Yesterday I bought a new iPhone, which makes me, well, mainstream. Whatever coolness factor that came with owning a “JesusPhone” wore off at least a year ago, and now it seems likes everyone has one. Except of course for the people who have a BlackBerry, or an Android phone, or a Palm Pre. Or that old lady down the street who’s still rocking her Motorola StarTAC.
So if I didn’t get an iPhone to be cool, then why did I get it? Well, first because I didn’t want to leave AT&T. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t particularly like AT&T. But my wife is on it, as are most of our friends and family, so it just makes sense. Plus, the rollover minutes provide an extra margin of error just in case we find someone who’s on a different carrier.
Second, the iPhone just meets my needs better than most other phones out there. That’s not to say BlackBerrys and the rest are bad, they’re just not what I’m looking for right now. I have a company-issued BlackBerry for work, and it’s great for email and messaging. But web-browsing on a BlackBerry isn’t as good, nor are apps for Facebook, Twitter, and the like. And at the end of the day, that’s what made the difference for me.
So, there you go. Another satisfied Apple fanboy-in-training (despite the impending “iPhoneocalypse“).
Yesterday I touched on the BCS in college football and whether its complicated system of bowl selection, which heavily favors six major conferences to the detriment of others, is fair. Of course it’s not. Meanwhile, this question of fairness is at the core of another more serious debate going on right now, that of health care reform.
President Obama and congressional Democrats are pushing hard to pass a massive overhaul of this nation’s health care system, instituting a government-run universal health care program that would provide medical coverage for every American. Proponents of the program criticize the high cost of private insurance and medical care and point out the millions of Americans who can’t afford it. And in fact, Texas has the highest rate of uninsured citizens in the country (about 25% of Texans have no insurance, including 40.5% of Hispanics). They argue that providing a government-backed program in addition to private plans is the only way to keep people from falling through the cracks.
Sounds fair, right? And fair is good, isn’t it? Well, no.
Here’s the problem with fairness: Fair is never really fair. In order to put everyone on an equal footing, you have to take from one group to give to the other. That means penalizing those who excel, those who have put forth the most effort, those who often have made the biggest sacrifices and taken the biggest risks, and rewarding those who have done the least. It sends the message that achievement will be punished while apathy will be praised. That’s hardly the spirit of innovation that built this nation, and it’s not the kind of attitude that will continue propelling it forward through the 21st century.
In complaining about the Mountain West Conference’s playoff proposal, Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe said that moving to such a system would be “communistic”, requiring conferences like the Big 12 who “produce more in the marketplace” to give up some of that production to others who don’t produce. That production, of course, is money. Why should the Big 12 or the SEC or the Pac-10 give up highly lucrative television contracts and major bowl bids to less-popular conferences like the Mountain West or Conference USA?
By the same token, why should Americans who work hard to pay for private health insurance and consequently enjoy a certain amount of freedom when choosing their doctors and level of care have to pay more in taxes and give up those freedoms in order to provide coverage for others? How exactly is that fair?
Fairness, at least as it’s defined by Liberals, is not a matter of elevating those on the bottom to the same level as those on the top; it’s about bringing the ones on top down to the level of those on the bottom. We see that in tax reform (”soaking the rich” to help the poor), education (No Child Left Behind, which makes it harder for top students to excel), and cap-and-trade (which penalizes businesses and individuals for consuming energy while giving the poorest citizens another government handout to pay their electric bills). And we see it in the Democrats’ universal health care plan.
Does opposing universal health care mean I don’t care about uninsured Americans? Of course not. I think we can all agree that there’s plenty of room for improvement within the current system. But don’t pretend for one moment that “ObamaCare” is about fairness, because it’s not fair at all.
Listen, I’m a father of two young girls, and fairness is a big point of contention with them. If one gets slightly more than the other or even just something different, there are plenty of protests. But by taking something away from one girl to give to the other — especially something she worked for and paid for herself — what kind of lesson am I teaching them? Certainly not a good one. Instead, they’re learning to work hard for what they want without fear of penalty for their success.
