DISCRIMINATION OR ETHICS?

There is a lot of crying wolf in our day. Pretty soon everyone knows what your response is going to be before you open your mouth. Some things are predictable. In our time, discrimination is the greatest of sins to the politically correct. This is in line with their way of thinking. They only understand life through the lens of physical attributes. The spiritual evades them every time.

People give clues of their thinking at every turn. They cannot conceal what is in their heart. "From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks" is a paraphrase of what the Lord Jesus Christ said. It is true. Whatever is in a person’s heart will eventually slip out of their mouth. There are two ways of thinking. One requires no effort, it is based upon our five senses. The other requires the use of our mind and mental effort. It is spiritual.

Intellectual and physical laziness confronts each of us everyday. It takes effort on our part to accomplish anything. Most of the time, we would prefer to go through life by inertia. This means that we will rather do nothing that requires mental effort. People prefer something that requires nothing of them. We have been told that respect is earned, but people prefer to have other people respect them just because they exist.

Entertainers have never been known for their intellectual prowess. They play parts, but their lines were written by others. Someone has done the mental part for them already. Entertainers, as a group, are known for their inane political ideas. For instance, they want us to take mass transit, while they travel around the country in their tour buses and entourage using more fuel than anyone of us could in several years. What they want for us, they do not demand from themselves.

I have never heard of an entertainer named Vivica A. Fox, but her story is representative of the point of this article. She was arrested for drunken driving. She was stopped on March 20, 2007 by California Highway Patrol after the 2007 Cadillac Escalade she was driving was clocked going 80 mph and weaving on the Ventura Freeway. I do not know the speed limit of the Ventura Freeway, but I know that it is below 80 mph.

Had Fox not been speeding and weaving, she would not have been stopped by law enforcement officials. Her behavior attracted their attention. The law is not to be a respecter of persons. It matters not what your position is in society, if you break the law, you suffer the consequences. We know that certain people’s arrogance makes them think that they are above the law and can do whatever they please.

The newspaper article reports that the black actress accused an officer of being a "racist white cop." What Fox is saying is that the reason that she was stopped was because of her skin color, not because she was speeding and weaving. Her ethical behavior did not matter to this white highway patrolman, just the fact that she was black, according to her. This is utter nonsense. Her skin color did not matter to the patrolman. Her ethical behavior is what was at issue.

We do not know whether or not the patrolman was able to see if she was black or not. Usually, when a patrolman stops someone, he is unable to ascertain the specific physical features of the driver. They have to make very quick decisions. They do not have the time nor the luxury of sizing up who they are stopping. What brought Fox to the patrolman’s attention was once again, her erratic driving, not her skin color.

We do learn from Fox’s calling the patrolman a "racist white cop," who the real racist is. We learn who discriminates based upon skin color and it is not the patrolman. When someone calls another a racist it because they believe that ethics do not matter. It is also because they do not understand ethics because ethics are spiritual. Fox makes her judgments based upon what she can see. She is a racist and is ethically challenged.

ALCOHOLIC OR DRUNK?

One of the commonalities of our day is the unwillingness of people to take responsibility for their actions. Another one is not calling things what they are. Revisionism is a common malady. Political correctness is fraught with revisionism. It has changed the meaning of terms. This has changed the law world for worse. An example is bad means good. Wicked is no longer evil but cool. When language becomes relativistic, communication becomes impossible.

Our politicians, athletes, and celebrities are full of ethical lapses. They are continuously in the news regarding their brushes with the law. The ones that are to set high examples end up setting very low ones and it is passed off and accepted. Self discipline is something that is sorely lacking from those in the public eye. If they have a problem, we end up finding out about it from a police blotter.

Tennessee State Representative (Democrat) Rob Briley had been arrested for driving under the influence, felony evading arrest, and felony vandalism. Briley first rear-ended a pick up truck and then led the police on a high speed chase with speeds reaching 100 mph. When arrested, Briley kicked out a window of a police cruiser. He was belligerent and sobbed, asking police to shoot him in the head twice.

Briley is an attorney. The only charge that Briley had to answer for was the driving under the influence charge. He was found guilty of DUI and was sentenced to 10 days in jail which he served on 5 consecutive weekends. The felony evading arrest and felony vandalism charges were dropped. Because he was not convicted of a felony, Briley is able to remain in the State Legistlature. How convenient.

