iPandora

What is the nature of God?

It can be said that it is easier to accurately define and completely understand the concept of infinite that to even begin to comprehend God. Something I have wondered about for quite some time is how did God decide what the 10 Commandments were to consist of? Did He arbitrarily decide that these 10 rules were the ones He’d support? Are they so practical because He said so? If so, even despite their correctness and practicality in practice, their necessesity in all productive human interaction, they’re still arbitrary, and it would seem that God is cheaper than He really is. But God is not arbitrary. Just as He gives purpose to everything and everyone, He Himself embodies purpose. For us it is His will that guides our purpose, for Him, there is no higher being to guide His purpose. He is self-contained, unneeding. Instead it is His nature that defines His purpose. God is truthful, therefore we ought not lie. God does not covet (though, arguably He has nothing to covet, all things belong to Him, and anything existing apart from Him is against His nature), therefore we ought not covet. The 10 Commandments are Gods best portrait of Himself in the form of His basic will for us. God’s attributes are to be our goals.

Nothing true can contradict the nature of God. This is the most powerful argument we have against falsehood in the church and among believers. If it is against the nature of God, it is not true. And the admonition that we dwell on whatever things are true takes on a whole new meaning.

God is jealous. He can bear no equals, whether percieved or actual. God does not accept any sin in any form, no matter the reason. Men can only see the outside, the physical manifestations, the actions. But God knows the hearts of all mankind, He judges intentions. This is both a relief and a burden. There are actions that are misunderstood and maligned, causing pain and suffering to the actors, but which stem faithfully from correct intentions. There are actions hailed as heroic, but which stem from motives unpure, capricious at best and malicious at worst. God is the Just Judge and He will determine the reward or punishment.

Voltaire said: “It took 12 men to start Christianity, and one will destroy it.” He was referring to himself. God replies: “All flesh is like grass, and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers and the flower falls off, but the Word of the Lord endures forever. (1 Peter 1:24-25 NASB)” And Voltaire died, and Christianity continues.

Why is the battle so fiercely arrayed against the Christian standing firm in their convictions, faith, and belief? Because we have the Word, Christ in us, and “the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. (Hebrews 4:12-13)”

I was talking to someone over the weekend about Ephesians 5:25-31, Paul’s instructions to married men, and he commented that he finds sermons on the preceding verses, Paul’s exhortations to married women, very common. Common to the neglect of the exhorting of married men. I’ve heard sermons on each, myself, and cannot judge either way as to which I’ve heard more of. But regardless of the issue, real or perceived, married men seem to me to not be learning much of this vital information prior to tying the knot.

In the blogosphere I found an older article detailing a practical but brief perspective on the Ephesians verses for men. And an even more explicit and holistic view of the requirements of the husband in marriage (note, this article is graphic, not pictorial, but graphic) as spelled out throughout the Bible.

Marriage is a beautiful thing, so I’ve been told and have observed. My parents have been married 28/29 years, or thereabouts. I’ve observed them learn to deal with things together as they’ve raised my siblings and myself (we did not make it easy). But together they have joy and I think they can say, looking back, that the love they shared on their wedding day was the least love they’ve shared since. Marriage is a joining, a merging of two different people into a single living unit. The joining and merging brings a broadened perspective, an enhanced effectiveness. In business classes we learned that a well-balanced relationship allows for a result greater than the sum of the individual parts. This rings true for a strong marriage. Individually we may attempt and succeed at great things, but together, standing on each others shoulders, in each others care and support, and in Christs love, there is little indeed that cannot be accomplished. And children. Not only are the effect tangible in this life while the two live, but their heritage continues in their children, surpassing even the memory of their own specific achievements.

