Newt Schrute

February 16, 2012

This should be good for a laugh:

Who's your daddy, Dwight?

I think “Newt Schrute” has a nice ring to it.

Makes sense?Christians have been taking the brunt end of atheist’s mockery for too long, thinking that long-winded thoughtful arguments in defense of Christianity will somehow win the argument in today’s soundbite culture.

People today simply do not have the patience to hear out somewhat advanced arguments in response to juvenile, immature jeers.  People would rather laugh than think.  People would rather feel a certain way about something rather than think about it.

The New Atheism does not present true arguments.  It presents irrational, toddler-like hatred for authority disguised in the wording of academia.  New atheism creates caricatures of Christianity because of how unsophisticated in thinking New Atheists are.  The big words they use obscure this fact.

Rather than respond to the irrational with the rational, rather than respond to emotions with reason, Christians ought to respond in kind–not “kindly,” which is a code word for “be nice.”  After all, why would anyone respond to a child’s temper tantrum by trying to reason with the child?

There’s not enough sugar to coat this with to make it taste sweet:

Politicians generally know the importance of translating complicated policy into language that non-wonks can understand. When it comes to budget numbers, that can be challenging. Many Americans don’t know how many zeros are in a “trillion,” much less what a trillion deficit means in terms of the economy and its economic effects. In this poll question, for example, respondents were given five multiple-choice answers for the question “how many thousands are in a trillion” and just 21 percent answered correctly (barely more than you would expect if everyone guessed randomly).

The Gainesville Tea Party seems to have the right idea: They take some of our key economic numbers — how much money the U.S. government brings in, how much it spends, and how much brave politicians are “cutting” to bring those numbers into balance — and simply lop off eight zeros (i.e., divide by 100 million) to make those numbers something that American families can relate to:

Yeah, it's that bad.

Politicians aren’t taking this seriously because citizens aren’t taking this seriously.  Maybe making the debt “relatable” (whatever that means) to people might change that fact.


A: She’s an attention whore

February 10, 2012

Q:  “What is it about David Letterman that makes women want to take their clothes off?”

I debated whether or not to even answer this question.  After all, answering this question is the whole reason why Kathy Griffin decided to strip on national television a few weeks ago.  It’s purely a publicity stunt which got her in the news for a few days and got her trending in the search engines and Twitter.  Whorish behavior is pretty effective at gaining a camera audience these days.

This definitely wasn’t funny, either.

Policing the World

February 10, 2012

It’s interesting that people generally have good relationships with the grocer but not with the taxman.  Why is it some people are willing to give away 8% of their income each week to a pastor but feel stolen from when they see Social Security withheld from their paycheck?  The government seems to get such a bad rap with citizens when it throws its weight around.

But why is it citizens think people in other countries would react differently when the same government throws its weight around and affects non-citizens?  If you don’t like it when the government intrudes on your life and you are a citizen, why would you think a non-citizen enjoys your government’s intrusion in his life?  If it’s good enough for the goose, why is it not good enough for the gander?

And why wouldn’t it be better for a nation to cultivate mutually friendly relationships with other countries?  Like the type of relationship you have with a sales associate or a clerk.  Why flash force when there is no need?

From John Stossel:

It’s said that when goods don’t cross borders, armies will. There’s plenty of evidence to support that. A report funded by European governments says armed conflict in Muslim countries is far lower today than it was two decades ago. A reason? Trade.

Richard Cobden, a 19th-century British liberal statesman, said, “The progress of freedom depends more upon the maintenance of peace, the spread of commerce and the diffusion of education than upon the labors of Cabinets or foreign offices.”

I agree. American music and consumer goods did more to bring down the Berlin Wall than our military did.

Americans need to rethink foreign policy.  Warfare has changed too much to say having the most powerful military means anything.  It costs too much to maintain and the military-industrial complex will only demand more war to make more money.  And it just doesn’t make sense when you cast our national behavior in everyday terms.

Teddy Roosevelt never said, “Speak loudly while beating everyone with a big stick.”