Number Fifty-One

Tealiberasophoterianistic Perspectives

Archive for June 2011

On Democracy and Endorsements

with 13 comments

By Alex Couch
 
My decicion on who I should endorsement for president is a hard one for a few reasons. First, I do not believe in popular elections for president. The constitution does not say anything about popular elections for presidents and despite widespread misunderstanding, democratic elections are not how we currently choose presidents even today. (Please see article II section I of the constitution.)  The constitution only mentions that Electors vote for President; it mentions nothing about popular vote.  It leaves it up to the states to decide how Electors are chosen, but nowhere is their an indication that Electors would be tied to specific candidates, as they are today. 
 
 For the record, I have a small amount of distrust and a disdain for democracy.  I think all governments should have a small powerful aspect of democracy in it and in America, we have the House of Representatives. The role of the House was to represent the people. Because of the obsession and misunderstanding of democracy, America has democratized everything.  (As a sidenote, I blame America’s obsession with democracy on Andrew Jackson.  Although I have a certain amount of respect for Jackson’s policies and character, I can never forgive him for this.)  Both the president and the Senate are not supposed to represent the people. Democracy is not always most conducive for accomplishing tasks. Furthermore, I believe that many of the problems in Washington stem from over democratization. I plan to go into this more in the future, but for the sake of this post, I do not believe that mine or anyone else’s endorsement should matter for president to anyone besides those chosen by the states to elect our president.  However, overtime the popular vote in each state has become to mean something. So for now I will play the game until that day when the mistake of popular elections for president are eradicated. 
 
I understand that this view is historically ultra-conservative. On this and some other views, I am a pretty conservative guy. On other issues, I am pretty liberal. This is the second reason why choosing a candidate is tough. No candidate represents my beliefs. All of the candidates are populists. So I am forced to choose the cleanest dirty shirt.
 
The third and final reason that makes my decision so hard is that I am a practical realist. I do no want to waste my vote or endorsement.
 
I am going to list the things that are important in choosing my candidate and then list who best supports each aspect. Then I will look at my list and decide who I will endorse. Before I begin, let me first make 3 quick side notes. First, while I write this post, I have not yet decided who I am choosing. I am using this exercise to help in my decision. Secondly, I am going to choose only among those who have declared they are running.  Thirdly, I cannot support someone who has the same spirit as a serial killer.
 
The Important Issues
 
Abortion
Immigration
Fiscal Policy
Gay Marriage
Health Care
 
One these particular issues, I support Huntsman’s position.
 
Electability and Fundraising – Romney
Integrity and Honesty – Paul
Gut Instinct – Cain
Most Political Experience – Huntsman
 
For now, (only because Jake forcing to make a decision) and based on that list, I am endorsing Huntsman. However, among the four candidates I mentioned, I am willing to vote for any of them.

Written by Jake Phillips

June 30, 2011 at 2:03 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , ,

The anti-Fight Club: An Endorsement of the Establishment

with 8 comments

By Joey Phillips

 I am endorsing Mitt Romney.

I will now go light myself on fire.[1] I will keep this brief, so I don’t have time to talk myself out of it. Here is why I am endorsing Mitt Romney.

  1. He’s the best politician in the republican field. He’s smart and well spoken and knows how to run a campaign. He is going to end up raising the most money and probably win the nomination. Might as well start getting used to the idea of voting for him now.
  2. He has the best chance to beat Obama. We could argue whether being moderate will help or hurt him in the general election, but either way I think for the reasons listed above he has a shot at beating Obama, which I am not convinced any of the other candidates have.
  3. I mostly like him on economics.

I am not excited about this endorsement for a number of reasons, the main one being that Romney isn’t really conservative in a lot of ways. Dionne (writer for the Washington Post, and liberal) says that Romney’s best asset is his ideological flexibility. Great. “Vote for me, I’ll change my core beliefs anytime!” On healthcare he is eerily similar to Obama. I wish we could elect him as the economics President and Herman Cain for everything else. On abortion you can either say (a) he doesn’t have a belief so he just adopts whatever position is politically expedient at the time or (b) he is very confused. Neither answer is comforting.  In fact, nothing about Romney makes me comfortable voting for him. I am trying to justify it because I am resigned to him winning the nomination. Is this the worst endorsement ever? Yes.

Forget it, I endorse Tim Pawlenty.  


