Vote for Obama? Give me one good reason.

I have never been a huge fan of Romney and wished Republicans had nominated someone else. But I intend to vote for him.

And the main reason is that Obama appears to have failed on every measure of being President of the United States. And I generally align with Romney on the issues.

So I ask any Obama supporters out there who might happen to read or stumble onto this blog: Can you give me any good reason -- any at all -- to give the guy another 4 years?

Now here are the rules:

• No trashing Romney. This is about Obama and his qualifications and successes and so forth. If you trash Romney, then it will serve as another reason to vote against Obama, because the only success you can mention is that he's good at making his rivals look bad, and that's not a good quality in a president.
• No blaming Bush. This is about Obama, not Bush. Yeah, Obama started his presidency under very difficult conditions, but after 4 years he has not appeared to overcome the difficulties he inherited.
• No blaming Congress. Yes, Congress has been pretty obstinate. But again, that only means Obama has appeared to fail to overcome partisan tendencies in Washington.
• Focus on Obama and his qualifications to continue his administration another 4 years.

I have questioned Obama's bioethical reasoning in numerous other posts, and feel personally insulted by him on some issues. I also watch our embassies burn across the Muslim world on the anniversary of 9/11 and have to wonder about the guy's foreign policy. His economic policies, insofar as they've been thwarted by the Republicans in the House, perhaps have not been given a chance, but their value is only theoretical. They do not sound very good to me, and sometimes "doing something" is not really better than "doing nothing," so I tend to side with the Republicans on this one. Perhaps things aren't even worse now because of those obstinate Republicans. I see GM heading for bankruptcy again as it sells Volts for half their manufacturing costs with taxpayer money keeping them afloat. I see our national debt skyrocketing and our credit rating plummeting. I see a future where our dollar becomes even more worthless than it is. I wondered the other day about whether we should stop minting pennies, and I figure we should probably stop minting nickels, too, and maybe we should just stop making coins altogether. The US Dollar: The new penny.

Anyway, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why on earth anyone supports the guy.

So tell me: What's a good reason to vote for Obama?

Abortion and the Bible

Here is the text of Exodus 21:22-25 in the King James Version, a passage long cited in the abortion debate -- and the debate has been around from the very beginning of the Church. (Italics by the way in the KJV are original.)

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Do you see anywhere in that text anything about the baby or the mother dying? I don’t. But some people do. RH Allen, author of a book called A Christian Looks to the Bible for Guidance on Abortion (which is free on iBooks), does. Here’s Allen’s exegesis of this passage in that book – and I want to emphasize that his book uses the KJV exactly as I have given it. I am adding emphases so you don’t miss any of his tricks:

The scripture directs that if the fetus is aborted as a result of the injury, the offending man must pay retribution as determined by the woman’s husband. 

However, if the woman herself dies, then the man must die (i.e., “give life for life”). Obviously, the Jewish Law treated the death of a fetus and the death of an actual living and breathing person differently. If the fetus had the same rights as the woman and was considered a separate life and entity of its own, the punishment for the fetus’ loss and the punishment for the loss of the woman’s life would have been the same. It wasn’t, so we see that - although a fetus was valued and important to the parents (i.e., its loss was required to be compensated by the harming party) - it was not given the same status as a person who was alive on his/her own, without the need for the mother’s body to provide it food, oxygen, and other important nutrients and growth-related products through the umbilical cord. 

The lesson we get from this, is that as long as the fetus is in the womb, it is not considered a viable entity on its own, and treated by God’s law as a living person. No matter how man tries to define the beginning of life, if his definition gives a fetus “life” or individual “rights” (reserved for those entities who are alive) before it’s exit from the womb then he is trying to rescind the principle we see clearly stated in God’s Law, as given to Israel in Ex 21:21-25 [sic]. 

OK, so according to RH Allen, we violate God’s Law by defending the life of the unborn. But where is it in God’s Law exactly? Because I don't see in Ex 21:22-25.

What I see in this passage is a woman who is struck such that she gives birth prematurely. And, if “no mischief follow” – that is, if no further harm is done – the person responsible is to pay a fine. Note that the “mischief” is not defined. It could be to the woman, or it could be to the baby, but it is not defined.

