More Feb blogbait. Blog contents listed two entries below this.

by andrewlohr

To Amazon answering a post on a book (“The Misunderstood Jew”) about the Jewishness of Jesus

You can’t keep Him dead more than three days.
Observation, or presupposition?
The murder of Jews is murder, and no Jew in 1800 years has had any more of Jesus’ blood on his hands than you or I, but as to the death of Jesus back when:
If Jesus (the Jew) was big enough to be remembered today, and to rock the Roman boat (the only superpower du jour), can He not have rocked some Jewish boats also?

To David Cook’s col of 27 Feb:


You apologize to Newt: he balanced the budget and worked across the aisle on welfare reform, while the economy did OK. Our current President would do well to fire Biden, appoint Newt veep, and resign.

Sell water in small chunks to the highest bidders, rather than ration it to whoever has connections. Al Gore will buy many more chunks than I, but after awhile the next chunk will be worth as much to me as to him. Let prices rise so they tell the truth: use less! Produce more! instead of telling political lies about them and filling the swimming pools of the powerful without letting the poor buy enough to wash diapers.

Saudi Arabia is part of the fertile crescent?

Grain for gas? That feeds Archer-Daniels-Midland while starving the 3rd world. Methanol might excel ethanol. Let prices decide.

To Yahoo:

Forcing healthy people to pay sick people to be sick? “Sick”–that is, stupid and evil.

They oughtta let insurers (and alternative insurance arrangements) charge whatever rates they want as long as they’re clear about it, so that rates reflect risks and tell the truth, instead of telling us the lie that differences in risky behavior make no difference in health. Satan, the devil, is the father of lies. No gender difference; so I have to pay the same rates as if I might become pregnant? They call Obama a genius for this?

To Times ( ed 31 Jan A.D. 2013

You fear “to distort” a ‘market’ in which everyone pays for one competitor, whether or not they choose its services, and its services are offered at no fee as if they didn’t cost close to $10,000 per year per student, while no one not using other competitors has to pay for them? Some market. Letting people who opt out of public schools take at least some of their money with them would reduce distortion, just as my money leaves McDonald’s if I go to Burger King.

Paying students who leave public schools half of what they save the system by leaving it would leave more money per student in the system; would increase diversity in education by helping students go to all kinds of schools; would increase accountability since schools that don’t satisfy their ‘customers’ would lose money; would increase parental involvement, and reward parents who care, by giving parents real power. You oppose this diversity, accountability, parental involvement, and incentive to improve?

Vouchers, you say, would take the best students out of schools full of poor students. “Ye fools and blind” (Mt 23), are the students for the schools, or the schools for the students?

The students are poor (in more ways than one). What one thing would help the most? Probably intact families would help the most (in more ways than one). So put a moderate sin tax on fornication when it happens to be caught, to increase the number of two-parent households and so improve education, health, and wealth and reduce the corresponding social pathologies. What, Harry, your girlfriends (or boyfriends as the case may be) wouldn’t like this? Wasn’t Dan Quayle right? Wasn’t St Paul–“run away from fornication”–right?

To Clay Bennett cartoon TFP 9 Feb ’13

We all are. If we’re glad our parents gave us a chance, should we let other babies be murdered for the convenience of their parents?

As for the compassion of pro-lifers, give ’em a call! The very name “Choices Women’s Resource Center,” 423-855-8300, points to compassion not limited to inside the womb. The Chattanooga abortuary used to charge $20 for a pregnancy test Choices (formerly AAA Women’s Services) would give for no charge. Which would you go to for that? I’ve known a respectable middle-class churchgoing family to let an unmarried pregnant woman live with them for several months, until her baby was born. Does Planned Parenthood (Parenthood?!?) arrange such things? Has such a person, or other stranger needing a roof, ever had such a stay with the Bennett family?

Conservatives tend to give of our own, as Jesus gave His own life. Liberals tend to give at the expense of other people, e.g. solve pregnancy problems by murdering the baby, or Messiah problems by murdering the Messiah.

(Did Clay model his beggar’s face on his own? 🙂

To Times ed, 9 Feb:
Voting could be easier, but those problems don’t strike me as too serious: someone who really wants to vote these days can, unlike, say, southern blacks 60 years ago. I don’t notice this editorial referring to any news about actual particular people unable to vote.