[1] Bill Simmons™

Written by Jake Phillips

June 29, 2011 at 2:05 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , ,

Jesse picks…wait for it…(drumroll please)…

with 25 comments

By Jesse Phillips
 
After witnessing the noticeable spike in Huntsman’s approval ratings that resulted from Jake’s endorsement, I feel the need to issue one of my own. I endorse Michele Bachmann. I have 10 reasons:
  1. She’s a woman. And you thought they were all pro-choice Democrats. Silly you.
  2. She’s the prettiest candidate. Not only is she the prettiest Republican candidate, which isn’t saying much, but she’s even prettier than Obama, which is saying a lot.
  3. She’d be the prettiest president. As an exercise, put a picture of Bachmann next to a picture of President Taft, and then thank the Lord for how far America has come. I’m not a progressive, but that’s progress I can support.
  4. She’s not Romney. Of course, what I mean is that she didn’t support Romneycare, which is the greatest thing since Obamacare.
  5. She’s not Hillary Clinton. If I knew I wouldn’t die, I would totally dress up as a reporter and ask Senator Clinton, “How does it feel to NOT be our nation’s first woman president?” Then I would run away, because I’m a coward.
  6. She’s not Sarah Palin. Silly media, you picked the wrong principled conservative woman to incessantly lampoon for the last few years. Epic media fail? You betcha!
  7. She kind of is Sarah Palin. She’s enough like Sarah Palin that she allows Palin supporters like me to vote for Sarah vicariously through voting for Michele. Some parents live vicariously through their children. Palin would be president vicariously through Bachmann.
  8. She’s had 23 foster children. Are you kidding me? My three sons are challenging enough. That says a lot about a person’s character. I don’t care what you think about personal character, but I’m with the founders–virtuous character matters.
  9. She voted no on raising the debt ceiling. Regardless of what you may think about that, I see someone standing on principle and not playing the sort of political games that got us in this mess we’re in.
  10. She has private sector experience. Insert comment about Obama’s lack of it here.

Bachmann’s website has a picture of midwestern rolling wheat fields and a comment about America’s founding documents. I know some will see that and wonder, “What? Your campaign website mentions ‘documents’?!!?” To many, this speaks of irrelevance. The ‘relevant’ issues are how is government going to fix all our problems. Therein lies the biggest difference between me and someone who is liberal.

Call me crazy, but I actually think anything called the “Supreme law of the land” (i.e. the Constitution) should be taken seriously enough to consider what the guys who wrote it meant when they wrote it (originalism). Having someone who agrees with that philosophy in the White House would be very welcome “Change.”

Analysis:

All attempts at humor aside, my political analysis is that:

  1. We are a center-right country, if you look at polling on the pro-life issue and economic policy. Not far right, but center-right, nonetheless. Michele is within that center-right spectrum on fiscal and social issues. Her refusal to play political hard-ball with issues like the debt-ceiling has branded her as being far-right among the Washington establishment, but have you looked at the approval ratings of Congress lately? Have you seen the polling on how much people trust main stream media? Being unpopular in Washington might be her greatest asset. It’s actually good to be far-right compared with the Washington establishment, because that’s where most of the country is.
  2. There is no reason why a conservative woman can’t win when she stands on principle, has served in congress, speaks well, is knowledgeable of the issues, has a compelling personal story and represents everything that the country is increasingly saying it needs to counteract the bad policy coming from Washington these days. I refuse to believe that this election is Obama’s to lose. Record debt and unemployment will be hard for him to overcome.
  3. The GOP won’t win without conservatives. If the GOP could win without a conservative at the top of the ticket, we’d be talking about the last few years of the McCain administration. The historic Republican gains last November didn’t happen because the Republican party moderated. They finally stood for something and the routed Democrats. More people are self-identifying as conservative than ever before, according to polling.
  4. Moderates and independents are not the same thing. There is an increasing number of independents, but the independent Tea Party movement shows that there are independents who are conservative and independents who are moderate. The passion and turnout right now is among the independent conservatives (i.e. Tea Party). A GOP candidate cannot win without widespread tea party energy and support. They might not win even with it. They definitely cannot win without it. Michele Bachmann has it.
What I wish would happen
  1. I wish we could go back in time and Palin would have entered the race sooner
  2. Since number 1 is impossible, I hope Sarah Palin will NOT enter the race. That would only split off Bachmann’s supporters and give the nomination to Romney
  3. I wish Sarah Palin would endorse Bachmann. Whoever she endorses will receive at least a 10 point spike among GOP voters
  4. I wish Herman Cain would drop out and endorse Bachmann. He consistently gets 7-10% in the polls I’ve seen. A 5% boost from Cain’s supporters, and 10% from Palin’s would solidify Michele as the candidate to beat.
I see this as a two-way race between Bachmann and Romney right now, moderate establishment versus grassroots base. In this political climate the conservative with grassroots support will win the GOP primary.

