« January 2005 | Main | March 2005 »
February 28, 2005
My Initial Take on Million Dollar Baby
I just saw Million Dollar Baby, one night after it won an Academy Award. I thought that perhaps I should digest the movie and talk about it later, but I do not believe that is possible. Too much has already been about the film, but I shall add my piece nonetheless. To begin, let me say that this is a masterfully crafted movie, well-made in every aspect. I was unable to see any of the other films nominated for Best Picture, but this was a fine film.
Yet art does not let us go so easily; we are forced to ponder questions and perhaps develop a few of our own. This is a troubling movie on many levels. It is existentionalist at its best; purely nihilistic at its worst. God is indeed dead in this film. I do not know whether Nietzsche would be proud of the film, but surely he would concede its implications. It is no coincidence that Clint Eastwood's character reads Yeats throughout the film. Yeats admired Nietzsche and again, I cannot say that Yeats would agree with every decision made in the film. Surely, however, Yeats would admire the sheer will of Frankie and Maggie. They both exemplify Der Ubermensch as Nietzsche saw him. Hemingway would be proud, and perhaps D.H. Lawrence, as his notion of the will to power ran rampant thoughout the film.
As a Christian it was most difficult to view this movie. Of course it is well made in all areas, but it is a film about a world where God is silent, if He even exists at all. The characters in this film are hopeless, striving only to achieve satisfaction in self. One watches the film and wants desperately at times to tell Frankie and Maggie and Scrap that there is hope.
I shall write more on this later. This is a deep, deep film and no amount of knee-jerk reaction should distract us from the philosophical implications that lie within. Thus far, Mike Potemra and Thomas Hibbs, both writing at National Review, have the best analysis. They do not fall into the trap of arguing politics or excusing sin and despair. They do a fine job of examining the film; its merits and its flaws. I have yet to read much else from conservatives or Christians that offered such a critical analysis. Potemra is right; this not a movie about what sin has done to humanity. See Kill Bill for a gruesome lesson on that topic. No, this movie comes to the tragic conclusion that our fleeting moments of glory are all we have. Once they are gone, so are we.
How sad and terrible! I'll talk more about this film later. Despite its controversy, there is much here to discuss. We should not abandon the public square, least of all not in these times. Even when it makes us uncomfortable and challenges us, as this movie does, to passionately defend Truth in all spheres.
Posted by Matt at 10:58 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Love Divine: The Atlanta Sacred Chorale Sings at Emory
This weekend we attended a concert of the Atlanta Sacred Chorale, with The Michael O’Neal Singers and the Atlanta Boy Choir. It was an evening of great, uplifting music in the beautiful new Schwartz Center at well-endowed Emory University. It was a joy to listen to sacred music in the liberal university setting. Classical music is one area where the expulsion of God would pretty much shut down the discipline, since so many composers are dead white male Christians.
The Atlanta Sacred Chorale (a client of my PR firm) is arguably the finest chamber chorus in the nation dedicated to a sacred repertoire. They sing almost everything a cappella, with amazing precision and beauty.
The evening ended with the combined choirs singing the great hymn by Charles Wesley, Love Divine, All Loves Excelling (Text: Charles Wesley, 1707-1788. Music: John Zundel, 1815-1882):
Love divine, all loves excelling, joy of heaven, to earth come down; fix in us thy humble dwelling; all thy faithful mercies crown! Jesus thou art all compassion, pure, unbounded love thou art; visit us with thy salvation; enter every trembling heart.
Breathe, O breathe thy loving Spirit into every troubled breast! Let us all in thee inherit; let us find that second rest. Take away our bent to sinning; Alpha and Omega be; end of faith, as its beginning, set our hearts at liberty.What a sound. What a song.Come, Almighty to deliver,
let us all thy life receive;
suddenly return and never,
nevermore thy temples leave.
Thee we would be always blessing,
serve thee as thy hosts above,
pray and praise thee without ceasing,
glory in thy perfect love.Finish, then, thy new creation;
pure and spotless let us be.
