Monday
Jul272009
More Irresponsible Behavior from Our Congress
Monday, July 27, 2009 at 11:15AM While speaking at the National Press Club luncheon, Democratic Congressman John Conyers(D-Mich.), who is also the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, mocks the need to read bills before voting on them, because it takes two lawyers to interpret them and more than two days to work through them! And this from the chair of the Judiciary Committee????
Since chairman Conyers will not be subject to the same health care reforms my family will be (the congress will retain all their current gold-package health care benefits regardless of what bill ultimately makes its way through congress), I guess there's no need for him to even know what is in the bill.
This is infuriating.
Reader Comments (108)
And I would just like to point out that we can say that two or more parties are bad, but to equate them as being equally bad seems like a lack of serious thinking, or at best, an attempt to avoid a disputation or argument (there are other possibilities). I understand how someone like me would not want to be affiliated with any party, but I regard the equating of political parties as being a ridiculous idea.
And one more thing, Christians can do and say immensely stupid and bad things, and they can also vote for the wrong people. Hey, I know of Reformed people that are stupid, at least in my judgment. I see their believing in the doctrines of grace and other things as being an incredible thing, and a great proof of God's grace toward us. I know of Reformed people who's ability to reason is simply laughable, particularly when they present themselves as being fairly knowledgeable of the subject at hand.
Bill - I think you are right-on.
Zrim - DISSENT, by all means!
Reg - what culture of death did President Bush foster around the world? Are you talking about the USA going after those who attacked us on 9/11?
Zrim - I dare say that if you, as a superior at your work, wanted to, for example, burn down the building, and your subordinate strongly disagreed with that, and did all that he could to 'thwart' your plan, I would profusely thank your subordinate!
Thwarting a bad deed might be a virtue amongst men, but enduring one is Christian, no?
But I agree that thwarting is part of the Christian life. It's just that it comes by way of endurance, or what Paul called the "foolishness of the cross." It's the difference between a theology of the cross and a theology of glory.
Could I take what you are saying as a reason Christians shouldn't vote? As voting is a means of thwarting bad laws and bad (or at least ineffective) politicians.
You can take it that way, I suppose, but it sure isn't what I mean. I think your question may have an over-realized premise about voting that itself is a problem, namely that statecraft is about righteousness. But politics are simply a proximate way to order our daily public lives. I don't think speaking starry-eyed about our privilege and duty to vote helps much either.
I know people who've stopped voting because "nothing ever changes." It seems to me that if one begins with the sort of premises that I gather Pat or Bill (or Rush) do one is much more vulernable to withdrawal than if one lowers his expectations by a few decibels, is willing to lose the day, admit he could be wrong and live with more realistic and proximate understandings of how the world is supposed to shake out.
If it were only that simple. Somewhere along the line the distinction got blurred.
I agree with you completely (although that in and of itself is starting to scare me!)
Some might say that at one time it was that simple, but that the distinction was made at the Fall, and that ever since we've been trying to live, in one way or another, as if the Fall never happened. I think those people are right, but probably only because I agree with them, which is probably only because I am one of them.
If it helps, agreeing with me scares me as well. But I just do what the voices tell me, it goes much easier that way.
Either we are trying to live as if the Fall never happened or possibly worse, we are trying to get back into the Garden by our own devices.
Come on in; the water is fine.
If you are in favor of less government, low taxes, and more freedom, the Libertarian Party is for you. Sure, we have a few radicals, but the majority of the party is made up of people who just want to be left alone. There are some exciting things happenning in the LP at the local and state levels, as the two major parties continue to merge into one bureaucratic monster.
Like most who speak higher of impatiently thwarting policies than patiently enduring disagreements, I presume you over-realize statecraft to do more than for which it was ordained.
There is a difference being presuming and being presumptuous. When one presumes, he is going by what another says (writes) or does. When one is being presumptuous, he is going beyond that. If you’re wanting to fault me for not knowing the secret intricacies of your beliefs, careful, you might be presuming I’m a Pentecostal instead of Presbyterian. We don’t do crystal balls.