I just wish Democrats in Washington could learn the same thing.
Did Karl Marx, the Father of Socialism, invent college football’s Bowl Championship Series (aka the BCS)? Or would he have approved of a “communistic” playoff system?
That appears to be the big question in college football (and even on Capitol Hill) these days.
First, during a hearing in May by the House Energy and Commerce Committee (because apparently they have nothing better to do), Congressman Joe Barton compared the BCS, which decides bowl placement based on several computer algorithms and human polls, to communism:
“It is interesting that people of good will — I think everybody on whatever side of the issue is a person of good will — keeps trying to tinker with the current system.”
“It’s like communism, you can’t fix it.”
But Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe disagrees, arguing that allowing lesser conferences to face off against “more productive” ones (i.e. the Big 12) in a playoff system is really the Soviet-approved option:
“My memory of when I studied history and Karl Marx was that a major tenet of communism involved taking from each according to their ability and giving to each according to their need,” Beebe said.
“It’s ironic we’re being labeled as communists when what was actually being asked of us was to be more communistic, taking from those of us who produce more in the marketplace and giving to those who don’t produce in the marketplace.”
Beebe may not have all his terms right, but his argument reveals exactly why he’s so adamantly opposed to playoffs.
Far from being the model of Marxism, the BCS really more closely resembles an oligopoly, an economic condition in which a small number of sellers control the market and consequently have the power to artificially manipulate supply. In this case those small number of sellers include the six conferences with an automatic bowl bid: the ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-10, and SEC. Teams from other conferences can and do make it to BCS bowls, but the spots are limited and there’s no guarantee. Instead, the BCS is designed to reward teams from the six participating conferences, even if teams from other conferences are ranked higher.
Is that fair? No. Is it meant to be? No.
Just like OPEC and other oligopolies, the BCS is designed to protect the interests of its members at the expense of other potential sellers (or conferences). One of the reasons why conferences like the Mountain West are “less productive” is because they don’t get the same kind of national exposure that BCS conferences get. They don’t get the same television contracts, they don’t get the same licensing deals, and they don’t get the same bowl invitations, even when the BCS’s own ranking system says they should.
So does that mean we should force the BCS into total equality or replace it altogether with a playoff system? That would be ideal, but it’s clearly not going to happen. At least not without a revolution.
When comparing Texas and California, this cartoon from The Economist tells you everything you need to know:
Never mind the Economist’s statement that they are the “nation’s two biggest states” (I think Alaska might have something to say about that) or that the Dallas-Fort Worth area is made up of “flat, ugly countryside” (OK, that might not be too far off). The fact remains that CAHL-EE-FOR-NEE-A is old and busted, while the Lone Star State is the new hotness.
These days California’s unemployment rate is running at 11.5%, two points ahead of the national average. In such Californian cities as Fresno, Merced and El Centro, jobless rates are higher than in Detroit. Its roads and schools are crumbling. Every year, over 100,000 more Americans leave the state than enter it.
The second worry has to do with dysfunctional government. No state has quite so many overlapping systems of accountability or such a gerrymandered legislature. Ballot initiatives, the crack cocaine of democracy, have left only around a quarter of its budget within the power of its representative politicians. (One reason budget cuts are inevitable is that voters rejected tax increases in a package of ballot measures in May.) Not that Californian government comes cheap: it has the second-highest top level of state income tax in America (after Hawaii, of all places). Indeed, high taxes, coupled with intrusive regulation of business and greenery taken to silly extremes, have gradually strangled what was once America’s most dynamic state economy. Chief Executive magazine, to take just one example, has ranked California the very worst state to do business in for each of the past four years.