Let us see thy great salvation
perfectly restored in thee;
changed from glory into glory,
till in heaven we take our place,
till we cast our crowns before thee,
lost in wonder, love, and praise.
Posted by Jim at 01:43 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
State Constitutions: Grateful to God
All fifty state constitutions include a reference to God, most in the preamble. A sampling:
California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ...
Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings ... establish this Constitution ...
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe... in the course of His Providence, an opportunity ... and devoutly imploring His direction ...
North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for ... our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those ...
Posted by Jim at 01:32 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Behind the Information Curve
Drudge links to a Time Magazine story that is revealing of how much the world has to learn of democracy, freedom of speech, and, just how far behind the curve we are regarding global information dissemination.
Vladmir Putin of Russia truly thinks that the US Government was responsible for the firings at CBS over Rathergate.
According to an MSNBC report of the episode:
It's not clear how well Putin understands the controversy that led to the dismissal of four CBS journalists over the discredited report on Bush's National Guard service. Yet it's all too clear how Putin sees the relationship between Bush and the American media—just like his own. Bush's aides have long feared that former KGB officers in Putin's inner circle are painting a twisted picture of U.S. policy. So Bush explained how he had no power to fire American journalists.Last week was not the first time Bush had to answer a question out of left-field from the Russian President. Once, while at Crawford TX, Putin reportedly asked Bush if the US had two different chicken plants; one superior for Americans and another inferior for Russian consumers. The Rathergate question "reinforced the Administration's view that Putin's impressions of America are often based on urban myths fed to him by ill-informed aides."
I don't think that Putin is a fever swamp moonbat like Democrat Congressman Maurice Hinchey; he's just grossly misinformed - and that is OUR fault.
U.S. aides say that to help fight against this kind of misinformation, they are struggling to build relationships that go beyond Putin. "We need to go deeper into the well into other levels of government," explains an aide.That would be a start; but, I sure hope our government is exploring ways in which the blogosphere can be used to influence public opinion and convey information globally. Russia is only one front of the information war. Iran is another. Europe and China are others that are ripe for information priming.
Posted by Rick at 09:20 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Public High Schools Obsolete?
Bill Gates has declared US High Schools obsolete.
[Gates] called for a get-tough approach toward schools that fail.It seems to me that the education of our children is impeded by failed institutions."When the students don't learn, the school must change," Gates said. "Every state needs a strong intervention strategy to improve struggling schools."
"This needs to include special teams of experts who are given the power and resources to turn things around," he said.
First, the family institution has failed. Parents have abdicated the responisibility of being the primary educators of their children. Second, the public education system has been hijacked by teachers unions.
I am told that in the "good old days," parents would have the presence of mind to register complaints with a local principal about an underperforming teacher and that principal was empowered by the School Board to take the necessary corrective action. Now, it seems that fewer parents are involved enough to complain, but when they do, underperforming teachers are protected by unions and given a pass.
One of my first blog posts was on this subject. In that post, I referenced an article that reported that 53 percent of workers ages 16 and older are functionally illiterate, and asked: Who Do They Sue? Students, who can't read, are passed through the school system and graduated, only to realize that they don't have the basic skills to thrive. My solutions?
Teaching needs to become a profession, not an occupation. Teachers should be required to earn an equivalent of a master's degree to before they lead a class. They should also spend two or perhaps three years completing a residency (low-pay).Unfortunately, this solution would only impact one institution. It would sure be nice if families met the teachers half way and cared more for their kids' education.As a reward for their hard work, teachers should also be paid VERY well. I'm talking $75K (California dollars) to start, with $100K+ after a five years. This should be a priority in State funding and should be implemented without the crying to the feds.
For this to work, teachers must be accountable to local school boards, which should be empowered to fire or discipline non-performing teachers. What we have now is a charade. The teacher's unions are so powerful they easily stock local boards with "puppets" through grassroots campaign support.
