That line is from a classic Star Trek episode. The speaker is a freaked out piece of machinery who holds that its programmed mission is to seek out and sterilize imperfections. It is absolutely maniacal about its mission. It cannot stands imperfection.
On the other end of the spectrum is something which says "we must not be perfect." Really I think the intent is to say we must not act perfect when we are not. But what exactly does that mean, practically? Does it mean that we must be willing to acknowledge that we still have a way to go before being fully sanctified? Minimally that should be so. Such admissions would be healthy for one's spiritual life; they ensure that you do not become over-confident with respect to one's spiritual growth and maturity.
But what if it means something more than that? What if it means that if you don't say you are somehow dysfunctional, or have some kind of imbalance, then you are hiding something?
The implications are not at all pleasant. Those who are more spiritually mature end up being marginalized, even viewed as aberrant. The norm would be dysfunctional spiritually immature people.
Really, the goal should not be to emphasize what is a given, that we are imperfect. Rather, we should emphasize what we should be, and will one day be (perfect). Doing so may highlight for some the fact of our imperfection, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. We should not try going through our walk with Christ thinking that we are something other than we are: sinful.
Yes, the "S" word. We tend to think of ourselves as "broken" or "disconnected". We are those things, but only because we are sinful. We should not confuse the symptoms with the disease.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with admitting we are sinful, ungodly. Paul seems to think that God is in the business of justifying such people. Jesus said that he came to save sinners.
If we don't think of ourselves that way, how can we expect to be saved?
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Budgets and Elections
Well we have a Federal budget which has been delivered in the last few weeks. We also have seen a Quebec provincial election which resulted in a minority government
Lots to think about.
The Federal Budget seems to be a very well crafted document. It won't make the Conservatives more popular with their core constituency, and it might well annoy some of it. Yet they won't lose any votes over this Budget, or at least not enough to matter.
This is especially true when you consider that the Budget will appeal strongly to middle of the road Canadians. It has enough for the environment and middle income Canadians that fears about a hidden agenda will be harder to maintain. It should earn enough votes in mainstream Ontario to help the Conservatives in an anticipated spring or fall election.
Speaking of elections,m the Quebec election could hardly have gone better for the Federal Conservatives. They placed enough candy in the Budget that no one can claim the Federal Budget ruined Premier Jean Charest's chances for re-election. On the contrary, one can argue that the Budget is part of the reason that Quebecers felt confortable voting for the Action Democratique, which is the closest thing Quebec provincial politics has to a Conservative Party. That can only mean good things for the Federal Conservative's chances in the next election.
All in all, it looks to me like this budget was all about laying the ground in Ontario and Quebec to win a majority, and soon.
Lots to think about.
The Federal Budget seems to be a very well crafted document. It won't make the Conservatives more popular with their core constituency, and it might well annoy some of it. Yet they won't lose any votes over this Budget, or at least not enough to matter.
This is especially true when you consider that the Budget will appeal strongly to middle of the road Canadians. It has enough for the environment and middle income Canadians that fears about a hidden agenda will be harder to maintain. It should earn enough votes in mainstream Ontario to help the Conservatives in an anticipated spring or fall election.
Speaking of elections,m the Quebec election could hardly have gone better for the Federal Conservatives. They placed enough candy in the Budget that no one can claim the Federal Budget ruined Premier Jean Charest's chances for re-election. On the contrary, one can argue that the Budget is part of the reason that Quebecers felt confortable voting for the Action Democratique, which is the closest thing Quebec provincial politics has to a Conservative Party. That can only mean good things for the Federal Conservative's chances in the next election.
All in all, it looks to me like this budget was all about laying the ground in Ontario and Quebec to win a majority, and soon.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Terror, Trials, and Tests
This week in Canadian Politics has been fascinating. Most recent has been the argument between Stephen Harper and the LIberal Party over the renewal of anti-terror laws. Those laws, which the Liberals themselves enacted, and did so while wrapped in the Canadian flag, are suddenly so un-Canadian that they cannot be renewed.
At least, so sayeth Stephane Dion and the Liberals.
Ok, well most of the Liberals.
Some of the liberals?
Dion is getting a lot of flack from his own party on this issue. His stance is more than apillte unpopular.
We all know how Harper likes to divide and conquer. He sees a wedge issue here. He smells blood. The liberals are reversing themselves, and Dion will look ineffective no matter what. Either Dion will create friction within his caucus or he will cave to his caucus, giving Harper the chance to exploit Dion's perceived lack of leadership ability.
And then there is the issue of the changes to how justices are appointed. The Conservatives want to give Law Enforcement agencies a say in the appointment process. It is seen as a move to promote the Conservative "Law and Order" agenda.
The Liberals seem to think this is an attack on an independent judiciary. Frankly, I don't see how this can compromise the independence of the judiciary anymore than the PM appointing Supreme Court justices. In the U.S., judges are blatantly partisan, and yet this is not viewed as a compromise of judiciary independence.