By contrast, Texas was the best state in that poll. It has coped well with the recession, with an unemployment rate two points below the national average and one of the lowest rates of housing repossession. In part this is because Texan banks, hard hit in the last property bust, did not overexpand this time. But as our special report this week explains, Texas also clearly offers a different model, based on small government. It has no state capital-gains or income tax, and a business-friendly and immigrant-tolerant attitude. It is home to more Fortune 500 companies than any other state—64 compared with California’s 51 and New York’s 56.
(Emphasis mine.)
The article goes on to point out Texas’ weaknesses (education, immigration) and says that we can learn a lot from the “inventive” Golden State. Sounds like the only thing they’ve “invented”, however, is big government with excessive taxation and regulation. Thanks, but no thanks. I think I’ll stick with the state where the inventions come from the private sector.
There’s been a lot of talk on the Interwebs lately about the “controversial” new album from Christian musician Derek Webb, Stockholm Syndrome. The controversy seems to be primarily over one particular song on the album, “What Matters More”, due to the song’s use of the word “shit”.
I don’t really do music reviews, but after listening to the album for several days, I did want to weigh in with a few thoughts on it.
First, lyrics aside, let me make a comment about the music. I would describe the style as experimental, synth-heavy electronica with moments of dissonance and incongruity. (See, this is why I don’t do music reviews.) Some have compared it to Wilco and Radiohead, which is probably a fair comparison. Sometimes the music works (”Black Eye”, “What You Give Up To Get It”) and sometimes it severely gets in the way (”The State”, “American Flag Umbrella”).
But the music is a key component to understanding the deeper message of the album. Dissonance in music is meant to create tension, to make the listener intentionally uncomfortable, and it frequently does so here. This isn’t a feel-good album that you would likely queue up on your iPod while cruising around town on a lazy Saturday afternoon. Instead, it’s an often heavy, sometimes depressing manifesto with serious themes and a specific purpose.
The tension created by the music serves as a natural backdrop for those themes. Stockholm syndrome is a condition in which a hostage develops an emotional attachment to his captor. In such a situation, you would expect to find conflict and resistance, but instead you find loyalty. In the same way, Webb argues, we as Christians have “married our conscience to the State”.
Typical for Webb (a Libertarian), most of the songs on Stockholm Syndrome have political undertones (or overtones) and/or address controversial social issues in the Church such as homosexuality. And “What Matters More”, while getting most of the attention, isn’t the only song to push the envelope lyrically. “Freddie, Please”, a song about a deceased homosexual watching his own funeral, uses the word “queer”, and a few other songs mention sex and drinking. Suffice it to say, while some of that has to be taken its proper context, this isn’t an album I would listen to in the car with my two young daughters.
But of course this album isn’t really targeted at kids, it’s aimed at adult Christian believers. Just as the music invokes tension and discord, the lyrics are deliberately designed to be raw, uncomfortable, and controversial. They’re meant to provoke a response — even if it’s a negative one — and to an extent, that strategy appears to be working. Webb’s record label, INO Records, will only release an edited version of the album (minus the “s” word), and their stance has naturally generated a lot of buzz and curiosity, driving sales of the original version on Webb’s website.
As for “What Matters More”, the song is pretty much a musical adaptation of the quote from Tony Campolo: “50,000 people around the world died of hunger today. That’s bad, but what’s worse is that most of us don’t give a damn. But what’s even worse is that for many of us, it is more bothersome that I just said the word ‘damn’ than that I said 50,000 children of God died of hunger.” If you agree with Campolo’s argument, you’ll probably agree with Webb’s song. But personally, I’ve always thought such an argument was extremely arrogant, as if to say Christians don’t have the ability to condemn sinful behavior as long as there are starving people in the world.
In “What Matters More”, Webb slams Christians who disagree with homosexuality for the same reason:
Say you always treat people like you’d like to be
I guess you love being hated for your sexuality
You love when people put words in your mouth
‘Bout what you believe, make you sound like a freak
‘Cause if you really believe what you say you believe
You wouldn’t be so damn reckless with the words you speak
Wouldn’t silently consent when the liars speak
Denyin’ all the dyin’ of the remedy
Tell me, brother, what matters more to you? Huh?
