What’s Wrong with the World

I liked the Merry Tossmas videos as well. The keep-your-faith-between-your-ears-only crowd blisters at the very existence of things like the old FoF, but goes apoplectic when some actually does something; even something perfectly resonable like tossing an unsolicited catalog, or a NY Catholic school actually heeds the call of their bishop (How DARE They?!) and sends back a donation from a same-sex "marriage" supporting politician.

But as you point out (and I wish you were wrong) it looks like the Upas tree is working its poison on FoF.

Yeah, and the old Focus was very effective. They acted as a watchdog, kept people informed, and kept the religious right unified and active. Even after so much seemed lost, after the heyday of the 80's was over, Dobson was doing useful things like informing his constituency of the homosexualizing of the California public school curricula and urging Christians to get out of the system.

It's very nearly a matter of necessity that this new, softer-gentler Focus focus will mean a dissipation of that energy and a consequent downplaying of those issues. There are only so many hours in a day and dollars in their coffers. I'm on their mailing list, and I don't think I've received a single letter since Daly came into power telling about what the social left is up to or anything of the kind. Dobson used to send them out fairly frequently.

"Do you think this is a sign of things to come? Will companies be increasingly black-balled by the media for participating in any sort of apolitical charity work with groups supporting traditional marriage and pro-life views?"

The Africa connection likely didn't help given the role of American religious fundamentalists in Ugandan anti-gay legislation. Focus has to live with their track record under Dobson (as the CT article points out, Dobson is still pushing the culture wars and identified as the founder - and, in the quote from CT, lying as well) and that may be insurmountable.

Also, while the gay issue is a demographically lost cause and may wind up being viewed from the "crazy but lovable uncle" perspective (winning tends to make folks generous towards former adversaries), the abortion issue is another matter. As was pointed out in a thread south of here, too many in the class that really matters are either gay or have friends/family who are and that will continue to doom anti gay initiatives over time.

On the other hand, the abortion thing is heating up and resentments from that will poison things for quite some time. And, of course, the stakes in the gay thing are actually quite low and mostly illusory while with abortion they are real and high.

"...since Daly came into power telling about what the social left is up to or anything of the kind."

"Living up" to Dobson's extremism and mendacity probably isn't their goal. I'm not sure just what niche a depoliticalized FOF fills in the world of the religious right.

in the quote from CT, lying as well

Just out of very mild curiosity, Al, what the deuce are you talking about?

"Living up" to Dobson's extremism... probably isn't their goal.

What you call Dobson's "extremism" is, as far as I'm concerned, what made FOTF worthwhile, and it will be missed.

I'm not sure just what niche a depoliticalized FOF fills in the world of the religious right.

There, for once, Al, we agree. It's not like the world is exactly hurting for yet another cookie-cutter starving-kids-in-Africa Christian social organization.

the abortion issue is another matter. As was pointed out in a thread south of here, too many in the class that really matters are either gay or have friends/family who are and that will continue to doom anti gay initiatives over time.

On the other hand, the abortion thing is heating up and resentments from that will poison things for quite some time. And, of course, the stakes in the gay thing are actually quite low and mostly illusory while with abortion they are real and high.

I think you're wrong, Al. They are the same underlying issue: the culture of death. They are admittedly 2 different facets of that culture, but what pushes one will help advance the other, because they are integrally connected. At the level of socio-philosophical underpinnings, they are treated similarly: a person has a "right to make up his own meaning in life". This right is being used to justify gay "marriage" as it was used 20 years ago to justify abortion. It's all connected: people who cannot bear that there should be morality that stands higher than them, and calls them to a standard, instead make up their own "morality" that gives them their little satisfactions.

Just wait until society falls down around their ears after they spent 60 years pulling on the supports. They won't like the results. Nobody else will either, but it won't have been the (real) conservatives who pulled it down by introducing one immoral novelty after another and pretended it was OK.

"too many in the class that really matters are either gay or have friends/family who are and that will continue to doom anti gay initiatives over time."

Don't mislead us about the vast numbers of gays. They're a small portion of the population. Even the number of "gay couples" don't amount to much - maybe .15% of the number of couples in Denver, the gayest in the region.

Hollywood, pornography and political activism do more to undermine resistance to homosexual politics than actual relationships with homosexuals.

Even where relationships exist, the self-destructive, non-monogamous, or posturing nature of many homosexuals will change a few minds. Even in my relatively narrow social circle, I've run into a few too many "l-sbians until graduation," serial divorcee l-sbians, or creepily promiscuous young gay men who will likely catch HIV at some point.

If it weren't for media censorship, there's no way "gay marriage" could have gotten so far.

Also, while the gay issue is a demographically lost cause and may wind up being viewed from the "crazy but lovable uncle" perspective (winning tends to make folks generous towards former adversaries), the abortion issue is another matter. As was pointed out in a thread south of here, too many in the class that really matters are either gay or have friends/family who are and that will continue to doom anti gay initiatives over time.

