Sequester Now In Force By Law

This is Saturday morning March 2, 2013 and according to Randy Rhodes’ program of yesterday, today and not yesterday is the first day of the Sequestration of funds.  Randy has been quoting that nut Justice Scelia replaying that nightmare of Thursday where Scelia claimed that- - “already there are districts in Virginia that are black by law, virtually”, I have no idea what he means.  But if they are black districts then it follows they would most likely elect a Black house member.  And I would remind you once again that Alabama that brought that new assault on the 1965 voting rights act- - just got rid of their only Black councilman or representative or something because he was jerrymandered out of his district.   The whole idea of using the word “entitlement’ in some kind of a furtive or alternative meaning from what it normally means- is something which I find offensive.  Because entitlement means just that- - having a right or entitlement that you have earned, or have from the hand of God.  And Randy was saying that Scelia was echoing some 1875 government official who said “It’s been a long time since bhe negro slaves have been free- and now they have to face the real world and come out from under the shelter of privileged law” or something.  It seems to be dog whistle speak to me to mean “President Lincoln has been dead ten whole years and that’s just how long it’s been since the Constitution banned slavery, but after a certain point- - you know “Things have to get back to normal” and “business as usual”.  Apparently one Black senator had his election challenged in 1970 because he had not been freed for nine whole years, which is the requirement for senator.  However the constitution handles this situation.  It says that “neither race nor color nor previous condition of servitude shall be counted against him”.  So there!

At thee thirty for that half hour I watched the Chuck Hagel defense department speech.  And needless to say the secretary was glum with a sense of inevitable foreboding that “he’d have to get used to” as he tried hard to make the best of the military cuts that were coming.  Then he handed off the mike to one of those techno-nerds who had more cold, objective facts.  Today in the 8:06 speech the republican response lady was saying that “This whole sequester situation was of the President’s doing and it all stems from the fact that the White House can’t get control of spending”.  So let me get this straight.  The problem with the sequester is that “we as a nation haven’t gotten control over our spending”.  I just want to get that straight.  She also claimed that in 2013 that “The United States will take in more money this year than in our nation’s history, therefore we do not have a revenue problem”.  Well you know something?  Facts are funny things.  Let’s deal in facts.  Lets talk about friscle 2012. In this past year gone by DID we take in “more money than we have in our history?”  I think not.  It’s a lot easier for the opposition to argue facts that haven’t come into existence yet rather than argue those that have.  She went on to say it’s the democrats in the US senate that have blocked this and all bills that John Boehner sends up.  Well, that’s not what I’ve heard from other sources.  She went on to talk about “We can have more deficets as far as the eye can see taxing our kids and jeopardizing their happiness- - and continuing to go for these economic stimulus bills such as infrastructure- - and research and development- - and head start and things” or the alternative is “We can cut taxes for the biggest corporations, which is what we want to do”.  Excuse me- - but she isn’t winning me over.  The fact that on this whole Sequester issue it’s a conspiracy of silence on both sides since neither side appears inclined to left a finger to avert what is now upon us.  As for the President’s speech at 7:06 on KNX, he said something about some hopeful bipartisan caucus from both parties- - who don’t like what is happening and are still working to prevent it- and as such there is still a glimmer of hope. 

So where we stand this Saturday is a person who has whittled away his positive blog numbers of a week ago because of the mere fact I have had perhaps the slowest posting rate in many months, being hard pressed to come up with anything that hasn’t been said before.  You know, it just gets depressing after a while.  Having this weird flu thing is depressing.  First it’s cough and then it’s fever and hot head and dry mouth - - and then it’s diaria.  The diaria I had this morning was some nine and a half hours after dinner last night- - so I’m hard pressed to see how there could be any cause and effect there.  Fish and scalloped potatoes don’t cause diaria, either.   This morning before breakfast I just felt drained of  energy.  The sun was already bright and shining at six thirty this morning- - so enjoy the remaining week of lighter mornings before we are again plunged into darkness.  I was just thinking of all the stories or “examples for our benefit’ in the Bible- - whose moral “lesson” would be anything but edifying to our moral character.   But as I told Joe last night – maybe there are people who still go to mega churches and listen to the choir and lift up their hands and praise the Lord- - but they sure aren’t being taught anything about true morals and ethics.   Some words I find highly non useful.  For instance the term “esoteric religious experience”.    Or how about “situation ethics”, as if there were ethical choices that were somehow not determined by the situation you were on.  Then we have “cheap love” and “tough love” - - both of which pretty much mean - - NO love.    I’m waiting for the first Christian to come out against “experimental science” because we all know that the word “experiment” is a bad word.  We have of course other gens such as “secular humanism” and “Islamo-fascism” and then “entitlement mentality” we mentioned earlier.  Pastor Mark had a real gem - - “man pleasing”, which means “just being civil and respectful to one another.   And if you intervene to supply a need that someone else should be meeting but isn’t you are “taking advantage of the situation”.  Oh and let us not forget how John Mc Arthur saying being a “Seeker friendly church” is a bad thing.

People confuse "defining things" with Defining things.  For instance Paul Tilloch once made the remark that "It's as blaphamus to define God as it is to deny Him".  And yet I told you that Jesus did not first live a Perfect life and then as a result he was declared God.  No.  First he was declared to be God incarnate- and from there it was Deduced that he was Perfect.  I've told you about that ex house mate who had the saying about "The old baseball umpire says - - they Are what I Call them".   People can Describe- - God- - - but to use those very terms to Define God- - seems to have things out of priorities.  There was that TV show back in the nineties that talked about the DIMS - - and "Dim" was either demented or dim whitted or what have you.  I said in computer lingo that the DIM statement has come to be used as a term that defines or "types" a Variable.  When I talk about that Federation stuff- - dead people - - I don't work under the same Rules I would work under if- - for instance I were telling a Story I just came up with to illustrate a bunch of Moral points- - and I thought this was the best way to impart them- - such as the two girls on the park bench with the box of candy.  In like manner- - Dreams - - "don't have to make sense".  And if I don't know what the hell they mean - - how is some psychotherapist ever going to figure it out?  And there are others that say that if you do tell "A Story" - - then of course it has to be autographical.  Once again they would be wrong.  That isn't the point.  The Point of certain Stories is to impart a Moral Lesson- - not as to some kind of keyhole into repressed memories.  But as I was telling Joe Drisco last night- - or never quite got around to it- - - the whole idea is defining Morals as Godly and Godly as Morals- - kind of raises a Problem - - - since people use God as some kind of a "super extension of their own Egoes", and having expanded their Egos into God status- - they would now confer absolute Morality onto that status.  But neither would I say that- - - "You know- - if you reject God you fall into moral relitivism".    This is the idea that unless- - well, if you're a Jew,  if you are a Catholic, if you're a Mormon, if you're a Baptist- - - somehow any social view or culture or perception- - that doesn't pass muster with any "theological test' you want to put them through- - - then of course they can't "have the light" because they take it as an Article of Faith - - and that's ALL it is - - just another belief like angels and demons - -  but this is a Belief- - that apart from what you personally Believe- - or Say you believe- - that "The rest of the world is Doomed to Moral relitivisum" just as the exestentialist would say we are "Doomed to being meaningless without Christ.  I don't accept either proposition.  I think the people of the world are inherently smarter than that- - and one of these days they'll prove it.  (Selah)