First of all, Briley got off with a mere slap on the wrist. If this had been an ordinary citizen, they would have had the book thrown at them. They would have had to answer for the whole load. The prosecutors agreed to pretrial diversion for the felony evading charge. Since Briley is an elected official, he should have been held to a higher degree. Because of his position, his responsibility is greater and yet, he was given less than what he deserved. This is typical of our judicial system. It is a respecter of persons.

Briley told the Tennessee House of Representatives that he was an alcoholic and asked his colleagues for forgiveness for his DUI conviction. Briley said, "I am an alcoholic. I’m neither proud of that fact, or ashamed of that fact. It’s just a fact. Last year I did some things that I’m not proud of. I’ve been able to grow and change from that experience in a way that I believe God sees fit for me today."

Is there such a thing as an alcoholic? When someone claims to be an alcoholic, they are claiming that they are not responsible for their actions. Alcoholism has been classified as a disease. If someone has a disease, it is something they cannot help. This is a cop out and predictable by someone like Briley who claims that he takes responsibility for his actions. This is hogwash. Briley is arrogant. He is not repentant. If repentant, he would resign from the Tennessee State Legislature. This is not going to happen. He is also a Democrat and Democrats do not step down, no matter what they have done. They remain until removed.

Alcoholism is the only disease someone can get by drinking alcohol. The Bible does not recognize alcoholism and the Bible has the truth on this sin. This sin is called drunkenness. Briley is not an alcoholic, but a drunk. He is a drunkard. In other words, he could have stopped himself from drinking to excess, but he willingly chose not too. His actions speak so loudly that I cannot hear what he is saying.

Proverbs 23:21 reads, "For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags." Drunkards, gluttons and the lazy have one common characteristic: excess. The drunkard drinks to excess. The glutton eats to excess and the slothful sleeps to excess. This excessive behavior has financial costs attached to it. This behavior has consequences, with poverty being one of them. Briley’s reputation has been tarnished. He has also had an extramarital affair with a state employee. His wife has divorced him and taken their two children to Vermont. Briley is reaping what he has sown and he is reaping a whirlwind.

After Briley’s remarks to the House of Representatives, he was given a standing ovation, embraces, and supportive remarks from his associates of both parties. What were they giving him a standing ovation for? What did he do that deserved this response? Was it for his actions on the night of his arrest? Was it for his evasion of responsibility by claiming to be an alcoholic? He said he was neither ashamed nor proud of this. It seems that if he was taking responsibility for his actions, he would be totally ashamed.

The main reason that his fellow representatives are being so supportive is that most of them are just as shady as he is. This is normal operating procedure for our elected officials. The Tennessee Waltz sting proves this. Acceptance of bribes is no problem for some of these officials. Once again, our elected officials are to set an example of ethical purity, not of ethical failings.

ECONOMIC MEDDLING

The level of intelligence, when it comes to matters of economics, are very low. What gets the blame for everything related to the economy is business. Now this makes no sense because businesses are trying to attract customers, not drive them away and yet they are accused of trying to gouge the consumer at every turn. A business is set up to make money in the most efficient way possible and yet they are accused by the media of wanting to cut their own throats.

Like Satan and any snake, a government who is responsible for the economic turmoil, hides in the shadows, unscathed by criticism. This is only possible because the masses have been educated by the public schools and they do not teach economic basics, especially the law of supply and demand. People do not understand what happens to an economy when the government increases the money supply, adjusts interest rates, and taxes everything that it possibly can.

When the government meddles in the economy, the result will be higher prices and these higher prices do not reflect increased value but a passing on of some government cost to the consumer. When a consumer has to pay a higher price for a commodity, then less of that product will be demanded. The law of supply and demand says that more will be demanded at a lower price. This is an iron economic law that cannot be broken with impunity, even though the government does this constantly.

The first thing that must be stated is that the government has a monopoly on certain functions that cannot be infringed upon by anyone. Among these are law enforcement, national defense, and public safety. Beyond these, the government is infringing upon the rights of the individual to live his life. What the government does not realize is that people need to survive physically and they will do what is necessary to ensure this. The government does not believe that the individual can take care of themselves without the aid of the government. This is nonsense.

I, for one cannot stand the government intrusion into my life. I know that I am in the minority. When it comes to voting, the older generation votes because they want to ensure that they get their government benefits. They have sold their independence for a mess of government security. What these seniors do not realize is how Social Security and Medicare work. They had their earnings clipped by the government to pay benefits for retirees. Now, that they are retired, I am paying for their retirement and they intend to keep this system going by sticking a gun in my back. They say, turn over my share of your earnings. I am entitled to it by government fiat.