But voter fraud is still a genuine problem the article should not brush off, according to a fairly recent book (within a year?) mentioned in National Review Online. Some Democrat running for Congress in Maryland? got into hot water for it. The video showing a white man letting the poll workers think he was Eric Holder and getting an invitation to vote without ID shows possibilities. World magazine staffers in the A.D. 2000 election had several opportunities to cast unlawful ballots. Everyone now admits Lyndon Johnson stole his senate seat. Vote difficulties may be worth fixing (ID is a reasonable requirement, as it is for other things), but vote fraud hits near the root of democracy, and needs to be fixed. Whatever we think of those elected or of those who elected them, honest voting gives some chance of fixing such mistakes. Fraud may tempt a turn from ballots to bullets. Huey Long couldn’t be voted out. He was shot.

To Paul Krugman NYTimes 11 Feb:

Turn Medicare into vouchers is bad why? I’m healthy; Medical Savings Account, high-deductible catastrophic coverage, and pay for services would work well for me. I’ m white, and my dad is almost 90; blacks with shorter average lifespans may need something different. (Is Social Security racist because whites collect from it for longer than blacks, and classist because white collars collect from it for longer than blue?) My wife has 4 bad disks; she wouldn’t be putting much into an MSA. People differ; vouchers would be a lot more flexible than bureaucracies. A less costly voucher might be worth more than a more costly bureaucracy and program. The same applies to schools, of course, and likely to other tax-paid systems.

As for ignorance, opposing tax-paid subsidies for this or that research differs from opposing research itself, just as opposing tax subsidies for Sesame Street differs from opposing SS itself.

Some comment blamed Christians for ignorance. Hey, Christendom invented science, and the first atheist regime, the USSR, grossly perverted and abused science: Lysenkoism, science of history, curing dissidents in madhouses, central planning. Knowing that dead men stay dead, we claim that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead proves He knew something most men don’t, and something worth knowing. Look into it, on pain of Hell fire. Laughing? Enjoy this life, and we’ll see who laughs last and longest. Do look into it.

To Robin Smith 11 Feb TFP:

So far so good. How can a small voucher excel a more expensive system education? Because with the voucher the family can pursue the education they want, whether the system offers it or not. Because s small voucher will leave more money per student left in the system, if the laws are written that way. If 5,000 students save the system $2000 each by leaving at a cost of $6000 each instead of staying at a cost of $8000 each, then the system has an extra $10 per student for each of the million students staying in the system: a win all around, if the laws are written that way.

Of course, letting any student leave for $5000 instead of staying for $8000 or $10,000 would offer such savings to every district and school, not just to the worst schools in our state, and I think letting parents choose such savings a great idea. Let them spend the money on home, private, other public school, college, education savings account, or plain retirement account–drop out of school, study real life, park the money in a retirement account, and retire a millionaire. Diversity, parental involvement, accountability, flexibility, voluntary savings rather than “cuts,” more money per student in the system–yes! (Rather than bureaucratic oversight, just require voucher users to take any standardized test they choose that 10,000 other students take, and require 4 Tennessee taxpayers to sign off on approving whatever the voucher user is doing. Maybe election offices can, for a small fee, verify these 4 signatures, since they’re used to verifying signatures.

You who represent me, do this: these are my instructions and I pay you to work out the details.

To Paul Krugman, NYTimes, 15 Feb:

Dr Krugman writes: The classic zombie idea in U.S. political discourse is the notion that tax cuts for the wealthy pay for themselves… Has the capital gains tax brought in more tax dollars when the rate was lowered, and fewer when it was raised? Or the income tax? If so, then some tax rate cuts bring in more revenue, and even increase the share paid by the rich. Did revenue increase after the Bush tax cuts?

Dr Krugman’s pet zombie (it has one wing, on the left) ate his footnotes, but Dr Thomas Sowell has written this (rates down, revenues and % paid by rich up) of Andrew Mellon’s A.D. 1920s tax cuts , to name one source. (Since Dr Sowell is black, is Dr Krugman racist for disagreeing with him? 🙂

Are taxes too complicated? Yes, when the booklet for form 1040EZ has 30+ pages, and the whole tax code brings on my Tax Day Song: Amazing grace, an easy tax / count ten and give God one / the IRS’s laws of tax / ten thousand pages run. Actually, what, 70,000+ pages, not 10,000? (I do propose a complication–add a form on which taxpayers can vote to shut down or trim government programs and give ourselves some of the money–but this form would be voluntary.)

Did the government try to get mortgages to people who cannot, by traditional standards, afford them? Did it try? Dr Krugman assures us that such efforts, if any, did nothing to inflate the housing bubble. I suppose his zombie ate the paragraph in which Dr Krugman admitted this government program failed.

P.S. not sent to Times (it didn’t occur to me then, and I was out of space): the trouble with mortgages and banks included that the taxpayers insure them. If they make a profit, they get rich. If they go broke, the taxpayers take the hit. Heads they win, tails we lose. Cut back on tax-backed guarantees of big business, cut back on crony capitalism, and they’ll have to be more careful, since the skin in the game will be theirs and not (so much) ours.