Marriage is also a difficult thing. In the “Great Unified Theory of Everything” (GUTE) marriage falls under the category Power Tools. A powerful tool can be easy and difficult at the same time, both using and mastering. A power tool can do great good and great evil, usually not at the same time. I have seen my parents argue, mostly when I was younger, and I recall the fear and insecurity those arguments gave me. But with time I can see how my mom and dad worked to deepen conversation and communication between each other, setting aside time each day to spend together. Usually right when dad got home from work, if something else wasn’t going on right then, he and mom would go into a room alone and talk. That took dedication, creating a habit in what could be a very hectic time of the day. As dad made more money he had the time and means to get involved in several hobbies, one of which is Civil War Reenacting. He’s always enjoyed camping, but my mom was never much for camping. In the past camping usually ended up being a “just us boys” time, which was good. But with reenacting there were enough amenities around that mom could go and enjoy herself too. But he also sets aside weekends several times each year that he and mom will leave for a quick weekend. Sometimes they go to the coast, sometimes they go to the mountains. Dad spends lots of time looking up Bed & Breakfasts that are well recommended and off the beaten path and he and mom will spend a weekend away, another honeymoon. Their love is palpable.  Marriage is hard work, especially when children and life seem to be trying their utmost to pull you apart individually and as a couple, and making habits of togetherness and making the special effort to get away and be just together is of supreme importance.

Marriage is a wonderful thing, so I’ve heard. Like all wonderful things it takes a lot of work, hard work. The more work that is put in, the greater the potential. Realizing the potential is up to each of us individually, but for the couple the rewards are greatest together.

It is not a normal thing, by any means, for IPandora to link to the DailyKo(ok)s and it’s assortment of nutroots, but truth, wherever found, is still truth.

BarbinMD wrote today:

Spitzer’s actions are in no way a reflection of Clinton’s judgement or character. But it does put an open letter sent out this weekend by super delegate Steven Grossman, the former Chairman of the DNC and Clinton supporter, in a whole new light.

And BarbinMD’s excerpt from that letter:

…our party concluded that we had demonstrated the ability to act as stewards of the national party–and of the national interest. By dint of our experience in the community and our public service, we were adjudged fit to fulfill a moral responsibility to act in the best interest of the country as we saw it–

“What they do in the bedroom is no business of mine” is a common refrain in cases of moral failure by elected government officials of all stripes and parties, usually by those who’ve invested effort in getting those officials in their positions.

If we really believe that, why are not Spitzer’s actions dismissed out of hand?

Because we don’t believe that.

What is done in the bedroom matters very much outside the bedroom.

If a man cannot honor his wife and family in his own home, his word cannot and ought not be trusted in any other part of his life.

And we know it.

Tellingly, BarbinMD completes their commentary with this gem:

All things considered, perhaps Mr. Grossman and his ilk should spare us their experience and morals and instead respect the will of the voters.

UPDATE: Roger Simon asks for a reality check-up on Alan Dershowitz who apparently doesn’t think it’s such a big deal.

And points Spitzer has made it a signature part of this platform putting prostitutes in jail.

What about the johns? And Spitzer?

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt highlights an article by Carol Platt Liebau “Will Spitzer Resign” in which she makes the following statements:

…(Spitzer) may not plan to resign.  If that’s true, it’s part of a new and troubling pattern in American political life.  It’s not a partisan thing; Larry Craig’s refusal to resign was another manifestation of it.

The whole idea, pioneered by you-know-who and enabled by you-know-who-else, is that illicit sexual behavior and the scandals resulting therefrom can be brazened out by the insistence that they are irrelevant to the discharge of public duties.

…it’s all part of a new ethical calculus concluding that – uniquely in the constellation of virtues — sexual morality is a subjective and purely personal matter that’s of relevance only to “religious” people (or else prurient and “judgmental” ones), even when it impacts the public.

IPandora is ashamed to say we did not trumpet the call for Mr. Craig’s resignation. In defense, I thought there was a lot of condemning going on and not a lot of proof or evidence at the time.

Nothing against the condemning, just when I wasn’t convinced of the burden of proof I wasn’t ready to condemn.

From Doug Ross: Gomer Melts Down – Huckabee claims there’s a conspiracy against him, and proceeds to lose the facts left and right. Such as the fact that Clear Channel and Sean Hannity are not affiliated. Hannity is syndicated by ABC Radio.

Come on Huck, give it up already. You’ve damaged God, America, Arkansas (on top of the damage the Clintons have done to that (otherwise) fine state), and now you’re just hurting yourself.

WorldMagBlog asks Christian liberals to reexamine the nature of their belief: Evangelical Liberals Rejection Of Reality (link invalid):

If you set government policy based on bad economics — i.e. policies based on economic principles that do not correspond to the way God created the world to operate — they will be counterproductive and bring unhappy results. They won’t “work.”

