  The story can be found here.  The Eagle's Nest Condominiums are exactly the sort of complex I have lived in during my life.  It is filed with many pathetic single males, drug dealers, low-life human beings, the financially down and out and a minority percentage of thrifty people trying to make a good go at a successful life.
An immoral, but legal, lawsuit was filed against the condominium association and the property management company that helped manage the complex a couple of years ago after someone was shot and killed there.  According to the article referenced above, "The lawsuit said that Andrae Davis was shot when four to five people attacked one of his neighbors, who was a drug dealer living at the complex under a fake name. During the fight, an unknown person fired a gun and the bullet pierced Davis’ front door and killed him as he was watching out of the door’s peep hole. His fiancee, Lorraine Calkin, and children watched him get shot."  After Mr. Davis' tragic death his family members decided to capitalize upon it by exploiting the immoral legal culpability laws that infest the Socialist Democracy of Amerika's legal system.  You all know what I mean, they set out to win the litigation lottery.  In the SDA the person who actually commits a crime is never responsible for it.  It is all of the rich people surrounding that person, and the various businesses that can be dragged into it, that are held responsible for what happened.  It is called the theory of "deep pockets" and that is precisely what happened at Eagle's Nest, despite the fact the complex is not for the wealthy.
Last March, according to the report, "A Santa Fe jury on Tuesday ordered an Albuquerque property management company and condominium association to pay nearly $12 million to the estate of a man accidentally shot in a crime-ridden complex."  Ironically, "Police haven’t solved the shooting of Andrae Davis, 31, who was killed in August 2011 at Eagle Nest Condominiums in Albuquerque. But the jury found that Roger Cox & Associates Property Management LLC and Eagle’s Nest Condominium Association were negligent and caused Davis’ death by letting crime run rampant."  Fascinating, isn't it?  Let's consider the arguments made here for a moment.
Andrae Davis is dead as a result of a gunshot wound he suffered while he watched, behind a closed door, a drug deal that went sour.  The person who pulled the trigger on the gun that killed Mr. Davis is still at large.  In other words, Mr. Davis' murderer has not been found.  That, under normal circumstances, would be the end of it.  Until the person responsible for his death is found there is little his survivors can do.  But these are not normal circumstances.  Attorneys who know they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by filing frivolous and immoral lawsuits quickly rushed in to assign moral culpability to anyone and anything associated with the location where the murder took place.
The attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that the condo association and the property management company working for the condo association were morally responsible and guilty for the murder of Mr. Davis because "their negligence...caused Davis' death by letting crime run rampant."  Do you see the hidden presupposition in that argument?  It is not hard to find.  The hidden presupposition, upon which the entire argument turns, is that the condominium association and/or the property management company is responsible to act as a police force, just like the local Albuquerque Police Department does.  Since when is it the case that a condo association and a property management company have the legal authority to enforce the law?  Can you imagine the uproar that would result if members of the association and the property management company started patrolling the property carrying guns and attempting to arrest people for violations of the law?  Can you imagine the outrage if, as a result of their actions, some upstanding drug dealer and career criminal happened to get shot and killed?  I can imagine that scenario.  It already happened in Florida. Can anyone say Trayvon Martin?
There is something seriously wrong with the law when it prosecutes both sides of a dispute.  When the association does not act like a police force it is found guilty of not acting like a police force and held responsible for the crimes that are committed there.  When an association does act like a police force it is found guilt for acting like a police force without the authority to do so.  Such is the nature of the law in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.
Let's be clear, the association is not responsible for Andrae's death.  Neither did the association "cause" his death.  He was killed by a bullet shot from a gun by a murderer who is yet to be caught.  That is the end of the story.  And it would have been the end of the story in any country in which biblical law was the law of the land.  In a country where humanism reigns supreme and the law of the land is whatever the majority wants it to be today we end up with a condominium association being found guilty of causing the death of a man simply because he lived there.  Has the entire world gone mad?  Under similar reasoning every citizen in this envy-filled country can lawfully sue the owner of any property in which a person he know dies.  Did Uncle Joe have a heart attack and die in the grocery store? The grocery store owner caused his death!  Did Aunt Minnie have a stroke while walking around the mini-mall?  The mini-mall caused her death!  Did some drunk run into the tree in your front yard, stumble out of his car and die of alcohol intoxication on your front porch?  You caused his death.  Prepare to be sued and prepare to lose your home.