To Clay Bennett 17 Feb:

“More Guns Less Crime” answers nucanuck’s question, judging by its reviews (I haven’t read it). Marietta is safer than Chicago.

But if Clay’s point is that groups which want to ban guns should be allowed to, I agree with him. (?!!) So does the Free Press editor, as I recall. Since almost all US gun massacres have taken place in gun-free zones–the Aurora joker drove past bigger and closer movie theaters to shoot up one that banned guns–antigun groupings are running risks. Don’t pretend they’re not. Of course guns carry risks too. So do cars: how many Chicago cheerleaders have died in cars lately?

But a free country is one that lets people and groups of people do what many others consider less than the best. A government that tries to make sure we have, or can get, accurate info about risks may be serving us. A government that chooses risks for us–Senator Kennedy, drive Volkswagons: they float!–shows contempt for us as it babysits us.

Y’all remember to bring your loaded assault rifles to the Church of St Oliver Cromwell the Great this morning.

I might add: I’m not keen on big civil penalties either way the laws go, but ideally let gun-free groups police themselves–boss can fire worker for bringing gun to work, or for failing to do so, or lesser internal penalties–and if the civil penalties are against gun-free wannabees that hassle gunholders, I hope the fines or whatever aren’t bad. Marietta requires guns but doesn’t crack down much.

To Times ed 17 Feb:

If he doesn’t tell us what he wants to do he has no mandate to do it if elected. Littlefield had no mandate for a tax increase, sewer fee increase, and annexation. Corker had none for two-way. Kinsey had none for siezing the water company.

We trust a mayor for lots of little routine decisions, but stuff like that he can consult we the people (“mere mortals”) about. Do Burke and the Times want to make sure government of the mayor, by the mayor and for the mayor shall not perish?

Satterfield for mayor.

To NY Times, Paul Krugman, 18 Feb:

$9 is OK but $20 would be too much. Quite a range. What’d be best?

Worker productivity has doubled. In minimum-wage jobs, or jobs overall? Do the guys at McDonalds flip twice as many burgers as they used to?

I’m looking for work right now. I got by on $8.50/hour. I’d prefer $7.25 to nothing. I’d like the option to offer to work for less if that’s what it takes. If Dr Krugman wants to share his Nobel windfall with me my family can use the money, but maybe he’s greedy and selfish, or personally, shares his own wealth with the poor of New Jersey?

One idea for a law for sub-minimum wage workers: require that each of them be given 5 minutes a week with a manager who has real authority to raise their wages to the minimum, and will tell them what to do to earn the minimum.

My friend Melvin Freeman can do some work, but I don’t know that he could earn $7.25/hour. He might do well in a monastery or a workhouse, getting discipline he himself lacks right now. A reasonable accommodation to his disabilities might be a lower wage. I myself am not exactly disabled, but I’d not all that fast physically, and I’m rather nit-picky by temperament, so I could use such a reasonable accommodation myself. Set the ADA on a collision course with the minimum wage, or tell non-helpless people not to work?

Get rid of crony capitalism. $500 million for Solyndra would pay for $2/hour more for 250,000 work hours; 6,000 work weeks; 100 work years.

(Later) uh oh, 250,000,000 works hours, 6 million weeks, 100,000 work years.

To mess with a true price is to lie.

To blog Ponderings of a Pilgrim Pastor” on paedocommunion, with a couple typos corrected

Clear to you, but the opposite is clear to me. Can I go to the heart first, and liturgy rules (your post topic) next? We “show forth the Lord’s death;” he died for our children; so the showing must include them. What was the sin in Corinth? Failure to include at table all who should be included. So, examine yourselves to make sure you’re loving your neighbors, especially the least of them, by including them. PCs do this. Anti-PCs examine themselves for every sin except the one they’re in the act of committing, the very one Paul tells us to check for!

My blog ,, requires a lot of scrolling down; the section “Feed God’s Babies” is on paedocommunion, answering all the PCA’s official objections and 20+ others, and giving 19 or so reasons for PC, and 5 or so that non-PC is sin. (Or find a web archive and find “Feed God’s Babies” on, which is no longer online.)

To by faith online:

A couple of the denominations at let congregations decide for or against paedocommunion, so maybe the PCA could too.
Dr Pipa’s 1st point seems to take professing faith more seriously than baptism re admission to communion (and to covenanting?)
Re his 2nd, God commanded physical eating and drinking for a reason. Including children in showing Christ’s death shows he died for them; excluding shows the reverse. Which is true?
FWIW, I answer 30+ objections to paedocommunion at “Feed God’s Babies” at (scroll down a lot); also find a web archive and my old site