Sen. Raymond Finney, R-Maryville, TN introduced a bill that would make antifreeze

manufacturers add a bittering agent to antifreeze. The reason for this inane legislation is so that children and animals would not drink antifreeze because of its sweet taste. The first thing that comes to my mind is who does he know that it has a sweet taste? Has he drank antifreeze? I do not know whether antifreeze has a sweet taste or not. I have never drank antifreeze. My mom just did not keep it in the refrigerator.

The next thing to consider is how often has a child or animal drank antifreeze and died? What are the statistics on this occurring? Is this legislation based upon emotion or upon objective evidence? Yes, there is the possibility that a child or an animal may accidently drink antifreeze. Do we pass legislation based upon probabilities or upon realities? If there is the possibility that a child or an animal may die from drinking antifreeze, why just add a bittering agent? Why not ban it completely? If it is banned completely, then no child or animal would die from drinking antifreeze. There the problem has been solved.

What is that you say, this is not practical because we need antifreeze for our cars. Why are you more concerned with antifreeze for cars than for children and animals? Adding a bittering agent to antifreeze is government intrusion. What it is saying is that you and I cannot govern ourselves by keeping antifreeze away from children and animals. No, the government must protect children and animals from their guardians. Guardians are idiots. Only people like Finney can protect us.

On the economic side of things, the antifreeze manufacturer has now incurred an added cost that he will pass on to the consumer. The consumer now pays more money for antifreeze. The consumer has a limited budget. He cannot continue to pay higher prices because of government intrusion in the marketplace. These legislative bills have on effect upon our wallets, whether we realize it or not.

This bill is not a function of government and therefore it is unlawful. It does not matter whether they have the power to pass it or not, it still retains its character no matter what. When the government steps outside of its parameters, any action on its part is unlawful. This is legislated stupidity and to those who understand things superficially, they will hail it as a good idea, not realizing that the government has legislatively called all guardians idiots. The true idiot in this case is the one who proposed this legislation and then passed it to the legislature.

A BROKEN JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Some things in life still astound me because of their ludicrousness. Some things in life are so outrageous that they defy any type of logic. Life should be predictable when it comes to law and punishment. Our judicial system is highly unpredictable. This is because the basis of our present law is relativism. Relativism looks at the world as evolving. Law, to the relativist, is also evolving. It is in a state of flux.

There are degrees of crime. Some crimes are more heinous than others and deserve a greater punishment. The Biblical principle of punishment is that the punishment must be commensurate with the crime. This principle is stated in Exodus 21:23-25, "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Murder demands life for life. A murderer forfeits his life when he takes someone else’s life. Murder is one of the most heinous crimes that man can commit and its punishment reflects this fact. Theft is a crime but it is of less magnitude than murder. A thief’s punishment requires restitution, and biblically, this means usually double restitution. The victim is to be made whole by the restitution and the double restitution is designed as a deterrent as well by making up to the victim the trouble and loss of potential income the victim has suffered.

In the Briefly Police section of my local newspaper, a headline reads, Man gets 10-year sentence for theft, assault. Billy Wayne Thrift pled guilty to aggravated assault and theft under $500. For this plea, he received a 10-year sentence for the assault and has to serve 45 percent of this sentence before being eligible for parole. This would mean that he would have to serve 4.5 years of his sentence.

What Thrift had done was to steal a hedge clipper and leaf blower from K-Mart. An employee from K-Mart confronted Thrift in the parking lot. Thrift pulled out a knife from his pocket and pointed it at the K-Mart employee. Thrift apparently did not stab the employee because after pointing the knife at the employee, he ran to his vehicle. (One wonders about the intelligence level of the employee). It was an aggravated assault because of the use of a weapon.

This is clearly a crime. There is no disputing this fact. It deserves to be punished. Where the rub comes is when someone like Mary Winkler murders her husband in cold blood by shooting him in the back while he was asleep is convicted of voluntary manslaughter and receives a three year sentence for which she served only six months of. Thrift’s crime does not even compare at all to Winkler’s and yet he is going to serve a sentence that is eight times greater.

There is a disparity between aggravated assault and murder. Our judicial system is saying that Thrift is a worse criminal than Mary Winkler. This is unbelievable because you cannot wrap your mind around it. It is not logical. It is an assault on the principle of equality before the law. Our present judicial system is, as this example makes clear, broken. It is time to use the punishments of the Bible in our civil law system.