And “if any mischief” does follow – to the baby or the mother – the guilty party has to endure a just punishment. If “any mischief” in verse 23 pertained only to the death of the mother, why on earth would God’s Law prescribe “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” when “life for life” is the only possible punishment?

No, God’s Law states that causing a premature birth is a punishable offense, and causing any further injury to that – to either baby or mother – is punishable more severely. There is nothing in this passage to justify Allen’s conclusions. There is nothing in this passage to justify abortion or to prohibit limitations on abortion. Quite the contrary in fact.

Now it’s not all Allen’s fault. This passage has been misinterpreted ever since it was translated from Hebrew into Greek in the second or third centuries BC. The Greek of the Septuagint could be rendered into English much like this:

22  Now if two men fight and strike a pregnant woman and her child comes forth not fully formed, he shall be punished with a fine. According as the husband of the woman might impose, he shall pay with judicial assessment.
23  But if it is fully formed, he shall pay life for life,
24  eye for eye, etc. 

(You can find this rendering here: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/02-exod-nets.pdf)

Throughout the history of the Catholic Church, the issue of “formed” versus “unformed” was often debated, in parallel with the debate about when ensoulment occurred. But in both cases, the Church only saw the issue as pertaining to the seriousness of killing an unborn baby, depending on when in the pregnancy it occurs. However, The Church always considered abortion as a serious moral evil, and the relative aspects of “formed” versus “unformed” (or ensouled versus unensouled) pertained only to the severity of ecclesiastical penalties.

The real question is, what does the Hebrew say?  According to Stand to Reason, the English is best rendered thus:

22  And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that the child comes forth, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.

23  But if there is any injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,

24  eye for eye, etc.

So, let me ask: Is the nature of “injury” specified? Is the one who is injured? No, clearly not.

In other words, if the baby is born prematurely and everyone is alright otherwise, then there is a fine. But if there is any further injury – and it doesn't matter if it's to the baby or the mother or anyone else for that matter – then there is further and proportionate punishment.

Now this being an election year, you are surely going to hear pro-abortion politicians quoting St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas trying to justify the notion that the Church did not consider fetuses as complete people or something, just as Nancy Pelosi did, or as Joe Biden did (be sure to click Show More Text at the bottom of these msnbc.com transcripts to find the passages). (Man, Biden really rambled there, didn’t he? I mean, that paragraph is almost completely unintelligible.) But the Church has never taught what they claim, and the metaphysical debate that they refer to was settled centuries ago and not in a way that supports their views.

And so you are also likely to hear politicians quoting the Bible to say things much as RH Allen did. Now you know more than they do.

Speaking of RH Allen, the book I cited above has a little bio about him at the end, where he describes himself as having been "a youth leader, divorce recovery counselor, and Bible Study teacher for decades." Hmm.

Michelle Obama is gonna run for office!

Remember, you heard it hear first. Of course, I don't watch much TV so it's possible someone else has said this, too. But I do believe that Michelle is being groomed to run, probably for Senate like Hillary, and maybe even one day for President. Or maybe she'll start small and run for Mayor of Chicago.

Of course I'm no fan of her husband. And I'll never vote for her either.

But that doesn't mean she's not being groomed for future campaigns. We'll see.

I actually agree with Michelle Obama...about some things

Check out this radio interview with our First Lady.

I gotta hand it to her. She's a real campaigner. An evangelist, of sorts.

When she says that people who are complacent or undecided are knuckleheads and confused, I AGREE! Totally. In fact, given the state of the economy, I can't believe her husband's approval rating is as high as 43% and his disapproval rating is as low as 51%. We haven't had an official budget during this administration. Unemployment remains as high or higher than when he took office. The dirty campaigning. Accusing Romney of felonies, not paying taxes (what idiot would run for president and be wanted by the IRS? Geesh, it insults the intelligence), for a guy's wife's cancer. I could go on and on. But in this economy, if you are undecided about this presidential election, then yeah, Michelle Obama is right: You are a confused knucklehead. Well, at any rate, you shouldn't be undecided as to who should not be reelected.

And when she delineates what's at stake in this election, I AGREE!! But, I don't agree with who she feels are the ones who want to fundamentally fix our economy and who wants to write big checks. Yes, the stakes are high. I agree. And yes, for the thing she mentions, one candidate is horrible and the other not so much. But I don't agree with her as to which candidate is which.

