The Principles of Pragmatism – An Oxymoron

We have heard our new President clearly outline the principles that will guide his decision making and how he plans to govern.

For example, President Obama told the American people that he was ordering higher ethical standards for lobbying. "If you are a lobbyist entering my administration," Obama said, "you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years." I applauded his principle.

But now that the campaign is over with victory in hand; now that the celebrations have died down, our President is showing his tendency to choose pragmatism over principle.

Case in point, President Obama quickly appointed William Lynn as deputy secretary of defense—despite the fact that, until very recently, he had been a lobbyist for Raytheon, one of the nation's biggest defense contractors, right up until the time he was appointed. What happened to the principle of a two year waiting period?

When the press challenged him on this, Obama said Lynn was uniquely qualified to do the job, so he issued a waiver. How was he uniquely qualified? He knew how the system worked.

Pragmatism trumped principle. Expedience overtook doing what is right. The end justifies the means.

President Obama used the same argument for his choice of Tim Geithner to be our Treasury Secretary. Geithner, as we all know, neglected to pay $35,000 in self-employment taxes for several years. Senator Robert Byrd—a member of Obama's own party—called Geithner's behavior "inexcusable negligence." Words, I'm sure, we would all hear from the IRS if we had failed to pay our taxes.

Again, pragmatism trumped principle.

The message Obama is sending to our kids is: "If you're smart, qualified, and know how to play the game, its okay to be unethical."

Let's be honest – character and principle don't matter in our society. You can be considered a good president and cheat on your wife. You can become head of the government's treasury and cheat on your taxes. You can get appointed to a Senate seat by an ousted governor whose middle name is synonymous with corruption. You can be a president who runs on the mantra of change, but can't stand up to your own party based on you own so-called principles. You can say what want and do something completely different – pragmatism over principle.

I am deeply concerned about the pragmatic path of our President – for pragmatism is a mere form of postmodern, humanistic relativism.

It is important that we continue to pray for the President, that he will uphold the principles that have made this nation strong.

Pro-What?

Kim and I recently rented and watched the movie, Bella. It's a wonderful and inspiring story. If you haven't seen the movie, I warn you this post may spoil the movie's plot.

In the movie, Nina, struggles with the decision to keep her child or not. It's interesting to me that pro-choice people argue that the film is pro-choice, and pro-life people argue that the film sends a pro-life message. She chooses life; therefore, the movie is pro-life. But pro-choice advocates say it was still her choice to keep or abort her child, so they say the movie is pro-choice.

Which is it? I believe the movie is clearly pro-life. Allow me to explain.

There are three options (choices) for a pregnant woman: keep the child; put the child up for adoption; or abort the child. The first two are pro-life decisions. The latter is a pro-abortion decision. Choice sits in the middle; it is the center point of the crossroad. Choice, in and of itself, means nothing. Everyone is pro-choice in that we make choices every day. However, we are not defined simply by the fact that we make choices – we are defined by the choices we make.

You can't be pro-choice just for choice's sake; it's WHAT you choose that makes the critical difference. You can't talk about the vague notion of "freedom of choice" until you define what the specific choices are. And for a pregnant woman, the only two choices are: does the child growing inside get to live or die?

Pro-abortionists like to disguise their stance by saying they are pro-choice. It sounds so innocent and free to be "in favor of all the choices" as if they are somehow neutral on the issue. But let's be honest – pro-choice is really about abortion. Pro-choice says it's okay to kill the unborn child. That, in my book, is being FOR (pro) abortion, and you can't be both pro-life and pro-abortion, because they are moral opposites.

Bella is rated PG-13 for thematic elements and brief disturbing images. Parents should see the film first to decide if it is appropriate for their child.

Design Demands a Mind

One of the coolest toys I had as a kid (if you call it a toy) was a Spirograph. You put an ink pen in a numbered point on a disk and rolled the disk inside or outside a ring to create all kinds of geometric figures. I would show-off my geometric "art" to mom or grandma saying "Look at the design I made" or "See what I created!"

Design… Made… Created…? Why did I use those words? Why didn't I say something like "Hey, I was randomly scribbling on this paper with my eyes closed and look what evolved? Anybody with half a brain would respond with a long "Right" while twirling their finger around their ear.

My point is that when we look at a pattern such as the one printed here, we automatically think of words like order, thought, purpose, design, artistic, architect, and creation. There's nothing about the pattern that suggests randomness. Yet, evolutionist would have us to believe that our physical world, which by the way is FAR MORE COMPLEX than a simple geometric design, all happened by chance – without purpose and without an architect/Creator. What kind of fool do they think I am?

Proverbs 18:2 says, "A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind." According to Scripture, it is the evolutionist who is the fool. They look past the evidence of intent, purpose, and design in our world, and have us put faith in the theory that this all happened by chance. Refusing to believe in God, the Creator, they refuse to enjoy (delight) in the wonder (understanding) of God's handiwork. Instead, they concoct senseless and Godless ideas in their own finite minds in a attempt to describe the miraculous beginning and workings of the universe.

Now, an Evo may state his case saying my brain evolved into a thinking, creating, grey matter, and thus I can create such a design. "Well, your honor, I present to you exhibit A – a snowflake." I wouldn't think a snowflake is very high in the chain of the so-called evolution process – it's frozen water crystals. I didn't create them, nor has any man, yet snowflakes come in incredible geometric shapes and designs. "Hey, look what God created! And He didn't even need a Spirograph."

Wind Energy is a Bunch of Hot Air

I am all for renewable energy and a clean earth. But let's not check our brains at the door.

Pres. Obama says he wants to double our renewable energy supply. Okay, I'm fine with that, but that's nothing new. Former Pres. Bush accomplished just that from 2005-2007. Amazingly, we didn't here about that in the press. So really what Pres. Obama wants to do is keep pace with Bush. Good for him.

Now, here's the reality check. According to the US Energy Information Administration, the total solar and wind output for 2008 produced about 1.1% of America's total electricity consumption. Doubling it won't make a dent in our energy supply.

You say, "Well, doubling it can't hurt." You would be right, but that's like saying opening lemonade stands on every corner and giving the money to Fedzilla will bring down the national debt. It's worthy...can't hurt...might make us all feel good..., but it would come close to solving our energy needs.

The truth is that wind and solar energy is an inadequate and unreliable source for our energy needs. The Institute of Energy Research reports that "typical statements about how a wind unit can produce enough electricity to serve a large number of homes are misleading" (www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/facts-on-energy-wind).

What's the solution? Nuclear power - it's mega-efficient, clean (even the waste can be reused), and get this - it costs less per kilowatt than all the others cost (wind, solar, coal, natural gas, and oil).

Note: You may have heard that wind power is more cost effective, but what you're not being told is that it can only match nuclear power efficiency when it is subsidized by the government.

Forget the lemonade...let's have some yellow cake!