Imagine the fate of the owners of condominiums at Eagle's Nest if this ridiculous and immoral verdict is not overturned.  I have seen Eagle's Nest and I seriously doubt that it could be sold for $12 million.  If the association is forced to pay the judgement every single owner of that complex is going to lose his condo.  Please explain to me the justice in that decision.  Please explain why I, if I were living there, am morally responsible for the death of a fellow owner when he was shot and killed by someone who has not even been captured.  These legal concepts are impossible to explain because they are wildly irrational and based almost exclusively upon envy.  Lawyers know they can parade a line of grieving relatives in front of a jury and then inform the jury that some rich guy somewhere is responsible for their grief.  Next think you know, presto/chango, the rich guy is guilty of a crime and his money is being stolen by the state and given to the grieving relatives.  All those who profit from this system are guilty of theft at the very least.  All of those who profit from this system, despite its legality, are behaving immorally.  Make no mistake, God will not be mocked.  A day of reckoning is coming and those who have enriched themselves exploiting an immoral legal system will one day be calling for the mountains to fall upon them to hide them from the wrath of God that is coming their way.  I don't believe their stolen wealth will protect them on that day, do you? 

Monday, February 22, 2016

Laura Leprino and Jessica Peck Are Air-Heads

In an Op-Ed piece in Sunday's Denver Post two air-headed women proclaimed their belief in the moral purity of homosexuality.  Laura Leprino, a self-proclaimed "political activist" and Jessica Peck, an attorney, wrote a scathing critique of historic Christian doctrine, proclaiming it to be bigoted, outdated and filled with hate.  Interestingly enough, both women also profess to be political conservatives.  Let's consider their argument for a moment here today.
I quote the heart of their argument in favor of political protection for homosexuals here:
"As conservatives, we believe in the free market.  If bigots don't want to serve certain classes of people, our instinct is to say 'let the market decide.'  Ultimately, we theorize, the bigots will go out of business.  This philosophy unfortunately now runs head first into those who proclaim they need the government to protect their 'religious freedom.'  While state and federal laws protect religious freedom, they do not protect the right to discriminate against those of other religions on all matters outside religious organizations and places of worship.  Our opponents believe more laws are needed to allow businesses to discriminate against gays under the guise of religious freedom.  Instead of banning discrimination, backers here demand the right to freely discriminate.  As a society, we say 'no' to discrimination based on race, gender, national origin and other protected characteristics. Gays deserve to spend their hard earned dollars at the same place we spend ours."
To aid in my critique, here are a couple of definitions:
Bigot:  "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group."
Discrimination:  "the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing."  Interestingly enough, political correctness has infiltrated Merriam Webster and another accepted definition for this term is, "the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people."  Why a morally neutral word should suddenly be filled with moral connotations is not described.
Freedom:  "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action."
Air-Head:  "a stupid person (i.e. there is air where brains should be)."
Our air-heads begin by affirming their belief in the free market.  A free market exists when there is a total absence of necessity, coercion or constraint in choice or action.  If I am forced to engage in business transactions with other people then I am not operating in a free market.  If I am coerced to engage in business transactions with other people by an act of law, then I am not free.  If I am not free to engage in business transactions as I see fit, with whomever I want whenever I want, then I do not live in a free market or a free country.  If the Bobbsey twins who wrote the argument quoted above really believe in the free market they would recognize that a government law requiring me to engage in business dealings with someone I would rather not engage in business dealings with is a coercive and oppressive law that should not exist in the free market.
The fair ladies quoted above do not like bigots.  I think it would be fair to say that they are bigoted against bigots, although I strongly suspect they are inconsistently filled with self-love rather than self-loathing.  The key concept in the definition of a bigot is the incorrectness, unfairness, injustice or immorality of the position held by the bigot.  A person who believes that all blacks are intellectually inferior to whites can be proven wrong by a sample of IQ exams.  A person who believes that all Arab terrorists are haters of Amerikan freedom and worthy of death by bombing can be proven wrong by studying the history behind how they became terrorists, especially how the career politicians and military of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika are primarily responsible for the political destabilization and economic destruction of their homelands.  So the key question is this, do Christians have an unfair, inaccurate or immoral understanding of homosexuality?
Rather than presenting an argument as to why homosexual behavior is morally right and proper the ladies writing the article simply presuppose their position on the moral propriety of homosexual behavior to be correct. That is not the way to compose a rationally logical and necessary argument.  That is the style of argumentation generally found among air-heads.  In a part of the piece that I did not quote they make reference to how the majority of the citizens living within the geo-political boundary known as Colorado now believe that being homosexual is just dandy.  Since the majority now believe homosexuality to be moral, it must be moral.  How it changed from being immoral to being moral simply because the majority now believe it to be so is not described.  Only one thing is clear from their argument.  Morality is determined by majority vote.   When our ladies presuppose that homosexual behavior is morally good they beg the question.  It is impossible to prove them wrong because their conclusion is already presupposed to be correct.  When they make the presupposition that homosexual behavior is morally good and glorifying to God, they are acting, quite ironically it seems to me, as bigots.  Their intense dislike for Christians and historic Christian doctrine is palpable. 