Hugh sees Romney surging and talk radio leading:

Once the score was clear after Florida –a McCain or Romney nomination– the Republican base quickly began to rally to Romney because the Republican base cares deeply about the issues that bind the Reagan coalition –tax cuts, originalist judges, free markets, and of course the value of unborn life and traditional marriage.

And WorldMagBlog tells us what to watch (link invalid):

Super Tuesday will be key to deciding the presidential nominees but don’t expect the race for the nomination to end today — especially for the Democrats. McCain’s lead over Romney is widening, and if he captures the most states and delegates tonight he should emerge the clear victor. Obama has narrowed Clinton’s once-wide lead and Democrats award victory based on a combination of popular vote, delegates won, and states won. Expect some spin once the votes come in.

Now, stop reading and GO VOTE!

McCain and the Gang of 14. Listening recently to Michael Medved, who has endorsed McCain, I was appalled by an apologist he had on as a guests’ argument that the Gang of 14 was a farsighted and wise investment by McCain in the continuing success of the Republican party.

We had a majority and were not defending anything. We weren’t trying to kill all filibusters, only judicial filibusters which are not strictly constitutional.

Hugh Hewitt has this to say:

The damage to the GOP was instant and immense.  Not only were fine judges sacrificed to John McCain’s ego, many in the base simply tuned out the GOP from that moment forward.  Why work that hard and invest that much in a party that cannot deliver on its pledges even when gifted with 55 seats?   Why fight for a majority that would not fight?  Ohio’s Mike DeWine, an otherwise reliable conservative, never recovered with the Buckeye State’s GOP base and lost his seat in 2006.  Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chafee was also turned out, though the party’s bill of grievances against Chafee was much longer than just the Gang of 14.

There were other stumbles along the way to the loss of six seats in the fall of 2006, but the McCain Gang’s coup in the Spring of 2005 started the slide.  And for what?  White and White argue that we should be grateful for the successful confirmations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito and Judges Brown, Pryor and Owens.

Read it and turn McCain out on his ear. I have no patience for that man.

A friend of mine supports Ron Paul for president. Admittedly, his libertarian views are very appealing to many people feeling as though the Republican mainstream has hung them out to dry. However, there are deep issues that I have with Ron Paul, very deep issues.

My friend and I got into a discussion regarding Ron Paul, and they have graciously given me permission to post it here:

Matthew:

Please tell me you only joined the group supporting Ron Paul as a joke.

Friend:

No, I wasn’t joking. Why should I? Go ahead and convince me! =] I’m game.

Matthew:

His political platform is mostly appealing, I do agree with that. However, he supports pulling us out of a war that, regardless of whether you agree with the necessity of the war or no, you must understand to pull out is to give a victory to an enemy who will not accept our defeat graciously but who will next bring the war to our doorstep again. His consistency on the issues he is most vocal about on the campaign trail is also less than stellar, with a marked propensity for bringing “pork” projects to his district.

Finally, and I know he himself does not espouse these beliefs, but white supremacists have jumped on his campaign, contributing money and support. Ron Paul has not repudiated these supporters or returned their money or prevented their support.

He is not a leader in the sense America needs. And while the the pickings are few in the field, I think of all the candidates running with an (R) after their name, Paul is least qualified.

Friend:

We are in a war that can’t be won. Don’t you remember that Bush declared victory over 4 years ago? Since then, 3,735 American soldiers have lost their lives. If that is victory, then we can’t win this war.

Do you remember Vietnam? We lost that war, and had the common sense to get out of there, (although it wasn’t until we lost 58,000 of our guys) and now? We trade with them! Our relations with Vietnam are as they should be with any country!

If a forthcoming attack is your concern, think about this. When Ron Paul talks about bringing our troops home, he’s talking about bringing home ALL of the troops from over 700 military bases, in over 160 different countries, all over the world. We would not no longer be growing resentment in any of these countries, who all deserve, as much as we do, to run their countries how the want, and not have a bigger, more powerful government come and tell them how to live. How would you feel if China or Russia came over here, and built 15 military bases or more, and started telling us how to run our lives? Would you sit back, and let them? I wouldn’t… I would do everything in my power, (which isn’t much=]) to stop them!

So, who would you stand behind for the next president of the US?

Matthew:

First, what about the war we are currently in is failing so very badly that there is no way the war can be one? Have you followed the news beyond what has been force-fed us by the media? Read the post here to see one side of the new growth of freedom in Baghdad. Even the New York Times, a paper arguably more invested than any other in our defeat in Iraq, last week published on the front page an article telling of the good that is occurring there.

