Skip to main content

A Thought For Today

 Here's an idea: The GOP House and Senate will pass the "Land Of The Free Act", ostensibly to prevent foreigners and terrorists from having access to our ERs and things, by forcibly deporting all migrant Mexicans, no matter what. We'll trot out Boehner and McConnell to talk about how important it is. Smart, good people will say that it's going to be harmful, expensive, and at best, like dropping a nuclear bomb on an hill of fire-ants. The supporters will say, "Don't you care about keeping us safe?!" and Boehner will say,--after we've nearly forced it through both chambers at record speed--"We have to pass the bill to see what's in it." Also, a chemical tagging system we will use to track our targets, paid for by a new compulsory fee, has the unintended effect of killing spotted owls and other waterfowl. Numerous environmental, religious, and community groups protest, objecting to being compelled to participate. Boehner figures, "Well, there aren't that many people in those groups; who cares?" There will be a new system for tracking legal residents, too. Critics say that it will lump all immigrants together, and possibly be the end of immigration itself. In response, the president says memorably, "If you like your green card, you can keep your green card." However, the INS determines that the new costs make working with the old cards and honoring them unsustainable. Millions of legal residents are mistakenly deported, also. Leaders promise that it will work out eventually, and that everyone will love the law by then. Oh, and they botch the waiver system set up for groups whose mission it is to protect the birds. Most people realize it's not broad enough, and the government is sued on First Amendment grounds all over the place. The supporters shame the vast array of critics by repeatedly pointing out that the law was duly passed by Congress, and signed by the president. Besides, this is a huge problem, right? DON'T YOU CARE about freeloaders and killers destroying the lives of Americans?! Well, of course, say the critics, but this is draconian. If this scenario makes sense to you, and makes you angry, you'll have some idea about the opposition to the Affordable Care Act. But it's worse, because we're not killing waterfowl; we're killing people. I wouldn't kill birds, either. But I know I wouldn't force Greenpeace to help me do it, either.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...