But then, the way recent Liberal governments handled supposedly independent enquiries, and dealt with protesters, they are perhaps not the best ones to defend democracy.
Then there is the Air-India investigation. Who would have thought it would take this long to get some answers? Not I. But that issue, coupled with the question of judicial appointments, is what gave rise to Harper trying to read a newspaper article into the Record of he House of Commons.
In it, the Father-In-Law of a Liberal MP is named as being questioned in the whole Air India affair.
The Liberals were incensed, saying this was a smear against the MP. Actually it was not. It was a smear against the Liberal Party. It was an attempt to show that the Liberals have a vested interest in the status quo. It protects, possibly, the electoral prospects of one of their members.
Now, personally, I think that's a stretch. At the same time, it gives the Conservatives more leverage in getting the Anti-Terror provisions renewed.
Once again, Harper smelled blood, and he went for it.
Much to my surprise, Harper is turning out to be a very decisive, strong leader, and a somewhat ruthless partisan politician.
He is very Trudeauesque in that way.
And that brings me to Justin Trudeau. The man is unquestionably charismatic, and definitely has star power. He is articulate, and intelligent. He is also green as grass politically, and, I think wisely, plans to test the waters in the next federal election, which should be sometime this year.
If he wins, and performs well, you could very well see another potential leadership fight in the Liberal Party, especially if the Liberals lose. Justin's timing is great for Justin. It may be less so for the Liberal Party.
At least, so sayeth Stephane Dion and the Liberals.
Ok, well most of the Liberals.
Some of the liberals?
Dion is getting a lot of flack from his own party on this issue. His stance is more than apillte unpopular.
We all know how Harper likes to divide and conquer. He sees a wedge issue here. He smells blood. The liberals are reversing themselves, and Dion will look ineffective no matter what. Either Dion will create friction within his caucus or he will cave to his caucus, giving Harper the chance to exploit Dion's perceived lack of leadership ability.
And then there is the issue of the changes to how justices are appointed. The Conservatives want to give Law Enforcement agencies a say in the appointment process. It is seen as a move to promote the Conservative "Law and Order" agenda.
The Liberals seem to think this is an attack on an independent judiciary. Frankly, I don't see how this can compromise the independence of the judiciary anymore than the PM appointing Supreme Court justices. In the U.S., judges are blatantly partisan, and yet this is not viewed as a compromise of judiciary independence.
But then, the way recent Liberal governments handled supposedly independent enquiries, and dealt with protesters, they are perhaps not the best ones to defend democracy.
Then there is the Air-India investigation. Who would have thought it would take this long to get some answers? Not I. But that issue, coupled with the question of judicial appointments, is what gave rise to Harper trying to read a newspaper article into the Record of he House of Commons.
In it, the Father-In-Law of a Liberal MP is named as being questioned in the whole Air India affair.
The Liberals were incensed, saying this was a smear against the MP. Actually it was not. It was a smear against the Liberal Party. It was an attempt to show that the Liberals have a vested interest in the status quo. It protects, possibly, the electoral prospects of one of their members.
Now, personally, I think that's a stretch. At the same time, it gives the Conservatives more leverage in getting the Anti-Terror provisions renewed.
Once again, Harper smelled blood, and he went for it.
Much to my surprise, Harper is turning out to be a very decisive, strong leader, and a somewhat ruthless partisan politician.
He is very Trudeauesque in that way.
And that brings me to Justin Trudeau. The man is unquestionably charismatic, and definitely has star power. He is articulate, and intelligent. He is also green as grass politically, and, I think wisely, plans to test the waters in the next federal election, which should be sometime this year.
If he wins, and performs well, you could very well see another potential leadership fight in the Liberal Party, especially if the Liberals lose. Justin's timing is great for Justin. It may be less so for the Liberal Party.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Open Mouth, Insert Foot
Local MP Diane Finley was criticized in the House of Commons for what at least one Liberal apparently felt was gratuitous use of limousines.
Said Liberal, it would seem, was unaware that Mrs. Finley suffers from a rare disease that, at present, makes her an unsafe driver. Mrs. Finley refused to use her condition as a reason in the House. Perhaps she wanted to spare the Liberal some embarrassment. Perhaps she just wand to maintain some sense of dignity in the midst of what is doubtless a humbling set of circumstances.
Mrs. Finley was simply being responsible to the other drivers on the road.
In politics, as in so much else, no good deed goes unpunished.
This is no way for the Liberals to improve their sagging fortunes.
Said Liberal, it would seem, was unaware that Mrs. Finley suffers from a rare disease that, at present, makes her an unsafe driver. Mrs. Finley refused to use her condition as a reason in the House. Perhaps she wanted to spare the Liberal some embarrassment. Perhaps she just wand to maintain some sense of dignity in the midst of what is doubtless a humbling set of circumstances.
Mrs. Finley was simply being responsible to the other drivers on the road.
In politics, as in so much else, no good deed goes unpunished.