Written by Jesse Phillips

June 28, 2011 at 12:30 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

An Endorsement of Jon Huntsman

with 8 comments

By Jake Phillips

 

I am starting off our series for the week.  During the week, Jesse, Joey, Alex and I will endorse a particular Republican nominee for president.  The goal for our Republican readers is to perhaps give you an issue or two to think about as you decide who to vote for in the primaries.  For our non-Republican readers, the goal is to cause you to hate all the Republican nominees even more than you do.  Just kidding.  Sort of.  On Friday (hopefully) we’ll conclude with something somewhat related; James will be posting about the origins of the hip-hop movement. 

 

To begin our Presidential Endorsement Week, I hereby throw all of my political clout behind Jon Huntsman!!!! (With my endorsement, I guess the Republican party might as well just give him the nomination now.  It’ll save everybody a lot of money.)

 

There are many reasons why I am supporting Jon Huntsman.  To start, let me give a one-comment reason why I’m not supporting anyone else.  This isn’t to make anyone angry.  And it isn’t fair.  But here goes.

 

Ron Paul: Too crazy, his view on prostitution and cocaine is anti-intellectual, and he can’t win.

Rick Santorum: He might as well call himself “Generic Republican Nominee For President.  Do Not Actually Vote For Me.  I Don’t Even Want to Be President.”  Of course, that would be a really long name.

Michelle Bachmann: A less dangerous, smarter Sarah Palin.  Which is kind of like being a less dangerous, smarter Ron Artest.  Also, her ideas on taxation and her social understanding is entirely too simplistic.

Mitt Romney: I don’t trust him on pro-life issues, and, like Ezra Klein, I don’t believe in Powerpoint Presidents.

Tim Pawlentry: Would like him better if he was a true populists.

 

Everyone else is too boring and unrealistic to even offer a reason to not support them.  Thus, I will get to my reasons for endorsing Huntsman.

 

First, I was extremely impressed that he’s made the importance of local politics a focal point of his campaign.  My opinion is that there are many great ideas in government that are ruined by the administration of the federal government.  For instance, welfare is such a good idea.  However, the federal government’s administration of welfare is ruining what is actually a good idea.  The idea of public healthcare is such a good idea, if run at a local level.  And so on and so forth.  Therefore, to hear a candidate make a big deal out of local politics, certainly a bigger deal than any recent candidate, made me happy.

 

Secondly, in an Republican era of loyalty litmus tests being administered, an era where every candidate must prove that they will never even have dreams about raising taxes, it is refreshing to see an unapologetically moderate candidate.  US politics at a national level are necessarily moderate.  It is the nature of the way that our country was founded.  Extremism is basically impossible, and Almost Extremism is extremely difficult, and somewhat counterproductive, since every overreach in American politics has had a subsequent backlash.  Given those facts, a moderate, but staunchly pro-life, candidate is what I think is absolutely necessary.  Common, voting, republicans should consider the following; would you rather have a very conservative president in 2012, with a liberal backlash in 2014, or a somewhat conservative president in 2012, and keep the current congressional status-quo in 2014? Do you think liberals were happier in 1998 or in 2010?  The answer to that rhetorical question is another feather in my cap :). 