Tell me, sister, what matters more to you? Huh?
If I can tell what’s in your heart by what comes out of your mouth
Then it sure looks to me like being straight is all it’s about
Yeah it looks like being hated for all the wrong things
Like chasin’ the wind while the pendulum swings
‘Cause we can talk and debate until we’re blue in the face
About the language and tradition that He’s comin’ to save
Meanwhile we sit just like we don’t give a shit
About 50,000 people who are dyin’ today
Tell me, brother, what matters more to you? Huh?
Tell me, sister, what matters more to you?
Brother, what matters more to you? Huh?
Tell me, sister, what matters more to you?
Tell me, what matters more to you? Huh?
Tell me, brother, what matters more to you?
This isn’t the first time Webb has caused controversy with his music (see here and here), and he knows exactly what he’s doing. There was no way the label was ever going to release the album as-is, which is exactly his point. (For the record, I think the controversy over a couple of cuss words is way overblown.) That said, if his goal is to offend and alienate a portion of his audience so that he can appear to take the moral high ground, then that’s not constructive, it’s conceited.
After listening to the album multiple times, I can certainly appreciate the artistic vision of it. Not all art is happy and pretty, and neither is Stockholm Syndrome. It’s a difficult album to digest, and if nothing else, it’s at least prompted a number of discussions about issues that need to be discussed within the Church. Nevertheless, while I understand the message Webb is sending with his latest effort, I can’t say that I fully agree with it.
On Monday, Senator Kay Baily Hutchison officially announced that she will be officially announcing her intent to someday run for governor of Texas. Or something like that.
I was surprised as anyone. I thought she had been already been running for governor for months. I’m so used to her not doing anything substantive as a senator, I just figured she was taking the same approach to her gubernatorial campaign.
But running she is, and she’s already raised $6.7 million. Combined with the $6 million she had leftover from her Senate run, that puts her ahead of incumbent Rick Perry, at least financially.
And so far campaign finances are the only thing the two candidates seem to care about. Hutchison accused Perry of raising funds while the state legislature was still in session (a no-no), and Perry’s staff replied that she is a “liar, liar, pants on fire” (to paraphrase).
If this is any indication of how the rest of the primary season is going to play out, then I’m not interested. At least Carole Keeton “One Tough Grandma” Strayhorn was good for a few chuckles now and then.
Just thought this was interesting, considering I’ve discussed (and quoted) author Donald Miller a few times and recently blogged about Robert McNamara. Seems Miller had a a few words to say on his blog about the former Secretary of Defense as well.
Yesterday, Robert S. McNamara passed away. MacNamara was President of Ford Motor Company before going to work at the Department of Defense. He was instrumental in the bombing of Japan in World War II, and is often called the architect of the war in Vietnam. But toward the end of his life, MacNamara began to reconsider his actions. He even wrote a book confessing what he felt were his wrongs. He left the Johnson administration and ran the World Bank, some believe, to make up for the many lives lost under his command.
I don’t have a strong opinion about the war in Vietnam. War is messy, and I tend to believe we had good reason to be there, though it certainly didn’t turn out the way we would have hoped. But hindsight is twenty-twenty. I am more interested in MacNamara, though. I am more interested in a man with a distinguished career suddenly coming out and admitting he was wrong. It is so rarely seen by a government leader.
Like many of those who commented on Miller’s blog, I don’t know that I can buy the theory that McNamara’s move to the World Bank was a way to make up for his role in the Vietnam War. Not that he wasn’t remorseful for his actions — I have no way of knowing that — but I tend to agree more with John Perkins’ assessment of him as an economic imperialist rather than reformed benefactor. Maybe that’s the pessimist in me, or maybe I’m just disillusioned.