This is no way for the Liberals to improve their sagging fortunes.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Kyoto Quagmire
So this past week the Opposition forced passage of a Bill, which, if enacted as law, would require the Conservative Government to table a plan to meet the Kyoto Protocol targets within 60 days of said passage.
Bully for them.
And really, I mean "Bully."
The Opposition Parties are acting like bullies in this situation. They are throwing their weight around, making threats, and, ultimately, accomplishing nothing positive.
The thought that the Opposition wishes to propagate is that to be anti-Kyoto is to be anti-environment. That is of course nonsense; one can have a high view of the environment without having a high view of the Kyoto Accord. The problem though is that it is distinctly more difficult to sound environmentally friendly while opposing Kyoto. It is just harder to sound positive when you are being painted as being in opposition to something. So the Opposition has a good chance of making the Conservatives look bad.
And really this is what it is all about. The Opposition Parties (with the possible exception of the NDP) are not really doing this for the sake of actual environmental concern; they want only to score a few political points. As far as that plan goes, this is a pretty cute move. The Opposition gets to paint itself as defender of the environment without actually taking on any responsibility. They basically said to the Conservative Government: "We'll make you deal with it and then clean up after you."
The plan has the biggest potential for the Liberals ( The NDP are not realistic threats to form a government). By that though I mean that this plan has the biggest potential for political good or ill for the Liberals. The best case scenario for them is that the Bill passes into law, with the Conservatives being unable to make the deadline. That would effectively give the Liberals the means to fight a spring election on a single issue that the Conservatives could not win, having lost credibility as a party interested in preserving the environment.
However there are other possibilities that are absolutely atrocious for the Liberals. One is that the Conservatives could come up with a plan of their own to meet or surpass Kyoto Targets in terms of overall reductions, but not in the Kyoto time frame. Or, they could come up with a plan to met Kyoto in full, but along with it prepare an economic impact statement. This would have the effect of pointing out that the Liberals wish to destroy the economy under the guise of preserving the planet, something they could have avoided by doing anything at all during their previous 13 years in power. In either case the Liberals' rhetoric of climate care would be shown for a sham. They would lose credibility, and the Conservatives would win a single issue election.
And let's face it, the Liberals have to have a single issue election. They cannot run on their own record, or Dion's. The Conservative record has been good enough to not be exploited as a weakness. The Conservatives have made a few little errors, but the Liberals need them to make a big one. They are hoping to force such a an error with this bill on Kyoto. They are hoping to steal electoral initiative away from the Harper Conservatives.
Stealing is what bullies do best.
Bully for them.
And really, I mean "Bully."
The Opposition Parties are acting like bullies in this situation. They are throwing their weight around, making threats, and, ultimately, accomplishing nothing positive.
The thought that the Opposition wishes to propagate is that to be anti-Kyoto is to be anti-environment. That is of course nonsense; one can have a high view of the environment without having a high view of the Kyoto Accord. The problem though is that it is distinctly more difficult to sound environmentally friendly while opposing Kyoto. It is just harder to sound positive when you are being painted as being in opposition to something. So the Opposition has a good chance of making the Conservatives look bad.
And really this is what it is all about. The Opposition Parties (with the possible exception of the NDP) are not really doing this for the sake of actual environmental concern; they want only to score a few political points. As far as that plan goes, this is a pretty cute move. The Opposition gets to paint itself as defender of the environment without actually taking on any responsibility. They basically said to the Conservative Government: "We'll make you deal with it and then clean up after you."
The plan has the biggest potential for the Liberals ( The NDP are not realistic threats to form a government). By that though I mean that this plan has the biggest potential for political good or ill for the Liberals. The best case scenario for them is that the Bill passes into law, with the Conservatives being unable to make the deadline. That would effectively give the Liberals the means to fight a spring election on a single issue that the Conservatives could not win, having lost credibility as a party interested in preserving the environment.
However there are other possibilities that are absolutely atrocious for the Liberals. One is that the Conservatives could come up with a plan of their own to meet or surpass Kyoto Targets in terms of overall reductions, but not in the Kyoto time frame. Or, they could come up with a plan to met Kyoto in full, but along with it prepare an economic impact statement. This would have the effect of pointing out that the Liberals wish to destroy the economy under the guise of preserving the planet, something they could have avoided by doing anything at all during their previous 13 years in power. In either case the Liberals' rhetoric of climate care would be shown for a sham. They would lose credibility, and the Conservatives would win a single issue election.
And let's face it, the Liberals have to have a single issue election. They cannot run on their own record, or Dion's. The Conservative record has been good enough to not be exploited as a weakness. The Conservatives have made a few little errors, but the Liberals need them to make a big one. They are hoping to force such a an error with this bill on Kyoto. They are hoping to steal electoral initiative away from the Harper Conservatives.
Stealing is what bullies do best.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
And So It Begins
Time to stretch out a bit. I comment a great deal on things theological. Another thing I have an interest in is politics. Time to make some comments. Later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)