 

There is more that I could say.  It is extremely important to me that he is staunchly pro-life, unlike some other moderate candidates from past years (I’m looking at you, Rudy Guiliani.)  His foreign policy credentials and experience is important, as is his willingness to defend that position, even if he was appointed by Obama.  (For those who criticize him for this, see previous paragraph about Almost Extremism.)  It says something that several media outlets has reported overhearing Obama’s inner circle as being more afraid of campaigning against Huntsman than any other potential candidate.  Even liberal political analysts have noted the lack of vitriol and personal criticisms coming from Huntsman’s campaign, which distinguishes him from all other candidates, including Obama (who, let’s be honest, is, generously, 50/50 President/Candidate at this point.)  It is refreshing to see someone be more of a Campaigner than Critic and Character Assassin.  Part of the reason that everyone was so excited about Obama in 2008 was his message of Hope and Change, and not getting sucked into the Beltway Establishment.  The poorly-kept secret, however, was that his campaign was more negative than McCain’s, and almost as negative as the legendary Bush/Kerry campaigns.  Someone who actually avoided potshots and overly-negative campaigning, as Huntsman has done (and been noted for doing so), would be, as I said previously, refreshing.

 

The most successful, historically-angelic presidents in our history have been moderate.  (See Lincoln, Truman, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower etc.)  There is a reason for this.  Progressive and conservative presidents often have a difficult time governing, no matter the purity of their ideology.  (See JFK and Richard Nixon.  Try to pretend for 5 minutes that Nixon wasn’t a jerk and a criminal, and remember only that he was probably the most brilliant ((intellectually speaking)) president that we’ve had.) The lone exception to these cases were Reagan and FDR, which only proves that if your a phenomonal leader, how extreme your ideas are matters less, historically speaking.  All of this to say, vote for Bachmann at your own risk.  Vote for the new-and-improved Romney at your own risk.  Getting a party-line conservative into the Oval Office is often counterproductive. 

For all of these reasons, and some others, I am happy to endorse Jon Huntsman.  For now.  Even though I’m a registered Independent.

Written by Jake Phillips

June 27, 2011 at 3:35 pm

Poker as a Moral Good: Defending an American Tradition

with 17 comments

 By Alex Couch

 

Don’t mess with poker or congressmen from Texas.

I am in favor of protecting and expanding poker. I defend poker. Poker is an American pastime and one small but important part of its historical DNA. In some form or another, it has been played in America since America came into existence in the late 18th century. Like the history of this great nation, poker has had a wild history full of destruction, fellowship, misery, enjoyment, leisure, and camaraderie. It has been full of good times and bad times. And like America, poker has matured and been civilized. But the pastime of poker is under attack in America today. In the past months, tens of thousands of regular Americans just like you and me have had their money they used for poker taken away by the actions of the US government. My task here will be multiple:

1)     To defend the activity of poker

2)     To defend gambling in moderation

3)     To defend professional gambling (particularly poker) in extremely limited cases

4)     Describe the needed changes, as I see it

 

The first thing I need to do is establish the difference between poker and gambling. Poker is often associated with the act of gambling even though in many or most instances today poker is played without anything being wagered. In other words, very often people do not gamble at all when they play poker.

 

So therefore, I categorize poker with all other recreational activities including sports, games, and pastimes. Furthermore, I believe that most if not all recreational activities can be used for gambling. It is possible to gamble on a basketball game, on a game of monopoly, and anything that is not certain. At some level, these activities are regularly used to gamble. At every job I have had there has been some organized gambling on professional sports events, usually football and basketball.  

 

My point is that we need to not unnecessarily confuse the amoral activity of poker with gambling.  For those who are obsessed with being anti-gambling, just remember this: “Poker good, gambling bad.”  For those who have seen the movie “Tombstone,” there is a scene that illustrates this point quite well.  Wyatt Earp, in response to something Doc Holliday has said, replies, “I thought you said gambling was an honest man’s trade?” Doc Holliday responds, “No, I said poker was an honest man’s trade.”  Poker can really provide great satisfaction and help people to grow. I have been able to work on and improve a great many of my strengths and overcome many of my weaknesses.  I will hopefully talk about this point more in a future post but for now, if you haven’t played poker, please give poker a serious chance.

 

My next order of business is to defend gambling. I will not defend mindless and unwise gambling but if all the conditions are right, then gambling can be quite worth-while and enjoyable. If a small percentage of one’s earnings, depending on their commitments and financial situation, goes toward wagering, then I do not see a problem with the idea of gambling. A small wager at work based on performance with a fellow employee can be great for work ethic and be an overall positive act. A small wager on your favorite sports team with a friend can be healthy for a relationship when practiced in moderation. A group of guys who sit around and fellowship while playing poker on a Friday night is a great way to relax and enjoy friendship. A small wager to defend the honor of your favorite role model whom you know never said what he is being accused of saying is principled and proper.