Part of accountability is testing. I can hear it now (especially from my sister who is finishing up her undergrad work at University of Washington and is passionate about education issues), standardized tests don't measure intelligence and can be inherently biased.
While I agree with these criticisms, standardized testing at the high school level can be an effective measure of competence. We're not talking complex alegbra or writing composition here. The study referenced above is measuring basic reading ability.
Any system that allows social promotion or does not hold students back who can't pass a VERY simple test, is a failed system that needs systemic change. Transforming teaching into a profession is one way to effect this change.
Posted by Rick at 09:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Cry, the Beloved Country: Life Expectancy Plummeting in Africa
This from the 2005 Economic Report of the President
"As a result of its lethality and the relative youth of its victims, HIV/AIDs has reduced life expectancy by more than 20 years in many African countries. Life expectancy in some countries is projected to fall to roughly 30 years within the next decade, whereas in the absence of HIV/AIDS some were expected to approach or exceed 70 years. (h/t: Ben Muse and Trolling in Shallow Waters).
I am shocked by this graph.
I always turn to World Vision when confronted by the enormity of an international humanitarian crisis. They have something called The Hope Initiative.
The Hope Initiative is an unprecedented campaign to address the needs of children, families and communities that have been devastated by the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. There is an urgent need to mobilize the Christian community and the general public around the global HIV/AIDS crisis.
Posted by Jim at 08:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Free Speech for Churches and Charities: Pass the Houses of Worship Freedom of Speech Restoration Act
Churches and non-profit charities lost their right to free speech 51 years ago when Lyndon Johnson, then a Senator, introduced and forced through a terrible piece of legislation to silence his critics.
As a result, churches and charities have forfeited their right to free speech as the price for exemption from certain taxes under the IRS code, section 501-C-3. If a church or charity violates regulations that prohibit them from “substantial” lobbying or the endorsement of political candidates, the IRS can revoke the group’s 501-C-3 status, and individuals who donate funds to the group cannot deduct these contributions.
It’s time to stop this nonsense and allow church and charities their First Amendment rights. Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ wrote last fall:
The special power given to the IRS not only stifles the First Amendment rights of pastors and churches, but the IRS has been selective and biased in its enforcement.The law is flawed, misplaced and a disaster.
Sekulow continues:
The IRS often ignores political involvement from liberals and targets conservative churches and ministers such as the Church at Pierce Creek in New York, which had its tax-exempt status revoked after the pastor placed newspaper ads in 1992 calling attention to then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton's position on the critical moral issues of abortion and sexual abstinence outside of marriage.Religious leaders not only have a constitutional right to address the moral issues of the day; many believe they have a responsibility to do so - especially in the context of political campaigns. And pastors should have the ability to speak out from the pulpit - and support or oppose a political candidate based on where the candidate stands on the issues. Unfortunately, that is not permissible now.
This article from the trade publication for CPA is extremely helpful in defining the limits. It begins:
In 1954, at the height of the McCarthy era, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson sought a legislative route to silence some of his anticommunist critics. Encouraged by Johnson, the U.S. Senate passed a major tax code revision by a voice vote. Although Johnson’s revision was targeted specifically at nonprofit groups that were contesting his seat, churches—which also are nonprofit organizations—fell under the new tax code provisions.Although the ban excluded churches and other IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations from active participation in the political process, years passed without major incident. Then, in 1992, the religious organization Branch Ministries, Inc. (BMI), purchased a newspaper advertisement urging Christians to vote against presidential candidate Bill Clinton, and the IRS initiated an investigation. In January 1995, the IRS revoked BMI’s status as a section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. By contrast, in the 1994 New York gubernatorial campaign, the IRS chose not to initiate an investigation when Governor Cuomo received vocal support from the pulpit of a Harlem church.
The liberals should want the law changed, as well, since the political axe can swing both ways. As LaShawn Barber writes, the NAACP has been whining about being targeted by the IRS for its political violations.
The social club liberals at the NAACP thought they were above the law. Well, there is no such thing as skin color entitlements when it comes to the IRS and its rules against political activity.