I want to say that I'm not real happy with the choice of Romney. Never have been. But I will unhesitatingly vote for the guy considering who the alternative is. I mean, he's not the worst candidate the GOP has nominated in my voting lifetime. (McCain was worse.) I'm okay with voting for him. He's not ideal, but he's okay.

At any rate, I have mentioned Our Fearless Leader (remember Boris Badenov, the communist spy?) in the context of bioethical issues. And he comes up short on those things, too. If the economy were ok and he weren't a dangerous socialist, I would still oppose him for his bioethical reasoning.

This guy was an intolerant, hateful coward, too

I'm talking about the apparent perpetrator of the massacre at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin. The fellow's music and history speak for themselves. White supremacist, punk rocker with a penchant for violent lyrics and all manner of hatred. He was the prototypical target of hate laws.

What I've written the past few days was not advocacy of any position on recent events, except insofar as I distance myself from American liberalism in a general way. I am pointing out the tactics and the actions of a few, and not the positions of anyone. I happen to think the positions of the Sikh temple gunman are unconscionable and irreconcilable with the US constitution and a rational concept of justice.

But it is not only people who target those of non-white skin and non-white religion who can be perpetrators of hate crimes. The typical victims can resort to them, too.

Ethics is not about justifying what we want to do. We can "justify" using hate crimes against people who commit hate crimes against us, but that is not ethics. Ethics pertains to the rightness and wrongness of the action we propose to take. Having been a victim of a heinous act does not give us the right to commit the same heinous act in return. If the act is heinous, then it is heinous, and we shouldn't do it. Killing innocent people is wrong. If some of "us" innocent people get killed, as horrible as it is, it does not give us the right to kill innocent people who belong to "them." Ganging up on a harmless guy reading his Bible is wrong. Having been ganged up on while minding our own business does not give us the right to gang up on a harmless stranger. Vandalizing a building is wrong. Going into a house of worship and shooting people is wrong. Having a racial epithet painted onto my front door does not give me the right to vandalize someone else's property. Do the Wisconsin Sikh's now have a right to go to the perpetrator's church (if any) and kill the congregants? No. Of course not.

Justice is not about getting even. Justice is about doing the right thing by others, even when it is not what we want to do. The lex talonis ("eye for an eye") is misunderstood if it is understood to mean that "I" get to do to others what they do first to me. No. The point of the lex talonis is to prevent excessive retribution. If someone puts out my eye, I cannot have their head. Its purpose is not to ensure a perpetrator is adequately punished, but to prevent victims from exacting excessive punishment.

Justice too quickly becomes vengeance. Ethics too quickly becomes an exercise in coming up with a good excuse.

Justice thus depends on an unbiased forum for adjudication. Ethics depends on squelching anger self-interest, and thinking clearly and objectively about the intended action. Vandalism, bullying, massacres all have in common an attitude of taking vengeance, and for what one believes to be a good reason. But, they are neither just nor ethical.

Anyway, there are all manner of intolerant, hateful cowards in the world. They seem to be coming out of the woodwork these days.

Intolerant, Hateful Cowards

But they obviously consider themselves brave crusaders against hate and intolerance.

Check out the video here. If these are Chicago values, I'm glad I live 1000 miles away from Chicago.

This isn't about any position on the issue. It's about tactics. It's about what they do, not what they stand for.

Brave homosexuals harassing an innocent and helpless homeless guy whose big crime was to be reading a Bible at a Chick-Fil-A. They ganged up on him and berated him, lectured him, were such models of tolerance and justice and decency.

I challenge them to do the same thing there in Chicago -- but better yet, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iran -- but to target guys reading the Koran and berate them for their hate against homosexuals. I would call them brave then. I would call them consistent.

But as long as they continue to gang up like this on harmless individuals, I call them hypocrites. Cowardly, immature, hypocritical bullies.

You  know, but it's stuff like this that make me wonder about whether the gay rights movement is rooted in justice or something else. I'm thinking something else. If anyone wants me to think differently about the movement, well, talk to me when this sort of stuff stops.

(Update) ...because some people can only be victims and not perpetrators of hate

What idiotic hypocrisy.

Go and perpetrate a hate crime to protest against what you call a hate crime. Because it is so mature to engage in playground justice, to strike back against someone who wants to play tag when you want to go on the swings, and yell, "well, HE started it! HE hates me!" It's like the guy who bullied people about bullying. Playground justice.

And here's the thing. It seems that the people who painted that hate-filled, and hate-mongering, graffito feel that it is impossible for them to be anything but victims of hate. No matter how they act, they cannot possibly be perpetrators of hate. It goes against the definition of hate.

It seems to me that the people who yell loudest for tolerance really mean others must tolerate them, but they do not have to tolerate anyone.

(From the LA Times: "Denise Spencer, who visited the restaurant on Friday, said she was sad to see the vandalism and that it hurts the tolerance message that gay marriage proponents are pushing." Hmm. Maybe they're not really pushing a tolerance message after all, Ms Spencer.)

Those who yell loudest that it's wrong to impose your morality on others are the first to do it. And what they really mean is that it's wrong for you to tell them what is right and wrong, but they have every right to tell you what's right and wrong.

Those who most vehemently accuse others of being closed-minded are the most closed-minded of all, and what they really mean is that they resent you disagreeing with them.

And those who are most likely to accuse the owner of Chick-Fil-A of hate -- HATE!!!!! -- are the people most filled with hate directed at those who disagree with them. Look, all the guy said was that he believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that whatever else same-sex couples do, it isn't and can't be "marriage." Does that means he's filled with hate? -- HATE, I tell you, H-A-T-E!!!!!!!

No. It means he disagrees with people who feel otherwise.

And unless we live in a tyranny, he's perfectly entitled to it. So, is he entitled to it or not? Are people who disagree with him the only ones with the right to speak their mind?

But vandalism is a crime. What is the difference between what they did and spray painting a swastika on a Jewish person's front door, or burning a cross on a black person's front yard, or putting pig's heads on spikes at an Arab heritage event, or using ethnic slurs? It is both vandalism and a hate crime.

So nowadays, "hate" just means people that disagree with the contemporary liberal agenda. It's the only possible reason people could possibly disagree with the liberal agenda, by the way. Well, if you don't count profound ignorance and total stupidity. HATE.

I think they tip their hand.

And it's bedfellows like that, that have driven me away from the liberal end of politics. Seriously, I would be a help-the-poor, stand-up-for-the-little-guy kind of liberal. But I just don't like the tactics of the whiners the liberal party attracts.

And it isn't because I hate them or anyone else. Just the opposite, in fact. They're the haters.

And I know why. They are deprived of love. And I don't mean that in the 1960s, Beatles, what you do to a cute puppy kind of love. I mean CHARITY. But out of charity I must oppose their agenda and their tactics, just as I out of charity oppose my kids' tantrums, both the tantrum itself as well as whatever it is they're trying to get out of me. Charity does not let the recipient define the terms of what "love me" means, which is exactly what the tantrum is about. "I WANT THAT TOY!" Yeah, well, I love you, therefore you're not gonna get the toy and you are gonna get a time out, because doing otherwise will only encourage you to manipulate me and others, and that is not a good way to grow up.

Some people will not be manipulated. And that is when the tantrums start. The lashing out. The exhibitionist attempts at getting attention.

And the playground justice.

UPDATE: God bless Mr. Charlie Daniels. I used to play his music in a band when I was a kid. I met him in Nashville once. Here's what Mr. Daniels has to say about all this:

Muslims don't believe in same-sex marriage either, but have any of the stalwart mayors attacked any Muslims or Muslim businesses or told them they were not welcome in Chicago, Boston or San Francisco?

Like Mr. Daniels says, I don't give a hoot what your position is on the issue of same-sex marriage. I say, if you're a supporter and you like protesting at Chick-Fil-A, then I dare you -- I DOUBLE DARE YOU!!! (keeping with playground justice) -- go spray paint a mosque with something about how they are filled with hate because the Koran puts down homosexuality just like the Bible does. Go have a same-sex kiss-in in front of a mosque. Go dress up like Mohammed like has been done with the Pope and protest in front of the Egyptian embassy. It is hypocrisy to target Chick-Fil-A and let all the Muslim business go without equal attention. Of course, since I abhor the vandalism at Chick-Fil-A, I would equally abhor anything of the sort against a Muslim business.