I'm not sure the homosexual issue is a lost cause, but it is clear that conservative Christians will experience a long winter of discontent before the general culture comes to terms with the consequences of the homosexual lifestyle. And I know for certain that winning the homosexual issue in the short term will not tend to make our adversaries "generous" toward us because they will never be content with being our "former adversaries." The presence of observant, practicing Christians in society is like nails on a chalkboard to those who practice evil and are so trapped in their sin that they are literally loosing their minds. They hate us because they can't be us - or they think they can't - but that's a discussion involving spiritual principles that I do not believe Al has the capacity to comprehend and therefore, at this point, it is pearls before swine.

If it weren't for media censorship, there's no way "gay marriage" could have gotten so far.

Kevin's comment really says it all about why the acceptance of the sodomite lifestyle is so much in the forefront of cultural/political debate these days. It is very difficult to sit down in the public square and educate people about the practices consistent with homosexuality. Most people are unaware (I believe purposely)of the depravity of the lifestyle. Monogamy is extremely rare and homosexual "couples" are simply partners in crime as they cruise and indulge in whatever comes their way.

My father is a retired police officer and long ago enlightened me about the reality of just how "gay" homosexuals are not. It was Focus on the Family that long ago enlightened me on just how depraved the lifestyle is thanks to undercover work by police officers who couldn't stay in that line of surveillance for very long.

Most people, and sadly, most Christians would rather the whole issue would go away and that is why opinion is tipping in favor of homosexual marriage. The public has chosen to embrace the lovable gay couples portrayed on TV because they simply can't handle the truth and they hope the whole thing will go away if we just let them get married. Unfortunately, a whole new can of snakes is being opened which will make the battle one of enduring persecution for my grandchildren.

I know the rapid decline of FOTF may surprise some, but this was always going to happen given Dobson's commitment to psychology over biblical standards I some areas. Most notable of these is the practice of certain solitary activities by teenage boys. Combine this with the strict imposition of certain external standards such as an employee dress code which required women to wear hose - not simply modest dress, etc but detailed enough to actually require hose - it's no surprise the decline has been do rapid.

Gina, not getting ones way doesn't equate to "persecution"; more likely it means you didn't have a case.

"Don't mislead us about the vast numbers of gays."

??? What part of "friends and family" and "class that really matters" don't you understand? Go downstream a bit to the thread on the recent New York marriage legislation and check out the link to the NYT article I posted. Friends and family are a force multiplier. Gays may be 2 or 3% of the population but Ken Mehlman gets his calls returned and you likely don't.

Kevin, you forget your place. The opinion of a major donor who is gay or has a gay son or daughter or a close friend is worth way, way more than many thousands of you all.

The "class that matters" is the small fraction of the top decile that cares most about tax cuts and who are social liberals/libertarians. Your role is to help elect anti-taxers; in return you get occasional anti-abortion thingees that will never get in the way of the folks with jets and concierge doctors anyway should they need an abortion.

Lydia, I found the commentary that the article in Christianity Today referenced,

http://www.myfamilytalk.com/About/Commentaries/Churchill_Obama_Considered.aspx

Dobson has a PhD; he isn't stupid. That leaves ignorant, shameless partisan hack, and liar as possibilities for certain items in that article.

By 2010, anyone who has the wits to tie his shoes and alleges that, "The possibility of 'death panels' looms before us," and, speaking of the stimulus, "It was then spent on a shameful array of pork and became a slush fund for those seeking re-election," is a liar plain and simple.

I'm willing to allow that much of his commentary is some combination of ignorance and hackery and the items were cribbed from Republican talking points but a lie is a lie and he is responsible for what he writes.

The problem for FOF is that Dobson keeps churning out garbage and folks reporting on those comments keep reminding us that the success of FOF is why we are plagued with this charlatan.

Most of us come and go to little effect. Dobson is one of those of whom it may be said that the world is worse off for his being here, Guilt by association for FOF.

By 2010, anyone who has the wits to tie his shoes and alleges that, "The possibility of 'death panels' looms before us," and, speaking of the stimulus, "It was then spent on a shameful array of pork and became a slush fund for those seeking re-election," is a liar plain and simple.

Okay, thanks, Al. It's your normal practice: Disagree with Al's political talking points and you're stupid or a liar. At least I understand now.

too many in the class that really matters are either gay or have friends/family who are and that will continue to doom anti gay initiatives over time

Or are sympathizers for whatever reason. In other words, their numbers may be few, but their influence is far greater with the current manufacturers of culture. I tend to agree with this observation, although I am not pleased about it.

You know Lydia, You asked for concrete examples of Dobson lying. I gave you two. If I'm wrong it should be easy to demonstrate that - not everything is an opinion, after all.