But as the Washington Post pointed out:
The Internal Revenue Service followed “established procedures” in deciding which tax-exempt entities to investigate for possible improper involvement in last year’s political campaign, and there is no evidence that the agency’s decisions were politically motivated, according to an inspector general’s report released yesterday.The IRS attracted headlines last fall when the NAACP announced that the agency was threatening to revoke its tax-exempt status because its chairman, Julian Bond, had given a speech attacking the Bush administration.
In the early days of the 2004 presidential campaign, the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act was proposed as a means to reverse a portion of the 1954 legislation and to return First Amendment speech protection to America’s churches, synagogues, and mosques. That bill (HR2357) failed to pass the House in October 2002.
In October 2004, a Republican congressman joined African-American clergy and other members of Congress to re-introduce the legislation.
North Carolina Rep. Walter B. Jones enlisted Reps. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Robin Hayes (R-N.C.) to drum up support for Jones' bill, the Houses of Worship Freedom of Speech Restoration Act (HR 235)."There is a muzzle upon the clergy. As ministers, we are obligated to speak about the moral and political issues of the day, and taking away that right is harassment. It is wrong, and it is extortion," said Clergy United leader Bishop Anthony Muse, who called on the Congressional Black Caucus to back Jones' bill and to push for its passage. (Source)
The House bill introduced by Congressman Jones, HR 235, was referred to the Ways and Means Committee, where it remains.
It’s time to return freedom of speech to America's churches and charities by passing the language in HR 235.
Posted by Jim at 07:42 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
February 27, 2005
Shamus to India
A buddy of mine, Shamus, took off for India the other day. Shamus is my age and we're about the same age in the Lord (~6 years). We met at a College Bible study at Horizon Christian Fellowship almost 5 years ago and both went through Horizon's School of Evangelism (different classes).
We were also roommates while Sunny and I dated. He would set his alarm for 5:00am and hit snooze until 6:00am and I felt like throwing a shoe at him it made me so mad! Another fond memory of Shamus; he gave me reason to kiss for the first time my future wife. Being the romantic and all, I grabbed Sunny close and said, "Quick! Kiss me! Shamus is coming!" Sunny gets a kick out of this story and God willing it will make us smile for another 50+ years.
With the heart and gifts of an evangelist, Shamus continued in the School of Evangelism as a student and leader. Shamus will spend six months preaching in the streets and serving the people of India.. I think I've convinced him to start a blog while he is gone, but am not sure. Please pray for my friend Shamus, that God would work mightily through him.
Posted by Rick at 11:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Come Again Howard Dean?
The more I think about Howard Dean's statements, the more outraged I become. Dean and his brand of pro-choice Democrats think they are agents for good in a battle against evil. Really?
Evil can have a clear face. (WARNING: Links are graphic and highly disturbing).
Evil looks like this and this. Evil also looks like this, this, this, this, this, and this.
Some of those linked images and video depict the heads of decapitated babies, while others show the heads of decapitated hostages. Both were done by the hands of man.
When Dr. Dean spoke of a war between good and evil, he was clearly alluding to Bush's rhetoric in describing the global war on terrorism (GWOT). What is more evil Dr. Dean? Pastors who preach life? Or Islamofascist terrorists?
I am so angry and disgusted, I want to puke.
Posted by Rick at 09:18 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Dean and the Domestic Axis of Evil
Howard Dean recently characterized the Democrats' domestic political agenda as a battle between "good and evil." (HT: Hugh via Polipundit and Kathryn Jean Lopez). Oh. In case there was any doubt where Dean was going with this, he added that the Democrats are the "good."
On abortion, Dean said:
"The issue is not abortion," Dean told the closed-door fund-raiser. "The issue is whether women can make up their own mind instead of some right-wing pastor, some right-wing politician telling them what to do."Okay all you "right wing" pastors who encourage your flocks to stand for life - the Democrats have you in their cross-hairs. You are now a member of their domestic Axis of Evil.
...
"Moderate Republicans can't stand these people (conservatives), because they're intolerant. They don't think tolerance is a virtue," Dean said, adding: "I'm not going to have these right-wingers throw away our right to be tolerant."
As many of my readers know, I am not the archetype conservative. I'm fairly "liberal" when it comes to many Democratic bread and butter socio-economic policy issues. But in the case of pastors who support life, the leader of the Democratic Party has called evil what is obviously good. Thanks Howard Dean and the Democrats who elected him for making my political party preference clear.
Posted by Rick at 08:16 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
All but Won?
This article by Jack Kelly all but made my morning (HT: Hugh Hewitt).
It will be some months before the news media recognize it, and a few months more before they acknowledge it, but the war in Iraq is all but won.Great, quick read and I hope to read more accounts like this in the months to come.
Posted by Rick at 03:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Million Dollar Controversy
I mentioned the other day that I was wanting to see Million Dollar Baby sometime before the Oscars. I haven't had the chance yet, but I might try this afternoon. On its face, it looks like a well-made movie. Beyond that, of course, is the controversy surrounding its ending.
Do not read any further if you don't want to know the movie's ending.
Thanks to Rush Limbaugh, I've already had the movie's ending ruined for me. Rush and Michael Medved both seem to take the opinion that the script's utilization of a very controversial and (in my mind) immoral medical procedure is a de-facto endorsement of such an act.
Contrast that with Jeffrey Overstreet's review in Christianity Today. Though I've yet to see the movie, I find Overstreet's review to be very fair. Perhaps too much so. For a different opinion, examine this brief analysis from Mike Potemra at The Corner. I can appreciate both reviews, and their final conclusions, because both of these men are critics. They are - unlike Limbaugh - men who spend much of the their time examining art for its flaws and its praise-worthy attributes.
I was also bothered by Al Mohler's "review" of the film. Mohler's piece isn't so much of a review as it is an analysis of the controversy. I certainly don't endorse the actions taken by the film's characters at the end of the movie. Maybe Clint Eastwood does, but simply showing an action in a movie is not in itself endorsement or propaganda. Mohler's article, however, takes the movie as an opportunity to rail against the procedure. This is reasonable and I agree with his premise concerning the procedure. Yet Mohler takes a highly uncritical and almost shallow view of art. Shall we denouce every work of art that utilizes actions and procedures that by any stanrdard of Judeo-Christian morality are wrong? Based on Overstreet and Potemra's reviews, I fully expect to appreciate the artistry of the movie and yet be disturbed by its moral conclusions. However, I reject any notion that this is an example of Hollywood tossing an agenda down our collective throats or that Eastwood is attempting to emerge as an advocate for the procedure that the movie protrays. He may yet do so, and should he do that, I shall be sorely disappointed. But until then (and until I've seen them film), I find it unfair to treat this an example of all that is wrong with Hollywood.
I hope to have more on this point after viewing the movie. Right now I'm simply trying to wade through the loud noise being blasted from every angle.
Note: For about twenty minutes there was a line in the above paragraphs that in retrospect was unnecessary. I have since edited the post.
Posted by Matt at 12:20 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
February 25, 2005
WalMartha
Has it been five months already? Martha is scheduled to be freed from prison next weekend.
Martha Stewart will also be wearing the must-have accessory for the convicted felon on the go: an electronic anklet that will allow authorities to monitor her movements.Yikes! That's roughin' it!
After five months in prison in West Virginia, Stewart will be released next weekend to her 153-acre estate in the rolling horse country 40 miles north of midtown Manhattan. There, for another five months, she will serve the home detention portion of her sentence for a stock scandal.
My wife is a huge Martha fan; she's also a WalMart fan. I'm neither a Martha fan, nor a frequenter of WalMart - but I am forced to consume products of both vendors (choke choke hack hack). WalMartha gives me the heeber jeebers. They prey on the weak in the name of capitalism; and do it with a smile and feel good slogans. No, Martha. In reference to WalMart - it's NOT a good thing.