 

I believe we should look at each case and make an analysis. I know people who probably take this freedom they feel to gamble too far, even if they practice moderation. If I witness this in someone I love as a pattern in their life over time, then I will address it.  If I see someone who is not practicing moderation then I will address that immediately. Clearly, it is not wise for a father who is living paycheck to paycheck and is in debt to waste 10% of his earnings on gambling.

 

How about professional gambling? Can that be moral? I believe it depends on the situation and the individual. If someone has an aptitude towards something and develops a skill over time then I believe it is possible that they can use wagering as a way to earn a living doing that. An example of this could be poker. Yes, poker. I am about mix the two and muddy the water.  Poker has a large element of skill that is associated with it.  The best professional poker players win consistently. Other examples can include pro-am golfers, bowlers, and basketball players. Has anyone ever seen the move “White Men Can’t Jump”? I can get behind doing something for money if it’s what you are skilled at. I would think it would be nearly impossible for someone to justify making their living gambling on slots, dice, or even blackjack where luck is more important than skill.

There are other qualifications that I suggest need to be established before some can make the decision to go pro. The first is having a sufficient bankroll. Most if not all professional poker players have a bankroll that determines what level they play at. Overtime, players add to their bankroll and increase the level they can play at. Players only gamble each time with a very small percentage of their bankroll and if their funds reach a certain low point, the player is forced to lower the level in which they play.

 

A further qualification I would like to add for professional players is that they should play in professional circles with other professionals at or close to their level. They should not continue to play with other amateurs or recreational players. This is usually the norm because it makes sense from both an ethical and a practical point of view.  In summary, the qualifications to play something professionally with wagering include aptitude, skill, experience, proper funding, and a strong sense of and commitment to ethics.

 

What needs to happen next? We need open the competition for poker rooms across the US and legalize online poker.  A few months ago, federal agents closed down many of the big poker sites and those who had money on some of those sites lost all of it. However, they have not, nor can they, shut down online poker. It is simply unregulated, untaxed, and illegal. We need to regulate it and tax it.

 

Apparently there is a bill currently being drafted by a republican out of Texas that would legalize internet poker. His name is Rep. Joe Barton. We should write him and let him know we are supporting him. Furthermore, we should call our representative and let them know we support online poker and poker in general. Please protect an American pastime.

Written by Jake Phillips

June 23, 2011 at 12:22 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , ,

Radicalism: I’m a Radical, You’re a Radical

with 52 comments

By James Henry Tschannen

 

What makes someone a radical? Is it advocating for a single-payer health care system? Is it acknowledging that this country was formed through conquest, slavery, and genocide? Is it pointing out that the richest 1% in this country hold more wealth than the bottom 90%? In today’s political climate you might think that anyone who wants the government to address the issues of inequality, health care, or corruption in the financial industry is a radical. Traditionally, the term “radical” as a noun, in politics has referred to someone who seeks to bring down the political or economic system (or both) and replace them with something new. Politicians on the right have used the word “radical” (in its adjective form, meaning extreme or unusual) to paint mainstream progressives as revolutionaries.

 This phenomenon is not new. Abraham Lincoln’s stated policy on slavery was to leave it alone and keep it from expanding, but Southerners were convinced that he was as extreme an abolitionist as John Brown. Glenn Beck has been one of the loudest voices warning about the dangers of radicals. You still cannot watch Fox news for any length of time without being reminded of the so-called radicals, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and Van Jones, that President Obama has associated with. For all of his insane paranoia, Beck does grasp an important aspect of the relationship between radical leftists and mainstream liberal democratic politics. Both groups see similar problems in society, but they differ fundamentally on the solutions to those problems.

The most basic definition of the word “radical,” as it is used by both sides in today’s political discourse, is something that is fundamentally outside of what our country has been historically and what the majority of people agree on now. Conservatives have often called Obama the most liberal or radical president in history, just as they did to Clinton (who we can all agree now was a centrist). This is why conservatives love to portray our history in simplistic terms as that of a Christian nation, founded on free market principles and the rule of law. The truth is much more complicated and any serious student of history will know that there has been much more diversity of ideas from the founders through today than the historical revisionists would have you believe.