You might note also that my examples involve secular, not religious, culture war matters; they are policy on which have things in writing - actual legislation and, in the case of the stimulus, actual numbers.

By 2010, anyone who has the wits to tie his shoes and alleges that, "The possibility of 'death panels' looms before us," and, speaking of the stimulus, "It was then spent on a shameful array of pork and became a slush fund for those seeking re-election," is a liar plain and simple.

You know Lydia, You asked for concrete examples of Dobson lying. I gave you two. If I'm wrong it should be easy to demonstrate that - not everything is an opinion, after all.

Actually al, you just made assertions and claimed them as lies. Let's look at the supposed "lies."

...and universal health care legislation amounting to rationing and the denial of medical services for older Americans. The possibility of “death panels” looms before us. Five hundred billion dollars in Medicare funding are expected to be siphoned from the budget.

First, he puts death panels in quotes. He's not saying they are literal death panels, although if you look at how they operate in England, one could call them that. Second, calling them "death panels" is like saying "pro-choice" in the sense of political terminology. Both sides can play that game.

The third quote seems to condemn the concept of a massive stimulus package, which in the Obama era was funded by loans mostly from China of over a trillion dollars. It was then spent on a shameful array of pork and became a slush fund for those seeking re-election.

Would you like to show where he is wrong? Just saying he is stupid or a liar isn't proof. The President has even said there were no such things as shovel ready jobs.

A lot of the money ended up going to keep state workers, a Democrat constituency, employed. A reasonable person can see that as a political payoff. And, we could be here for a long time going over road projects that make no sense but got funded because some member of Congress earmarked the money for it.

As Lydia stated, in your view, anyone disagreeing with your politics must be stupid or a liar.

Gina, not getting ones way doesn't equate to "persecution"; more likely it means you didn't have a case.

Not getting one's way is liberal spin on the fact that homosexual coupling, now being held in high esteem even by heterosexuals in the media (particularly Hollywood), will be protected from all speech condemning the practice as sin and perversity. It won't be long before anyone who dares to denounce the codifying of sodomy will be considered guilty of hate speech, NOT "the crazy but lovable uncle."

Nice try Al. Your effort to cooly diminish and render as silly my concerns for the future are to be expected. I would have been surprised by anything more substantial.

Al, what is thing you call marriage, so that I can pick it out when I come across it?

"The 'class that matters' is the small fraction of the top decile that cares most about tax cuts and who are social liberals/libertarians. Your role is to help elect anti-taxers; in return you get occasional anti-abortion thingees that will never get in the way of the folks with jets and concierge doctors anyway should they need an abortion."

Very true, Al. Now if only you'd turn an equally critical eye on your own party, the millionaires of which work hard to keep poor folks on the dole so as to maintain their own power. The 'class that matters' has just as many representatives on the (D) side of the aisle as on the (R), and that (D) doesn't make them any more caring, except in their own heads.

I'll start believing the levellers when they start emptying their own wallets to "help the poor" instead of trying to empty mine, which will occur at approximately the same time that corporate CEO's start taking 50% pay cuts and giving back their bonuses so that hourly workers can get raises of greater than 1.5%

In other words, never.

I forget where I saw someone lately saying that too many ordinary people and even Christians hope that if they "let homosexuals get married" the whole issue will go away, because they don't want to think about it. Truer words have seldom been spoken. And it is, of course, a vain hope.

On Dobson, I've sometimes wondered what would have happened if he'd stuck to his guns about McCain, instead of letting Sarah Palin woo him into being a McCain supporter. Just for once the religious right would have made it clear that we will not be used and that we do draw lines and stick to them. Don't know if it would have made any difference, but it would have been worth trying.

A social conservative revolt against the Republican Party would certainly make a difference. Without them, the Republicans win no national elections and far fewer state ones. But Americans have cowards with no real principles; all we have is fashions and we are unwilling to fight even for those. Contrast this with the left, which will be in your face until they win. You also have the lesser-of-two-evils argument that too many people let themselves be convinced by. The Republicans, bad as they are, are better than the Democrats. Undoubtedly true, if marginally, but in that case be happy with the evil you voted for.

But it would make a difference and it needs to happen. The only hope for conservatism in America is that the Republican party is either reformed or replaced.

(BTW, all this shows why FOF has such a steep hill to climb. Getting an organization past a previous leader who conducted business in a manner that led to the organization being personally identified with himself isn't easy.)

"Would you like to show where he is wrong?"

Sure, if you check out the numbers against his claim that "it was then spent on a shameful array of pork and became a slush fund for those seeking re-election" things don't add up.

I believe it is useful to hold opinion leaders to a high standard. A statement that is designed to deceive is best termed a "lie" and Dobson is a great deceiver. Below is a short summary of the stimulus. Note the significant amount devoted to tax cuts and the smaller amount to infrastructure. Creating the impression that all we had was waste and fraud is simply dishonest.

Tax incentives - Total: $288 billion

Tax incentives for individuals - $237 billion

Tax incentives for companies - $51 billion

Healthcare - $155.1 billion
(More than 11% of the total bill is allocated to help states with Medicaid and another 4% for COBRA aid.)

Education - $100 billion

Aid to low income workers, unemployed and retirees (including job training), Payments to Social Security recipients and people on Supplemental Security Income were parts of the ARRA. - $82.2 billion

Infrastructure Investment - $105.3 billion

Transportation - $48.1 billion

* $27.5 billion for highway and bridge construction projects

Water, sewage, environment, and public lands - $18 billion

Government buildings and facilities - $7.2 billion

Communications, information, and security technologies - $10.5 billion

Energy Infrastructure - $21.5 billion

Energy efficiency - $27.2 billion

Housing - $14.7 billion[49]

Scientific research - $7.6 billion

Other - $10.6 billion

"A lot of the money ended up going to keep state workers, a Democrat constituency, employed."

Yeah, policemen and firemen are a Democratic constituency (of course, Mid-western governors may be changing that). Chris, if there is high unemployment and reduced demand, laying off a bunch more of workers isn't a good thing - and those workers collect unemployment so keeping them on the job is a marginal cost.

"A reasonable person can see that as a political payoff."

Not a reasonable person who understands economics.

"And, we could be here for a long time going over road projects that make no sense but got funded because some member of Congress earmarked the money for it."

You need to establish materiality not just assert it.

Chris, you may be comfortable with having leaders who seek power by deceiving those who trust them but I have higher standards. FOF cast their lot with a scoundrel and they are having trouble living it down.

"Al, what is thing you call marriage, so that I can pick it out when I come across it?"

TA, in the United States a marriage is a contract between individuals allowed by statute to so contract. Hope that helps.

"Your effort to cooly diminish and render as silly my concerns for the future are to be expected."

What I seek to diminish is your defining "persecution" in a dumbed down and self-aggrandizing manner. We still live in a world in which folks are murdered or imprisoned for their religious and political beliefs. You, on the other hand, are merely upset because your side is losing in one small aspect of a larger cultural disagreement. Meanwhile, your real life remains unchanged. You come and go as you always have and, as you are typing, are likely breathing.

Matt,

While there is certainly truth to the idea that the Republicans could be doing much more to advance socially conservative ideas and legislation, I think you are wrong to dismiss the "lesser-of-two-evils argument". It is simply a fact that without Obama, no "Obamacare", no $1 trillion stimulus, no Sotomayor, etc. Elections have consequences and for all the Republican party's faults, many Republican elected officials are trying to do the right thing and reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Even Mitt Romney, God help us all if he is the nominee, claims that he will repeal "Obamacare" which will be an improvement on the status quo.

"no $1 trillion stimulus"

Probably a larger one as Republican Congressional opposition would have been muted. Both Reagan and GW Bush did huge stimulus programs.

if you are correct, we would be in a serious depression.

Al has real low standards for "not being persecuted." You're breathing and typing and going about your affairs. Wow. Now, if Gina or people who think like her were small business owners in a venue with certain anti-discrimination statutes, they might also be shelling out to their lawyer to defend them against suit or fine for firing a biologically male employee who showed up one day in drag demanding to be called "Diane," but heck--they're breathing.

And for what reason was Diane fired?

Golly, Sean, I can't imagine. Sounds pretty unreasonable.../sarc

Just wanted to clarify whether your point was that firing someone *because* she's transgender would bring on lawsuits, or that firing someone for, e.g., poor job performance would bring on lawsuits simply because she's also transgender. I'm actually sympathetic to the latter, but I think you're going to have trouble with the former being subject to problematic analogies (racism, for instance).

I think you're going to have trouble with the former being subject to problematic analogies (racism, for instance).

Oh, yah. Firing a biological man because he insists that you all pretend he's a woman is _just_ like racism. No, Sean, if you think such analogies mean anything, _you_ have a problem. Moreover, I think this just proves the point that liberals are totally insane and that when they sneer at talk of persecution while simultaneously supporting the punishment by government of business owners who prefer not to employ men in drag, they just demonstrate to all the world that they are insane.

And, to tie this in with the main post, the old Focus helped to keep Christians informed of how insane the liberals are and of their new schemes for persecuting normal human beings, while the old Focus just wants to make nicey and give shoes to kids in Africa.

T

A, in the United States a marriage is a contract between individuals allowed by statute to so contract.

Sorry, Al, this is not true. Perhaps what you could say is that insofar as state's legal apparatus pertains, marriage is a contract. That doesn't preclude the reality that apart from the state's perspective marriage has other aspects, aspects that are independent of the state's rules on contracts. To reduce marriage to "merely" a contract, and then to (wish fulfillment) decide that the contract is purely a state-borne reality does not at all get at what marriage really is. It is pure bare-faced assumption on your part that once the state has spoken about the contract, nothing more can be said. Those of us who note that marriage existed before there was a state to regulate contracts have a different point of view.

What I seek to diminish is your defining "persecution" in a dumbed down and self-aggrandizing manner. We still live in a world in which folks are murdered or imprisoned for their religious and political beliefs.

Well that's reeeaallll nice, Al. Now, did you get all het up and in protest mode when Christian pastors read the Bible from their pulpits in Canada and were arrested for their religious beliefs - reciting the Bible where it says homosexual acts are wrong? Cause that's sure a lot like the persecution that you said was REAL persecution. Gee, I must have missed that. The homosexual agenda now is not different from what it was in Sodom, and there indeed Lot and his family were persecuted merely for being straight. Perhaps you can explain to the Canadian pastors why they weren't being persecuted really.

Okay, let's set aside the racism angle. How about this: suppose I'm a vegetarian who thinks it's morally wrong to eat meat. One of my employees shows up one day and starts eating a hamburger in the lounge. So I fire her.

I'll admit I don't know whether any laws would apply here. Perhaps it's perfectly legal to fire someone on such grounds. But I am genuinely interested in getting a "sane", conservative take on this sort of example.

Oh darn. Should have googled that one more carefully before I posted. Guess it is perfectly legal to fire meat-eaters. Now I feel silly.

But now I also just think it's unfair that I can't fire someone because I think it's wrong for her to be black. pfft

I believe it is useful to hold opinion leaders to a high standard. A statement that is designed to deceive is best termed a "lie" and Dobson is a great deceiver. Below is a short summary of the stimulus. Note the significant amount devoted to tax cuts and the smaller amount to infrastructure. Creating the impression that all we had was waste and fraud is simply dishonest.

I'm still waiting on where he lied. He and I disagree with you on what is waste and political payback. That doesn't make it a lie. Also, he never said fraud.

Chris, if there is high unemployment and reduced demand, laying off a bunch more of workers isn't a good thing - and those workers collect unemployment so keeping them on the job is a marginal cost.

Actually, if you don't have the money it's a bad thing. The government has to borrow and/or raise taxes to keep people on the payroll. And now, since the "stimulus" has run out, those jobs are gone anyways. State and local governments are starting to shed those jobs and we're more in debt anyways. That's a failure all the way around.

Also, police and firefighter unions backed Obama.

Not a reasonable person who understands economics.

I'm sorry you don't understand economics then. Of course, no one really understands economics or at a minimum this government doesn't. Remember, with the stimulus we would never cross 8% unemployment and the economy would be humming along by now.

I'll just assume you are retracting your comment about Dobson lying about "death panels" since you didn't even address it.

Chris, you may be comfortable with having leaders who seek power by deceiving those who trust them but I have higher standards. FOF cast their lot with a scoundrel and they are having trouble living it down.

Ok al. Is Obama truthful and do you trust him?

Chris, don't bother talking to Al about death panels. It's a hobby horse of his. A total waste of time. Al wouldn't know a (say, Canadian) death panel if it starved him to death.

No, Sean, you have "time-waster" written all over your every comment, so I have no intention of wasting my time with you.

And for what reason was Diane fired?

In case you are all confused, Diane should be fired because he has lost touch with reality and is therefore not competent or qualified to remain in a job where being in touch with reality is necessary to function. I can't believe that has to be explained.

Well, Ms. McGrew, I'm sorry that you think it's a waste of time to defend your beliefs with well-reasoned arguments. I am, seriously, very interested in finding out what sorts of justifications people have for the things they think. But thanks for the ad hominem, and I'll refrain from commenting unless I have something less "time-wastey" to say.

Ms. Danaher, thank you for that explanation. But I must say that *I* can't believe that that is your explanation, given that your version of "reality" presumably involves the existence of a supreme invisible being. Good luck with that.

Sean, compare these two statements:

Well, Ms. McGrew, I'm sorry that you think it's a waste of time to defend your beliefs with well-reasoned arguments. I am, seriously, very interested in finding out what sorts of justifications people have for the things they think.

But I must say that *I* can't believe that that is your explanation, given that your version of "reality" presumably involves the existence of a supreme invisible being. Good luck with that.

That is why Lydia chooses not to address your *ahem* arguments or questions. You, sir, are a troll.

Chris,

Fair enough. I'll concede that that last comment was troll-ish. However, I took Ms. Danaher's tone to be of a similarly troll-ish nature.

But if you'd be willing to set that aside for the moment, let's look at what's happened here. I asked a clarificatory question, and Ms. McGrew responded with sarcasm. I responded (politely, I might add) to that sarcasm with a perfectly reasonable explanation of the distinction in which I was interested (I honestly didn't know exactly what Ms. McGrew's reason was, not knowing much about her personally). I also alluded to what I thought might be a problem for the position she seemed to be taking. At that point she called me insane. Not "I disagree" or "That's a horrible analogy and here's why", which would have been perfectly reasonable reactions.

I'm sorry, now I've gotten myself confused... Who's the troll again?

But I must say that *I* can't believe that that is your explanation, given that your version of "reality" presumably involves the existence of a supreme invisible being. Good luck with that.

Hmmm... Aristotle had no problem with the possibility of s supreme invisible being, but I suspect he would have fired the transvestite, as well. If he had hired him as a transvestite, that might be one thing, but to suddenly show up one day and demand that a male employee be treated as a woman calls for an investigation into the metal state of the person. Before a sex-change operation occurs, the person must undergo extensive psychological testing. Gina's point was that, in the story, no such examination happened. There may be a possibility of a serious disability. Now, firing may not be the best approach, but asking for a psychological exam is reasonable. There are certain occupations where dressing in drag is not allowed, regardless of the person's intent. In a chemical lab, standard drag-wear would be against OSHA regulations. Likewise, for s sewer-worker.

Thus, Gina's comment is entirely reasonable, whereas your comment is non sequitor, since the two belief instantiations are not comparable and do not follow from similar premises. In other words: bad Tu Quoque, bad...

The Chicken

In any event, firing someone for dressing in drag is a prudential decision based on a number of factors. If the person were a telephone operator in a little closed room, then dress may not be such a factor and whether or not the person were sane or not, they would likely be relatively harmless, but in certain places, there may be appropriate community expectations as to dress and demeanor, such as on a football field, so if a linebacker wants to play in drag, I would fire him in a heartbeat.

Does that answer the question? I hope I did not sound sarcastic, above. I was trying to show why the two notions of sanity brought up by Sean and Gina were not in the same category.

The Chicken

I asked a clarificatory question, and Ms. McGrew responded with sarcasm.

No, I was completely serious, not sarcastic. You sound like a time-waster, Sean. Please, stop cluttering my thread with, "I'm just an innocent little liberal question-asker. Why won't anyone debate transgender issues with me world without end?"

Someone want to make a comment about Focus on the Family?

First, Ms. McGrew:
I was referring to your sarcastic response to my original question about Diane, which you marked as sarcastic yourself. And I wasn't actually interested in debating transgender issues per se, but rather what I take to be the more generally unstable nature of your position.

Chicken:
Thanks for the mature responses. I'm not defending my lashing out at Gina, though I do think her unjustified condescending tone does deserve to be pointed out. And I do recognize that belief in god and believing/feeling that you biological sex doesn't match your psychological gender (or however they phrase that...) are very different kinds of mental states. But, of course, we're going to disagree whether one or the other (or both) is a sign of some sort of irrationality, etc.

On focus on the family:
I think they might as well give up now and define "family" as loosely as possible. And then focus on that. Their money is better spent on sending shoes to Africa.

"Perhaps what you could say is that insofar as state's legal apparatus pertains, marriage is a contract."

Tony, that's all I'm saying. Folks should be, and are in the United States, free to voluntarily adopt other standards beyond the state's basic definition.

"Ok al. Is Obama truthful and do you trust him?"

No. Obama is a politician. Politicians lie, it's part of the job description - that's why I wrote "opinion leaders". In our elections we currently have a choice between the too often timid and cowardly with whom we have a chance of reasonably good policies and the deranged who would sink us. The former lie all too often, the latter lie almost all of the time about almost everything.

I have the admissibly quaint idea that there are things called facts and that ir would be nice if we used them as a basis for evaluating policy and actors (wait, wait, interrupts the lady in the back row, "what about First Principles? "Well" I reply, "either the facts confirm those principles, or we discover they are in error [see Copernicus].")

When Dobson writes, "...and universal health care legislation amounting to rationing and the denial of medical services for older Americans. The possibility of “death panels” looms before us. Five hundred billion dollars in Medicare funding are expected to be siphoned from the budget," his meaning is clear and putting "death panels" in quotes doesn't change anything.

If your point is that he is merely engaging in partisan hackery and "lie" is far too strong a term, well, OK. I'll definitely agree that he's being a partisan hack here (Dobson really cares about health care for old folks? Haven't seen the commentary on the Ryan plan to end Medicare yet - guess he's been busy.) but, in my book, arranging facts and opinions in a way that is designed to mislead is lying.

(Lydia, I keep coming back to "death panels" as it is the poster child for why we can't have rational and productive policy debates in this country. I'll make you a deal, repent of your former embrace of them and I'll let it go.

We never did get the full story on the Canadian pastor so we don't really know if the hospital's decision was justified. I am, of course, well aware of my fate if W4's one man death panel had his way.)

"I'm still waiting on where he lied. That doesn't make it a lie. "

Chris, if one writes, "stimulus package, which in the Obama era was funded by loans mostly from China of over a trillion dollars. It was then spent on a shameful array of pork and became a slush fund for those seeking re-election," and you are off by a couple hundred billion and most of that stimulus was tax cuts and transfer payments to individuals (unemployment insurance, medicaid, COBRA, food stamps, etc.) that kick in during a downturn and other state aid then stating that it consisted of "pork" and a "slush fund" is, again, a statement designed to mislead, not accurately inform, and that is a lie. Perhaps you should use this as an opportunity to reflect on your low standards.

"He and I disagree with you on what is waste and political payback."

We may or may not but that is besides the point. Politicians are going to take credit for things (recall the stories of Republicans who voted against the stimulus taking credit for projects in their districts) and a certain amount of waste is going to happen in any human venture. His statement is designed to mislead folks as to the nature of the stimulus and that is a lie.

"Also, he never said fraud."

He doesn't have to, "...It was then spent on a shameful array of pork and became a slush fund for those seeking re-election," is definitional for "fraud".

"Actually, if you don't have the money it's a bad thing. The government has to borrow and/or raise taxes to keep people on the payroll. And now, since the "stimulus" has run out, those jobs are gone anyways. State and local governments are starting to shed those jobs and we're more in debt anyways. That's a failure all the way around."

Governments should cut taxes and borrow in lean times while raising taxes and paying down debt in fat times. If your point is that the stimulus was too small and our politics poisonous to good policy and governance, I'll agree. We could have resolved the foreclosure problem and continued state aid (an infrastructure bank would be nice) but we didn't in large part because of folks and ideas supported by the likes of Dobson.

"Someone want to make a comment about Focus on the Family?"

Absent the poisonous doctor, FOF is just another non-profit whose purpose will work out to be self-perpetuation. This is an improvement over the evil done under its former leader but, beyond noting that life often isn't fair, doesn't leave much to be said.

It happens many times that some organizations are so dependent on one individual that things radically change when they leave. I have listened to FOF only very occasionally, but if things have changed, it would not be surprising. In this day of blogs and fine-scale reporting, it would seem that many more people can find out the truth without having to resort to clearinghouse programs. The literal amount of documentation freely available on-line is staggering. I could write a doctoral thesis in history using nothing more then information available, online (by the way, is it on-line or online?). Given this and the propensity for the skepticism of the young, there may be a time when such programs as FOF will no longer have a large audience, except among those too lazy to research the issues, themselves. This is one problem I have had with recent elections. Most of the time, one gets, "sound-bite" voters who will not rather than cannot, take the time to form rational and informed opinions on the issues. FOF is or used to be a legitimate point of view of a group of like-minded people led by a radio personality. Those times, I suspect, are coming to an end, not, however to be replaced by a golden age of investigation and reason, but by social sheep following due to even more pernicious mass communication methods than radio.

The Chicken

Al, I just googled "death panels" for W4. I didn't find a single instance in which I said that there are death panels in the United States nor that there are definitely going to be such. I find mostly your beating the drum talking about "lies" about "death panels." I find a debate between you and me about whether re-admission quotas constitute "new rationing" (in which I did not use the term "death panels" for such quotas but did deplore them as a form of micromanaging and medically questionable rationing). I find a place where I refer to people's being dehydrated to death in the U.S.--which most often takes place not by the judgement of a "panel" but by the judgment of a guardian, sometimes court-appointed--and you jump in and start banging on about how I allegedly "can't let go of death panels."

As for the Canadian pastor who _was_ dehydrated for many days, while he was capable of _taking nutrition and hydration by mouth_ by the order of a panel, your attempts to pretend that that might be justifiable are, quite simply, despicable.

The dehydrations-to-death that take place in the U.S. are wrong whether ordered by a single judge, a guardian, a family, or a "panel." In the U.S., such a panel would be most likely to be a bioethics committee at a hospital, though so far such hospital committees in the U.S. seem to be working on the ventilator angle while consolidating their power. As it happens, Al, these are issues I follow rather closely. Canada has death panels. The U.S. has murders by dehydration, mostly by non-panels. Both are very bad indeed. Eventually, by the love affair of the left with socialized medicine and the desire to emulate Canada, we may have more panel-driven deaths in non-ventilator circumstances, as we presently have in ventilator-circumstances. Choose your poison. Meanwhile, I'm not scoffing at people or calling them liars if they see this as a real possibility or even if they are a bit careless in referring to generalized rationing over whole socialized and semi-socialized systems as "death panels," though I myself prefer to reserve the term for panels that make life and death decisions about specific individuals, as in the case of the Canadian pastor.