The AP is reporting that Knut, Germany’s once-famous “beloved” polar bear, is able to stay at home in the Berlin Zoo after the zoo paid out a $600,000 settlement over an ownership dispute.
Beloved? Since when?
Last time the now-brownish bear was in the news, zoologists had labeled him a “psychopath”, and he was being kicked out of the zoo because he was no longer earning his keep.
So does that mean he’s completed some court-mandated polar bear rehab, or have the Berlin Zoo’s ticket sales just picked up since his eviction notice?
Who knows. But it wouldn’t be the first time a renewed marketability has transformed a has-been freak of nature into revered legend. (*cough* Michael Jackson *cough*)
In a blog post a couple of days ago about Honduras, I mentioned a book by John Perkins called Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Coincidentally, that same day it was announced that Robert McNamara, the former defense secretary in the Kennedy administration and a key figure in the book, had died. It’s funny to think how McNamara is related to the events unfolding in Honduras, as well as the ongoing protests in Iran.
Confessions centers around Perkins’ career as an “economic hit man” in the ’70s and ’80s, a position whereby governments in underdeveloped nations were made to accept massive loans from organizations such as the World Bank for infrastructure improvements and other public service projects. Once in debt, those nations would then be willing to accept contracts with American companies, who would exploit the countries’ natural resources for their own gain. Such nations would also become politically indebted to the U.S., thus furthering American political influence around the world during the Cold War.
Robert McNamara is remembered by most for his contributions to the Vietnam War, but according to the book, he played a major role in this expansion of the U.S. “corporatocracy” as well:
McNamara was a frequent visitor to our discussion groups — in absentia, of course. We all knew about his meteoric rise to fame, from manager of planning and financial analysis at Fort Motor Company in 1949 to Ford’s president in 1960, the first company head selected from outside the Ford family. Shortly after that, Kennedy appointed him secretary of defense. …
As we sat around the table discussing world events, we were especially fascinated by McNamara’s role as president of the World Bank, a job he accepted soon after leaving his post as secretary of defense. Most of my friends focused on the fact that he symbolized what was popularly known as the military-industrial complex. He had held the top position in a major corporation, in a government cabinet, and now at the most powerful bank in the world. Such an apparent breach in the separation of powers horrified many of them; I may have been the only one among us who was not in the least surprised.
I see now that Robert McNamara’s greatest and most sinister contribution to history was to jockey the World Bank into becoming an agent of global empire on a scale never before witnessed.
As Perkins points out, this process of economic empire-building began in 1953, when the U.S. organized a coup to oust Iran’s prime minister and replace him with the Western-friendly Shah. In 1979 the Shah’s reign ended with the Iranian Revolution and the appointment of the anti-American Ayatollah Kohmeini. Today the massive “Green Revolution” protests in Tehran and the growing threat of Iranian nuclear weapons are direct descendants of those earlier events.
The current crisis in Honduras is also at least indirectly related to the empire-building described in Confessions. American foreign policy relating to Central and South America during the Cold War was driven by the desire to not only extend our economic influence over the region but also our political influence, a clear extension of the Monroe Doctrine. As such, Marxist revolutions such as the ones in Cuba, Nicaragua, and El Salvador became direct threats to the U.S. and our economic interests. If ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya had gotten his way, he likely would’ve led that nation down the same anti-American path as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.
In my earlier blog post, I quoted Roger Noriega, the former assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, in his argument for removing Zelaya. Such a position, it could be argued, stems from a vision of Latin America eerily reminiscent of the corporatocracy described by Perkins.