We lost Vietnam because the politicians (the revered but Clintonesque JFK and the worst president in history Lindon Baines Johnson) would not allow the military to prosecute the war as it needed to be. The president selected the military targets, micromanaging far beyond what any true and wise leader would have or should have done. There was a small but vocal contingent at home which proclaimed the injustice of the war, getting their faces (and other body parts) smeared all over the evening news as our country fought for it’s soul. Public figures such as Jane Fonda openly consorted with the enemy while our soldiers, not allowed to fight as they should have, were captured and imprisoned and tortured. We still do not know the fate of many of those imprisoned, as the Vietnamese Communists who gained power through the pride and ineptitude of our leaders at the time, persecuting and killing many of their own countrymen as well as our servicemen.

Comparing that just but unjustly-prosecuted war with the conflict we are currently in, the times when the current was going poorly coincide with times when the military leadership has taken away responsibility and power from their field-level commanders, much as in the Vietnam war. One of the the reasons freedom from tyranny is succeeding right now and we are experiencing success in our military operations is that the generals are giving direction and responsibility and allowing the people under them to work and decide and wage their battles as they know best.

And regarding the justice of the war. Who do you believe attacked us in 1992, attempting to topple the trade towers? And again in 2001? The same people made both attempts. And regarding specifically the portion of the conflict in Iraq, yes, we have not found weapons of mass destruction. But operating on the intelligence we had then, all the leaders, not just Bush, not just Republicans, not just ‘hawks’, and not just Americans, but the UN security council (regardless of the morality of their position) supported us in our use of force to depose Saddam Hussein and protect the world from any furtherance of his tyranny, either on his own people or on others through his state-sponsoring of terrorists and their weapons systems. Important to remember in this is that while we have not found any actual WMDs we have not found evidence that they were not or never there. Instead, the consensus is that they were trucked across the border to Syria and Iran, both countries with despotic governments who are not shy about broadcasting their intentions of world domination by their religion by their leadership.

As far as defense goes. The worst defense is the kind where all your assets are kept close by. With the world getting “smaller” as technology and transportation move more and more people further and further more and more quickly, and with weapons capable of striking anyplace from anywhere in mere hours, being “on-site” and in the region of conflict is a much more effective defense.

Regarding the bad feelings we are breeding by our presence in the regions. First, America is the only superpower in the history of the world which has neither forced it’s culture upon those it is around as superior, nor have we failed to relinquish sovereign control of the nations we’ve fought in to legitimate governments of those nations in most cases (several islands in the Pacific being the only exceptions to that). Instead, we fight alongside indigent warriors to free their nations, then we spend billions upon billions of dollars to shore up those nations economies and social structures. The hotbeds of hatred spring up wherever they will regardless of our presence. And to remove from the area would only grant unwelcome power to an unworthy underclass of malcontents and misfits.

I am not sure who I’m supporting for the nomination. I will support any Republican nominee in the main presidential race because: 1, they are all and each morally and pragmatically superior to any of the Democrat nominees, and 2, third party candidates are never a viable option except to take votes away from one of the two main party’s candidate (yes, liberal third partiers… keep up the good work, grin).

As far as the nominees, I’m becoming more and more convinced that Rudy is bad news, and his promises to set up conservative judges are likely to be empty. Romney, I think most of his detractors are picking at straws in their critiques of him, but I do not think I’ll vote for him in the nomination for his lack of history to his moral beliefs regarding abortion. Thompson is (little) talk and I think he’ll fade away soon. Huckabee looks good but I’ve heard those close to him call him a pro-life liberal. I think he’d make an excellent VP if given a position of counsel and some authority. I’m not sold on him.

Of all these, I think Huckabee, if he shows strength continuing into these upcoming primaries, is my preferred choice, pending a bit more investigation.

We didn’t continue the conversation further mainly due to busy-ness.

Huckabee is looking to be less and less of a man I’d want to lead this country. He’d make an admirable vice-president, but his fiscal and many of his social programs are not good. He does not see that the best way to help people is to remove all government-sponsored assistance and as much government-required hindrance and and encourage as much private assistance as possible.

Instead his proposals include large amounts of money to be given to people by the government. Government money is never free and it always comes with strings. And it costs you and me. Why not just take less to start with?

But Ron Paul is the last person this nation needs. He does not appreciate the necessity of remaining in Iraq to bring it to a place of stability. A process in which much progress has already been made. He is not a man of his word.

Judicial activism is expected, feared, and welcomed, by the same people at different times. The ACLU wants judicial activism most of the time because many of their cases rely on feelings and unjust rulings. It becomes an expectation as their philosophy of law changes from the classical to the “living document”. Because they expect it they fear those who they perceive may use it against them. And welcome it whenever it works their way. Read on…

Hat tip to Melinda on the Stand To Reason blog for these thoughts.

Abortion mill parent company Planned Parenthood, progeny of the racist white supremacist Margaret Sanger, has encountered an unexpected roadblock in the construction of a new abortion mill (aka. Planned Parenthood Clinic, or reproductive health clinic) in a suburb of my own beautiful Chicago.

The planned clinic in Aurora was being constructed by Weitz Construction when pro-life activists found they’d lied in their permit requests to the city. The structure was bought and paid for by Planned Parenthood, and was to be used exclusively for that purpose. But on the permit filings Gemini Office Development listed the tenants as “unknown”.

In this city, opinion is never very far away, and there are a few telling opinions on this issue.

First, from the pro-abortion side. Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn (the Tribune ran the original article revealing the true nature of the building project) begins his piece on the conflagration this way:

Well of course Planned Parenthood representatives didn’t tell the truth to Aurora city officials while they were building a new clinic in the western suburb.

Why is it such a matter-of-fact thing, Mr. Zorn?

Their goal was straightforward: To open a reproductive-health clinic on land zoned for such purpose.

Indeed, no one denies their goal, but still, why the secrecy?

But they had to use a certain amount of stealth because abortion is one of the services Planned Parenthood offers. And foes of abortion rights, longtime losers in the battle for public opinion, traditionally raise all kinds of rukus when Planned Parenthood comes into a community.

“Longtime losers”? If, as you say, the pro-life ideology is such a loser in the battle for public opinion why the hiding, the subterfuge, the concealment? There have indeed been cases of crazies causing physical harm to abortion doctors, in some cases killing, and destroying clinics. Such actions on the part of individual vigilantes are wrong and the perpetrators have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Those few cases are not a suitable excuse if, as Eric claims, abortion is such a universally accepted procedure. Hey, it’s only a baby.

In his smug pride, assured of the moral superiority of his position, he implies that Planned Parenthood and the services is provides ought to be as amoral as a Best Buy or Walmart. As if the killing of babies and the emotional and physical damaging of mothers, the admitted genocidal aims of abortion as issues are anywhere near the moral level of a big box store selling baubles and gewgaws. It makes me want to scream.

(P)oll after poll shows that, even after all the picketing and haranguing and hurling of moral opprobrium in the last 34 years, roughly 2 out of 3 Americans still support Roe v. Wade — the 1973 decision establishing a woman’s constitutional right to choose to have an early-term abortion.

Reading the other polls on the page, I see, not a losing pro-life ideology, but a closely divided America leaning to the side of further limiting the availability of abortions.

Responding to the news, the Reverend Dr. Johnny M. Hunter, DD. National Director of LEARN Inc., which claims to be the largest evangelical pro-life black organization, compares racial tragedies of true similarity. Unlike the sad Mr. Zorn, Dr. Hunter understands the proper order of morality and compares things which really ought to be compared.

Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 Blacks were lynched in the U.S. That number is surpassed within 3 days by abortion.

Abortionists snuffs out the lives of 1,452 African-American children each day. This is womb-lynching, the implementation of black-genocide.

LEARN has been instrumental in providing an alternative voice in the African American community, speaking the truth when so many of their self-proclaimed moral leaders seem to fall completely for the thinly veiled eugenics plans of Sanger and her confederates.

Do they not have the wisdom, Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson, to know what Kimberly Jane Wilson’s father knew? That “not everyone who smiles in your face is your friend”?

Is their ignorance willful or blissful?

Racism in a white person is bad enough, but when you subscribe to a belief system whose known and stated goal is the control or extermination of your own race, is it racism still?

Back at the clinic building, the sides wait for the court hearings to proceed deciding whether Planned Parenthood broke the law in concealing their intent and what, if any, punishment there ought to be for such duplicity.

