The Rant

_________________ by Bob Clasen If belief in moral values is a leap of faith, then our choice of what to value is our primary freedom. It is interesting that many people give up this freedom by becoming disciples of some prophet, church, party or guru. Such a person uses his freedom once, to pledge allegiance to some organized value system such as a church or political party, and thereafter only obeys. The responsibility of deciding what is right and wrong is thus avoided. Why do people give up their freedom so easily? Perhaps people do not feel confident enough as individuals to face the responsibility of choosing what to believe. Such decisions can be difficult. Becoming a True Disciple is one way of avoiding making difficult decisions. The alternative is a freely chosen personal religion. If I have a personal religion I face each difficult situation as an individual, choosing what seems to be best. I can listen to others express their opinions about what is best,

___________________ by Bob Clasen At this Christmas season, it seemed like a good time to raise the issue of Faith v. Reason. Some secular types vigilantly fight for a “separation” between Church and State and seem to believe that they are superior to silly Christians and other religious types who live by faith. This feeling of superiority is based upon a failure to understand their own motivations. It is based upon the delusion that human beings can live without faith. In reality, nearly all humans live by faith. The only difference is what they put their faith in. The reason we live by faith is that decisions of what is valuable or not valuable, what is right or wrong, are not questions for reason, but for faith. Do you believe that people are valuable and ought to be treated with respect or even love? There is no rational proof for such a belief. Some believe that animals, insects or even trees have as much, or more value than human beings. This also is a

Apparently there has been infighting between conservative factions as to who will replace Greenspan. As those of you who read my comments, or who read the Paul O'Neill book know, Alan Greenspan and O'Niell were both concerned about the deficeit and Bush's tax cuts. Well, Bush only hires trustworthy people (Bush can Trust). See commentary before Harvard Professor Martin Feldstein got the nod. This potentially is like appointing a judge. His views, which apparently coincide with Bush and Cheney, make him a likely candidate. Reuters 12-6-04 By Tim Ahmann WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative supply-side economists, many boasting White House ties, have thrown their support behind former Bush adviser Glenn Hubbard to succeed Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve. But analysts are divided on whether their blessing gives Hubbard an edge in what is often described as a two-man race to take over from Greenspan, who must step down by early 2006. "There are lots o

posted by Bob Clasen by Michael Crichton Why Speculate? A speech to the International Leadership Forum La Jolla, California April 26, 2002 My topic for today is the prevalence of speculation in media. What does it mean? Why has it become so ubiquitous? Should we do something about it? If so, what should we do? And why? Should we care at all? Isn't speculation valuable? Isn't it natural? I will join this speculative bandwagon and speculate about why there is so much speculation. In keeping with the trend, I will try express my views without any factual support, simply providing you with a series of bald assertions. This is not my natural style, and it's going to be a challenge for me, but I will do my best. I have written out my talk which is already a contradiction of principle. To keep within the spirit of our time, it should really be off the top of my head. Before we begin, I'd like to clarify a definition. By media I mean movies televisio

posted by Bob Clasen ______________________ The rise of reactionary liberalism Rich Lowry _______________________________   "Please, don't change anything." That bids fair to become the liberal slogan for the early 21st century. Who knew government programs circa 2004 would have achieved an equipoise of perfection such that disturbing them in the slightest way would represent liberal heresy? And who would have guessed that "progressives" would become opponents of change so thoroughgoing that they would make Edmund Burke blush?      Reactionary liberalism will be the order of the day in President Bush's second term. Take Social Security. The program was started in the 1930s. Back then, there were 41 workers for every retiree. Now, there are three workers for every retiree. Back then, life expectancy was significantly shorter than its current 78 years. In other words, in 70 years the world has changed, but the structure of Social Security hasn'