In a February 2006 report entitled “Two Visions of Energy in the Americas,” Noriega warns Latin American and Caribbean countries against going down the path of energy outlaws who violate the laws of the free market—pointing to Venezuela and Bolivia. In his essay, Noriega advocates that corporations and governments “can and should work together to foster genuine growth and development in the hemisphere that serves both the bottom line and the moral imperative of helping raise millions out of poverty through the sound stewardship of natural resources.” …
What is more, Noriega encourages “Western energy companies” to “use their capital and technical expertise as levers to encourage countries in Latin America and the Caribbean to adopt clear and fair policies that make investments safe and sound.” Noriega rightly notes that there is political sentiment in Latin America and the Caribbean that represents a “setback for market principles” and constitutes a “vision of energy in the Americas” that may run counter to the expectations and interests of the United States and U.S. energy corporations.
Another example of Robert McNamara’s legacy as it relates to Iran and Honduras is the Iran-Contra scandal which became public in 1986. Through complex covert operations, the U.S. sold arms to anti-Khomeini forces in Iran and then used the money from those sales to fund anti-Sandinista forces in Nicaragua, with Honduras serving as a base of operations for the CIA.
My point is, these various events occurring around the world today are not isolated events. History doesn’t exist in a bubble. The consequences of decades-old decisions are still feeling felt today, just as today’s decisions will have consequences for decades more to come. While I don’t think we should necessarily continue the Cold War-era empire-building described in John Perkins’ book, I don’t think it’s wise to fully retreat from those policies either, as the results of kowtowing to despots like Chavez, Kim Jong-Il, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be disastrous.
Instead, I agree with George Santayana: “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
In 1823 President James Monroe established a policy which came to be known as the Monroe Doctrine. The doctrine stated that efforts by European governments to colonize land or interfere with states in North, Central, or South America would be viewed by the U.S. as an act of aggression. The policy effectively marked the entire western hemisphere as being under the protection and influence of the United States, and revolutions like the one in Cuba in the 1950s were seen as a direct threat to the U.S.
The Monroe Doctrine drove much of America’s foreign policy in Latin America through the 20th Century, but that may be coming to an end, if President Obama’s stance on the recent upheaval in Honduras is any indication.
Obama should have welcomed the removal of Zelaya from Honduras. Zelaya had recently sided with the Iranian ayatollahs in their suppression of a democratic election: no wonder he demanded readmission to Honduras in the name of God. His illegal attempt to defy the constitution through a plebiscite his supporters were tooled-up to rig was condemned by the Honduran Congress, the Supreme Court, the Attorney General and the chief Electoral Tribunal. …
But Obama has a soft spot for socialists, hence his insane cosying-up to the Bolivarian fruitcakes. He has invented a brand new kind of foreign policy: supporting regimes that are violently anti-American. Call it neo-masochism. Obama has reversed the Monroe Doctrine as well as the definition of “democracy”. In supporting the megalomaniac dictators who are trying to drag Latin America into the year 1917, he is mouthing the same claptrap as Miguel D’Escoto Brockman, president of the UN General Assembly and former lieutenant of Ortega in the Sandinista dictatorship, and Miguel Insulza, Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS) and Fidel Castro’s champion.
It remains to be seen how the crisis in Honduras will play out or what the repercussions will be for that nation and throughout Latin America. But whatever the outcome, Obama’s lack of support for the Honduran government is alarming, and coupled with his equally flaccid stance against nations like Iran and North Korea, the position of the U.S. has been significantly weakened, not just in the western hemisphere but worldwide.
On June 28, the President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, was seized by that country’s military on the orders of the Honduran Congress. Upon being escorted out of the country, he was replaced by the head of the Congress, Roberto Micheletti, who was named interim president until the scheduled election in November.
Zelaya’s removal from office was prompted by his pushing of a referendum which would’ve allowed him to serve a second term in office, something not allowed under Honduras’s constitution. Supporters of the coup argue they were only siding with the rule of law. But the international community, including the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Obama administration, have sided with Zelaya, ordering that he be restored to power.
Who’s right?
Roger Noriega, a former assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs during the George W. Bush administration, argues that the Honduran government acted correctly in removing Zelaya, a “capricious blowhard” whose friends include Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Raul Castro.
Zelaya’s self-serving lawlessness was ignored completely by OAS leadership and, as far as one can tell, by every government in the region that now dares to pass judgment on Honduras’ constitutional order. The feckless regional diplomats who have failed to confront undemocratic caudillos in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Honduras are complicit in their abuses. Today, they have neither the credibility nor moral authority to pass judgment on those desperate patriots who act to defend their freedom, in Honduras or anywhere else.
Noriega’s position shouldn’t come as a surprise. He is an ardent supporter of free market oil and energy investments in Latin America by American companies, a vision of a U.S.-backed “corporatocracy” that reads straight out of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Such a vision requires fairly weak but stable Central and South American governments who are friendly to the United States, exactly the opposite of those led by Chavez and Castro. By backing Zelaya’s attempt at extending his power beyond constitutional limits, U.S. corporate interests in Honduras could be greatly damaged.
Corporate interests aside, however, the reality is that the Honduran Congress and military acted within constitutional guidelines by removing Zelaya, an act also backed by that nation’s Supreme Court. Therefore, the call to return Zelaya to power makes absolutely no sense.
Imagine if this had happened in the United States. Imagine if George W. Bush had tried to push through a referendum that would’ve allowed him to serve unlimited presidential terms, something disallowed by the 22nd Amendment. Had he then been impeached and ultimately removed from office, would the international community still expect him to be returned to the Oval Office until his term expired? Of course not! So why is it demanding that of Zelaya?
President Obama called the removal of Zelaya a step backward from the “enormous progress of the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions in Latin America.” Yet it was actually the democratically-elected Congress that was following the constitution, not Zelaya. If Obama really believed in upholding Latin America’s “democratic traditions”, then he would be siding with the Honduran Congress, not with the likes of Hugo Chavez.
As the Wall Street Journal points out, supporting Zelaya is “one more act of appeasement toward an ambitious and increasingly dangerous dictator.” At some point, that appeasement must end. It may be too late for Venezuela and Cuba, but it’s not too late for Honduras.
Update: This editorial explains that while removing Zelaya wasn’t the government’s only choice, it was by far the best one:
The Honduran institutions had only three options. The first was do nothing and let things follow their course leading to an irreversible situation of an established regime administered in perpetuity by Chavez and Zelaya. The second was to try to get rid of the president for willingly, which would have allowed sufficient time Zelaya to request support for the Venezuelan military, making Honduras the scene of a bloody war. They opted for the third option, an unexpected and bloodless military coup to prevent Zelaya to consummate his plans to remain in power.
Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. … Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.
Referring to Christmas as "winter" in N. Texas is pretty funny, though. Everyone knows we have 2 seasons: summer and that one day it's icy. [tindogcoffee]
"Christmas" not allowed at Chisholm Trail Intermediate School in Keller http://bit.ly/88uBj. It's "winter" instead. Hurray for copyrights. [tindogcoffee]
Hasan to be charged with premeditated murder http://bit.ly/40uZ9u, completely ignoring that he's a radical Islamic terrorist and a traitor. [tindogcoffee]
Yesterday I bought a new iPhone, which makes me, well, mainstream. Whatever coolness factor that came with owning a “JesusPhone” wore off at least a year ago, and now it seems likes everyone has one. Except of course for the people who have a BlackBerry, or an Android phone, or a Palm Pre. Or that old lady down the street who’s still rocking her Motorola StarTAC.
Did Karl Marx, the Father of Socialism, invent college football’s Bowl Championship Series (aka the BCS)? Or would he have approved of a “communistic” playoff system?
There’s been a lot of talk on the Interwebs lately about the “controversial” new album from Christian musician Derek Webb, 
In a 
As Perkins points out, this process of economic empire-building began in 1953, when the U.S. organized a coup to oust Iran’s prime minister and replace him with the Western-friendly Shah. In 1979 the Shah’s reign ended with the Iranian Revolution and the appointment of the anti-American Ayatollah Kohmeini. Today the massive “