One of the ways in which we can judge, in a quantitative way, whether Obama is more liberal than his predecessors is tax policy. Obama has not raised taxes thus far, in fact he has cut them for most people. Also instructive is to actually see what tax policy was in the post WWII years in which America emerged as an economic powerhouse with a robust middle class. Our political leaders today insist that we are in a war that requires us to sacrifice our civil liberties and moral standing in the world and yet will not require any financial sacrifice. In 1945 the top marginal tax rate was set at 94%, a number that is in a completely different universe from our current discussions on tax policy. This extreme tax rate was not just a wartime anomaly. The top rate stayed at 91% until 1964, when it was lowered to 77%, still more than twice what it is now. Those twenty years when taxes for the rich were over 90% saw some of the most growth and industrialization in our nation’s history. This makes the idea that raising the top tax rate a few percentage points (which would basically solve our deficit problems) would stifle jobs and economic growth preposterous. Tax rates don’t have a direct correlation to economic growth, but they do have a very strong correlation to income inequality, with lower tax rates leading to more inequality. This graph shows both the top marginal tax rate and the share of income taken by the top .1% of Americans (people making over 1.1 million dollars in 2004).

There a host of other issues on which we could debate whether Obama is radical or mainstream, in terms of history and current popular opinion. I could also argue that radicalism is not always a bad thing. It was certainly radical for people to call for the federal government to intervene in the American South to end institutional racism. Civil Rights was probably the clearest case of “social engineering” by the federal government ever. I’m sure “radical” will continue to be used as a scare word in the media on both sides of the aisle (it was interesting to see Newt Gingrich’s campaign disintegrate after he called his party’s budget plan radical) but I wish we would discuss the real effects of policies and politicians, rather than just dismissing them as radical.

Written by Jesse Phillips

June 22, 2011 at 1:39 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Yes, NBC, I accept your apology

with 34 comments

To Whom It May Concern:

I am aware of a variety of responses that people had to your decision to omit the words “under God” from the pledge allegiance aired in your US Open telecast this past weekend. Some cheered. Some seethed. I took the moment to reflect on the great power of God and the utter ineptitude of any human attempt to ignore or deny him.

As you said in your apology, it was “regrettable” if not unintentional that these words were not included in the clip you aired. Although, I would venture to guess that we have different reasons or thinking this decision was regrettable.

I know that you probably view this apology as a necessary step you must take to appease the right-wing fanatics who actually care about God and the importance of faith in society. But I can say that while your antics are not new, novel or particularly effective, it did provide a great teaching moment on the ineptitude of your failed ideology, which I am grateful for.

Your biggest failure was not that you removed the words “under God” from the pledge. Your biggest failure was that you failed to see the irony and ineptitude of removing a reference to God from an introductory clip to a telecast of a golf tournament in which that God was so immanently involved and tangibly recognized. It was delightful for me to watch the birth of a star in Rory Mcilroy and to see the world universally recognize his God-given talent. It brought me great pleasure to hear a young man attribute his success to his (traditional) family and God’s gifts of a dedicated father and mother, and take the world’s stage as the best athlete the deeply religious country of Northern Ireland has to offer.

All of this transpired and was made evident without a mention of God. I’m actually glad Mcilroy did this without saying Jesus’ name because it proves my point that not mentioning God does nothing to disprove him. Our nation, and the entire world, is under God whether we acknowledge it or not, just as young Mcilroy’s talents are a gift from God whether he mentions that fact or not.

I do feel a sense of empathy for NBC, knowing that as far as sports go, golf is probably the hardest one to remove God from. Anyone walking that course, witnessing the breathtaking beauty of the nature around them came away with a sense of God that “The Decision” to remove him from the pledge could not suppress. Natural law is a tough one to overcome, isn’t it?

As I mentioned earlier, there is nothing particularly novel about the approach. People have been failing in this way for centuries, dating back to the time when my faith was born. It wasn’t just the founding fathers of our country that believed the existence and immanence of God was “self-evident”. This is actually a cardinal teaching of the Christian faith as well.

“For what can be known about God is plain…his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world in the things that have been made” (Romans 1:29-20).

So thank you, NBC, for proving the point you sought to deny. That beautiful clip you kept showing of the island green out on that serene lake said it all. Your regrettable decision on the pledge aside, anyone who saw the beauty of that single clip knows everything they need to know about God and has no excuse not to believe in him.

No harm done.

– Jesse Phillips

Written by Jesse Phillips

June 21, 2011 at 2:31 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , ,