Metallic Pea

Frustrating People Since 1971.

You Be the Judge

with 3 comments

 ‘Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.’  ~ Psalm 51:5

  • I am certain that it is due in no small part to my adherence to the Reformed Christian faith, but my initial response to the question, ‘Why don’t toddlers do what they’re told?’ is to answer (quickly): Because they’re sinners. An interesting new study seems to offer some insights into the mechanics of the Fall in our children.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Jimmy Carter may have been a horrible President but his commitment to peace is admirable, unassailable, and rare in a chief executive. He is one of the few Presidents to actually employ peace and negotiation as the primary option rather than the currently popular policy that holds war as the presupposition of foreign policy. Now he has really angered the court historians by recognising Abraham Lincoln for exactly what he was: an un-Christian warmonger.

 

 

Can I Get An A-M-E-N?! 

    

 

 

 

The US government just won’t allow the correction the economy needs.” [Ron Paul] cites the mini-depression of 1921, which lasted just a year largely because insolvent companies were allowed to fail. “No one remembers that one. They’ll remember this one, because it will last 15 years.”

 

Ron Paul speaks the truth to power:

     

 

 

 

  • This video is emblematic of why professional sports—actually, the athletes therein—can make my skin crawl. (Sadly, this sort of behaviour has infected athletics at all levels.)

 

 

 

To-day’s 1980’s Moment is brought to you by: The Kinks: 

   

 

    

Advertisements

Written by ninepoundhammer

March 26, 2009 at 2:00 am

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Jimmy Carter???? Really? You’re going to get on my case for speaking positively about Hamilton and then reference Jimmy Carter (albeit with a disclaimer)? His “commitment to peace” hardly seems unassailable to me. When I heard him interviewed for his book “Peace Not Apartheid,” I thought that he sounded both arrogant and ignorant. That’s not because I’m a Muslim-hating warmonger, as you know. It was simply the way he presented himself and his case. I think that what he has done over the last few years in his criticizing of administrative foreign policy has been very easy and does not deserve any kind of positive evaluation.

    But that’s just me 😉 And maybe I’m just biased because I’m a centralizing oligarchical monarchist like my idol. Ha.

    Trey

    March 26, 2009 at 8:43 am

  2. @Trey: I don’t disagree with your assessment of Carter in the aggregate. Believe me, there is plenty about the man to criticise. I don’t agree with his methods nor (as you mentioned) his sense of arrogance. And to be sure, his sniping at his successors is unbecoming and unpresidential, to say the least.
    However, his ‘commitment’ to peace is what I was addressing, rather than his ‘effectiveness’ or attitude. Then again, what is it they say about the Road to Hell?

    I’m still going to have to disagree with you wholeheartedly a la Hamilton. But I respect your opinion, even if I disagree with it.

    ninepoundhammer

    March 26, 2009 at 8:54 am

  3. Well, my point was that his attitude in presenting his commitment to peace betrayed more opportunism than a true commitment. Therefore, it seems to me that he is really not as commited to peace as he is to being seen as the man who is committed to peace.

    Thanks for respecting my opinion regarding Hamilton. Ha. The way I see it is that in his historical context, the legitimacy of law was largely (though not completely) derived from the throne and mob rule was a genuine possibility that was (and is) very frightening. To guard against that idea, writers such as Hobbes advocated a very strong authoritarian figure–though we can disagree with that position at this point fairly easily based upon what has occurred over the past two hundred years, I don’t see Hamilton’s monarchial tendencies as essentially problematic.

    To me, he is more of a moderate because he resisted the idea of a populist model (advocated by men such a Jefferson at the time who was a huge fan of the French Revolution) but was still central in the shaping of a democratic republic.

    Finally, David Brooks, the author of that article considers himself a moderate and views himself in the vein of Hamilton’s “small but energetic argument.” Thus, my equating of the two in that particular post.

    Trey

    March 26, 2009 at 10:21 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: