Daily Archives: July 31, 2009

Oops–The Irishman Goofs

Please disregard the “Forever” post (that I have now deleted) saying that I had married.

I actually meant to have it post on August 8, which is the actual date of my wedding…I was just putting it in the que for that day (You’re a fool if you think I’m actually going to post something *that day*!).

Ok, ok, cue the jokes about me “counting my chicks before they hatch” or something like that.

Paul Ryan on MSNBC

This fella opens up a can on a few pro-Obamacare one liners.

I’m impressed.

What do you think about what he said?

HT:  Hotair

Related: check out Peggy Noonan’s most recent column on healthcare: Common Sense May Sink Obamacare.  An excerpt:

The common wisdom the past week has been that whatever challenges health care faces, the president will at least get something because he has a Democratic House and Senate and they’re not going to let their guy die. He’ll get this or that, maybe not a new nationalized system but some things, and he’ll be able to declare some degree of victory.

And this makes sense. But after the news conference, I found myself wondering if he’d get anything.

I think the plan is being slowed and may well be stopped not by ideology, or even by philosophy in a strict sense, but by simple American common sense. I suspect voters, the past few weeks, have been giving themselves an internal Q-and-A that goes something like this:

Will whatever health care bill is produced by Congress increase the deficit? “Of course.” Will it mean tax increases? “Of course.” Will it mean new fees or fines? “Probably.” Can I afford it right now? “No, I’m already getting clobbered.” Will it make the marketplace freer and better? “Probably not.” Is our health-care system in crisis? “Yeah, it has been for years.” Is it the most pressing crisis right now? “No, the economy is.” Will a health-care bill improve the economy? “I doubt it.”

The White House misread the national mood. The problem isn’t that they didn’t “bend the curve,” or didn’t sell it right. The problem is that the national mood has changed since the president was elected. Back then the mood was “change is for the good.” But that altered as the full implications of the financial crash seeped in. The crash gave everyone a diminished sense of their own margin for error. It gave them a diminished sense of their country’s margin for error. Americans are not in a chance-taking mood. They’re not in a spending mood, not after the unprecedented spending of the past year, from the end of the Bush era through the first six months of Obama. Here the Congressional Budget Office report that a health-care bill would not save money but would instead cost more than a trillion dollars in the next decade was decisive. People say bureaucrats never do anything. The bureaucrats of CBO might have killed health care.

The final bill, with all its complexities, will probably be huge, a thousand pages or so. Americans don’t fear the devil’s in the details, they fear hell is. Do they want the same people running health care who gave us the Department of Motor Vehicles, the post office and the invasion of Iraq?

She goes on to add three points to the debate that she thinks will continue to erode support for the President’s plan.  Not sure what to think about the first and third points, but am totally with her on the second.  Go read the full article for the details.

Dating: the Person Comes First

John Thomas at Boundless answered a letter a few days ago from a man who desires to be married, has asked lots of girls out, but can’t seem to get that second date.

John’s advice to the young man is stellar. I’m a guy that advocates guys (that don’t have the gift of celibacy) getting out there and actively pursuing marriage. John and I agree on that. But he brings out another angle in this article. I’ve never really thought of it the way he puts it, but he’s right: the person comes first, not the institution of marriage.

Being intentional about marriage is critical, as any Boundless reader knows, but as you’ve discovered, there’s obviously more to it. Maybe your problem is not that you don’t have enough second dates, but that you have too many first dates that should have never been. Let me explain.

I wonder if you’re investing enough time on the front end before the first date. To stick with the batting analogy, this ain’t Tee-ball. You don’t just walk over, grab any ol’ bat, close your eyes, take a swing and — wham! — hit it out of the park.

Just imagine all that goes into actually hitting a ball that is whizzing toward you at over 90 miles per hour, on a curved trajectory, being thrown by someone who specializes in getting you to miss the ball (and who might just decide to throw it at you)! Eyes, muscles, brain synapses and hours upon hours of training all coming down to an instant of perfect timing.

In the same way, we don’t just pick out a godly girl, ask her on a date, tell her we’re interested in possibly marrying her because marriage glorifies God, and expect her heart to melt. Now, I’m sure you haven’t been quite that cavalier about it, but you get my point.

She’s godly? Great. She’s humble? Wonderful. I’m glad those are at the top of your list for qualities in a potential wife. They should be. But you’re seeking a wife, not buying a fuel-efficient car. You need to let your heart in on the action too.

Remember: You’re pursuing a person, not an institution. Yes, being married glorifies God, but it does so because two people love each other in such a way that it points others to the love that Jesus and His Church have for one another.

Right on! I’m sure the women are giving a hearty “amen” to this.