Mr. Zorn believes, as a good relativist, that there is no moral condemnation for breaking the law in order to achieve what he believes to be the greater good, the opening of a Eugenics Clinic. Also, as every relativist must, he believes he is right.

UPDATE: A Federal judge has just ruled that Planned Parenthoods rights are not being denied as it is being prevented from using it’s new clinic until the legal battles are over. The clinic will stay closed until all appeals are completed.

Regardless of whether or not OJ is guilty of armed robbery as he has been charged, he is wrong in his actions.

If we are to believe the biggest escaped-in-the-open lying murderer of our time, he was simply trying to get back some memorabilia that was stolen from him. When he heard the goods were in a Las Vegas hotel and he was conveniently in town for a wedding, he went to the room where the goods were supposedly stored and attempted to reclaim them.

There are problems here, several of them:

• Did he file a police report when the items went missing? When someone as *ahem* important as he loses personal memorabilia, it is a wise thing to file a police report, just in case.
• Did he think his version of vigilante justice would make sense to anyone besides his own, twisted self? There are many things we have the freedom to do in America, but dispensing our own justice when the law of the land has been broken is not one of them.
• Did he think that anyone would believe him? At all?

For a Christian, we are told that God reserves the right of vengeance to Himself. By acting out our own vengeance we rob God of His perfect justice which He’s stored up in His storehouses for dispensing on that day He has ordained for each of us. God has given the responsibility for certain applications of justice to earthly systems of authority based on the individual responsibilities of each of those systems. To parents He gave the reward and punishment of their children. The the church those inside the church. To the various municipal authorities each their own based on their defined areas of responsibility. But each derives it’s authority from it’s own authorities and ultimately from God Himself, the final arbiter and judge.

When two people not under the authority of the church and willfully unrepentant are at odds, generally the responsibility for justice, punishment and restoration falls to the civil courts and judicial system. Such is the case of OJ. If we are to believe his tales, he is still in the wrong for seeking to dispense his own form of gang justice.

Does he think he is a law unto himself? With the same smug smile he showed so self-righteously throughout the murder trial last decade, he is the epitome of the post-modern relativist morality. What is right for him is right for him, and others rules and laws make no difference to him. He does as he pleases and answers to no man for his deeds or thoughts.

As he skated the conviction and wounded justice so many years ago, he may now fall for pride.

The enviro-wackos and green-commies won big over the weekend. The result: Cars will cost more to buy and maintain, draconian government will continue to grow, and stupidity will continue to thrive.

The Detroit Automakers lost in state court a “trial of experts” in which they hed tried to establish legal precedent against strict environmental  regulation by states. Reading the comments by two winning attorneys, I am struck by a few things:

• A judge thinks they can understand the intricacies of technology and innovation and control its progress. As I’ve postulated before, the current government and resulting business climate in America is stifling to to innovation, and to force or coerce innovation results in shoddy design and poor quality. This does not excuse the reticence of Detroit to actually innovate as long as they can keep the lines to their dealerships to buy already shoddy cars for way too much money, but we’re focused on the government problem right now.
• Lawyers are a sharkish and unloyal breed. One of the commenting attorneys quips ”
  

  Vermont, California and the other states have crafted new rules that will force the US automakers to catch up. They should start now, by firing their lawyers and hiring more engineers.

  I’ve got nothing against unloyal lawyers, but the smug superiority embodied in this response, the idea that “I know best” is thick and ugly.

• Unions are now an ugly blight on America. One particularly difficult problem is that of unions. Nearly all useful and necessary worker change supported by the unions has been enacted and codified in law and precedent, unions exist now to protect the lazy, the incompetent and their own power structures. The WSJ article on this ruling briefly mentions that the automakers are now in negotiations for a new union contract. I’m all for paying an employee what they’re worth and for caring for employees. That is the responsibility of the business and should be a sign of a good employer, not regulated by the government and used as a screen, hiding bad employers.

I’m all for companies innovating and making their cars more efficient and safer.

The problem is that coercing innovation does not work. Environmental regulation is misguided at best and evil at worst, focusing on the wrong thing and exacting a toll greater than the benefits that can be attained just by common sense and practicality. And government is not the answer now, it has not been in the past, and what evidence do we have that it will be the answer in the future?