By definition all Christians are bigots, if the good women are correct in their presupposition that homosexual behavior is pleasing to the God of the Bible.  The problem for the good women, and all advocates for homosexual behavior, is that the God of the Bible is strongly opposed to homosexuals and homosexual behavior.  I will not give you a long list of biblical proof texts to prove my point.  By now everyone should recognize that historic and orthodox Christian doctrine has held homosexual behavior to be sinful for two thousand years.  Nothing has changed in Christian circles except that what was previously considered to be a good doctrine is now deemed to be evidence of bigotry.
These two writers take a dramatic shift into irrationality after proclaiming their faith in the free market and their religious belief that Christians are bigots.  They quickly abandon their belief in freedom and call for government laws to protect homosexuals because of what they bizarrely allege is a movement among Christians to call for government protection of Christian doctrine, most especially the doctrine of the immorality of homosexuality.  A little history lesson is in order here.  First, we did not start this fight.  No Christians that I am aware of were going to Washington and asking Congress to draft a law that would criminalize homosexual behavior and punish those who practice it with death.  Even more to the point, no Christians anywhere in this hate-filled country were going to any legislative branch of government and asking it to pass a law that would allow them to hold to the ancient, historic and orthodox Christian doctrine of the immorality of homosexual behavior.  It was only after the militant homosexual lobby had already obtained such laws for themselves, and the endorsement of the Supreme Court of Jokers, that Christians were forced to ask an oppressive and tyrannical government to grant us permission to continue doing what we had been doing for two thousand years.  It was only after certain militant homosexuals decided to start a fight by purposely going to Christian businesses, flaunting their homosexuality, and demanding those businesses "obey the law" and serve them that this issue even came up.  The brainless fools writing the op-ed piece attempt to make it appear as if Christians are running to government to get laws written to give us the ability to oppress others.  When they write, "our opponents believe more laws are needed to allow businesses to discriminate against gays..." they show their extreme stupidity.  Were it not for the prior action of the militant homosexual lobby we Christians would be doing nothing at all  The attempts we are making today to defend ourselves from oppression can scarcely be cast in the light of running to government to make laws to oppress others.  All we want to be able to do is what we have been doing for two thousand years.  We have awakened to find ourselves in a land, filled with new laws and politically protected groups, that criminalizes biblical preaching and teaching.  Do we have no right to defend ourselves?  According to the women we do not.  Indeed, we are bigots if we try.
In addition to lying about their belief in the free market, the ladies are also socialists.  They use the infamous "we" when it comes time to advance their cause.  "As a society, 'we' say no to discrimination,"  they write.  Well, I am a member of this society and I do not say that.  Who is the we they are writing about?  It does not include me or anyone else I know.  I suspect the "we" they so fondly refer to is the new majority of people who agree with them.  Under their socialism the majority always wins and the rights and beliefs of the minority are trampled underfoot.  Strange indeed are the days we live in.  In the old days the career politicians who ruled over us, as well as their civilian supporters, believed that government largely existed to protect the rights of the minority.  My how things have changed.  When Christians are in the minority there is no call for support.  On the contrary, the minority is slandered, oppressed and framed as a group of neanderthal bigots deserving of punishment for their evil ways.
I wonder if the ladies discriminate?  Is there any reason they would go to King Soopers rather than Safeway?  If so, they discriminate.  Is there any reason they go to Conoco rather than Shell?  If so, they discriminate.  Is there any reason they go to one movie theater over another?  If so, they discriminate.  I suspect these two hypocrites discriminate thousands of times every day.  After a day of heartfelt discrimination they sit down to write a piece in which they accuse Christians of bigotry simply because we happen to maintain a historic Christian doctrine about homosexuality.  I think it is fair to say that these two women "unfairly dislike other people and their ideas; especially, they are people who hate or refuse to accept the members of a particular group, especially Christians."  In a word, they are bigots.
I hope Laurie and Jessica feel better about themselves now that they have published a piece in the newspaper in which they unfairly and irrationally attempt to classify Christians as a group of people that is seeking special government protection.  I find it fascinating that they are apparently quite angry about the alleged fact that Christians would dare to do something like that.  I wonder if they held the same degree of anger for Martin Luther King when he rushed to government in search of civil rights protection?  I wonder if they held the same fury for the militant homosexual lobby when it cast itself upon government in search of a civil right upholding their lifestyle?  I wonder if they reserve the same vitriol for the transgendered lobby that is seeking government protection as I write this piece?  Ultimately Laurie and Jessica prove what R.J. Rushdoony wrote many years ago.  I will leave you with that quote:
"Law is in every culture religious in origin....It must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society.  If law has its source in man's reason, then reason is the god of that society....Modern humanism, the religion of the state, locates law in the state and thus makes the state, or the people as they find expression in the state, the god of the system....In any society any change of law is an explicit or implicit change of religion.  Nothing more clearly reveals, in fact, the religious change in a society than a legal revolution....There can be no tolerance in a law-system for another religion.  Toleration is a device used to introduce a new law-system as a prelude to a new intolerance....Every law-system must maintain its existence by hostility to every other law-system and to alien religious foundations, or else it commits suicide."