If this constitutes an "embrace" of a "lie" in your view, big whoop-de-deal. Meanwhile, I think it's rather amusing that you talk of me as "embracing death panels" when, in fact, it is you who fail to make distinctions and who have an obsession with the phrase and with throwing around accusations of "lying."

Now, for the nonce, do bag it on this particular thread.

FOF is or used to be a legitimate point of view of a group of like-minded people led by a radio personality. Those times, I suspect, are coming to an end, not, however to be replaced by a golden age of investigation and reason, but by social sheep following due to even more pernicious mass communication methods than radio.

A very interesting prediction, MC. I take it then that you would predict greater homogenization over time in American opinion?

Disagree with Al's political talking points and you're stupid or a liar. At least I understand now.

I feel disenfranchised because I would personally rather be known as simply evil in that context. There's something so delightful about being seen as a devil by your opponents in such situations.

As for the Canadian pastor who _was_ dehydrated for many days, while he was capable of _taking nutrition and hydration by mouth_ by the order of a panel, your attempts to pretend that that might be justifiable are, quite simply, despicable.

Curious, isn't it, the morality that defends the killing of a peaceful old man who is a minor burden, but is horrified by a stronger culture raping and pillaging a weaker one that is fully incapable of exploiting the resources under its control?

@ The Chicken,

Your last post up there is an excellent analysis of FOF's relevance and the future of mass communication's effect on the culture. Attention spans are at their shortest ever in American history and that could sink us as a society.

I am happy to know that I share the same disability with The Chicken. I too would like to know if it is online or on-line?

Apologies Lydia if I conflated your general opposition to universal health care with acceptance of the DP meme. My bad.

As for theCanadian matter, long experience has made skeptical of any eyewitness testimony and more so in situations in which those witnesses have an emotional involvement. We just don't have enough information.

(it is aimed at young people and "focuses" on this unlikely trio of issues: sex trafficking, poverty, and the environment)

Unlikely? How utterly heartbreaking: to see someone who supposedly believes in loving the rest of the world as Jesus does, belittle such vital, current, important issues.

No, Lynne, it's the connection among them that is unlikely--i.e., they do not form anything like a "natural kind" grouping. This is particularly clear to those of us who are actually informed about how these things play out. As, for example, the fact that every time a Democrat enters the White House anti-trafficking efforts are gravely impeded by the deliberate funding and promotion of prostitution-legalization advocates and groups that cooperate with pimps and traffickers so as to give the slaves condoms--something you will learn from the nasty right but will not learn from the luv-n-hearts flower children on the left who, presumably, vote for the Democrat Presidents in order to fight "poverty" and improve "the environment."

What's sad is that I know exactly how the "Christian" left is going to respond. I can practically predict their response word for word. Something like this: "Well, isn't that just great? Now everybody identifies the word 'Christian' with being anti-women, anti-gay, and anti-choice. Aren't you religious right folks proud of yourselves? Humanitarian organizations don't even want to be associated with us anymore because of you. Wake up church."

The Elephant*

*(no relation to The Chicken)

Good point, ME (Masked Elephant). Very much like what happens in elections: If some social conservatives don't go along with some candidate and he loses to a Democrat, it's always, "Look what you did now! You helped elect a Democrat by not supporting [insert RINO's name here]." Such accusations _never_ go in the opposite direction. If a highly conservative candidate loses, no one asks the more liberal Republicans, "Why didn't you vote for him?" Instead, the conservative _candidate_ is then blamed for not pandering to the left.

Similarly here: Instead of blaming TOMS for not wanting to associate with Focus (as at least the linked article did do), the "Christian left" is likely to blame Focus for being unpopular with Mycoskie. Or, at a minimum, to think that we need to make those "slow strides" somewhat quicker in order to be accepted in the TOMS Club of Compassionate People.

Yes, well I actually drew some inspiration from the wishy-washy Christian response when Anne Rice "left the faith." Instead of saying, "Well, good riddance" after reading her comments about how she didn't want to be associated with "anti-____

Whoops, that's weird, it looks like the whole comment didn't go through. As I was saying...

Instead of saying, "Well, good riddance" after reading her comments about how she didn't want to be associated with "anti-____ (insert the usual list)" people, Christians were saying, "How tragic that we've created such a divisive and unwelcoming atmosphere in the church. Come back Annie, please... not ALL Christians are hateful and bigoted!" Gah.

The Elephant

Focus has a brand management issue because the new crew wants to disassociate itself from what Jim Dobson built. They are a bunch of clueless, contemporaneous buffoons thinking they could do that by running Dobson out the door AND keeping the same name! Wouldn't it be ironic if they had to call Dobson with a huge mea culpa "HELP US!" Not gonna happen but funny to think about...

Couldn't have said it better myself Arkady. Except remember that Dobson unfortunately did have a hand in picking Jim Daly, so it seems that his lapsed judgment is partly to blame here.

The Elephant