Posted by Rick at 09:20 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Vigilantes Dealing Justice?
Knight Ridder news service reports that revenge killings of members of Saddam's former regime are on the rise.
Although pretty grotesque, this latest story of revenge against Saddam enablers is pretty tame considering what I expected. I figured that the Bathist loyalists would fight American, Shiite, and Kurds with everything they had because they had nothing to lose. With Saddam dethroned and humiliated, I envisioned streets running with blood from impaled and hanged corpses of Bathist henchmen as millions of Iraqis rose up against their former oppressors.
Former regime enablers at the higher levels of government should be rounded up and tried - Nuremberg style; not hunted, intimidated, and executed - SS style.
"They can do whatever they like now. Let's hope God grants us all restraint," said former Baathist, Abu Muqdad.
Amen.
Posted by Rick at 08:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Grace Church Blog
Another Pastor who gets it: Tim Theule of Grace Church in San Luis Obispo. He started blogging after reading Hugh Hewitt's book, Blog.
Although he's just started, check out how he is using his blog to communicate to his flock.
DISCLOSURE: I grew up in nearby Santa Maria and my parents live in San Luis Obispo. It's good to read of a God Blog from SLO.
Posted by Rick at 08:20 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
GodBlogCon 2005
Keep the SmartChristian Blog URL on speed refresh as an announcement regarding the location of GodBlogCon 2005 is imminent. The convention will be in California, so I'll do my best to represent SCO. Anyone else planning a trip?
Oh - and Smart Christian and Blog is a good resource as well.
Posted by Rick at 04:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
"Tammy Faye with a law degree"
Peggy Noonan says this is how you know Hillary is running for Presient.
Ten days ago a reporter interviewed her in the halls of the Senate . . . and asked if she planned to run for president. She did not say, "I'm too busy serving the people of New York to think about the future." She did not say, "Oh, I already have a heckuva lot on my plate." She said, "I have more than I can say grace over right now."I have more than I can say grace over right now. What a wonderfully premeditated ad lib for the Age of Red State Dominance. I suggested a few weeks ago that Mrs. Clinton was about to get very, very religious. But her words came across as pious and smarmy, like Tammy Faye with a law degree. Maybe she still thinks in stereotypes; maybe she thinks that's what little Christian ladies talk like while they stay home baking cookies. Whatever, it was almost as good as her saying, "I'm running, is this not obvious to even the slowest of you?"
Posted by Drew at 01:18 PM | Comments (3)
The New Peculiar Institution
Joe Carter considers The New Peculiar Institution: Abortion, Embryos, and Property Rights:
"Prior to abolition, slavery in the U.S. was often referred to as the “peculiar institution.” The phrase was used not because chattel slavery was considered unusual but because the English word peculiar is derived from the Latin peculiaris – personal property. While the concept of human beings as personal property may seem anachronistic, abortion supporters are left with few alternatives but to accept the semantic shift in order to continue to justify denying the dignity of the unborn."
Posted by Jim at 09:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Israel Drawing A Line
The Big Trunk at Powerline wonders why Israel has not produced a great statesman, explains why he doesn’t see Sharon as one, and disagrees some with Charles Krauthammer’s column. I understand the concerns but agree with Krauthammers larger arguments (as usual).
He writes:
“Last Sunday Israel crossed two Rubicons. The Cabinet decided once and for all to withdraw from Gaza and dismantle 25 settlements -- 21 in Gaza and four in the upper West Bank. Yet, had Israel done only this, it would be seen, correctly, as a victory for terrorism, a unilateral retreat and surrender to the four-year intifada. That is why the second Israeli decision was so important. The Cabinet also voted to finish the security fence on the West Bank, which will separate Israeli and Palestinian populations and create the initial border between Israel and a nascent Palestine. The fence decision makes clear that the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza is only part of a larger strategy, the first serious strategic idea Israel has had since its period of utter confusion and demoralization at the beginning of the 2000 intifada. The idea is this: Israel must (unilaterally, if necessary) rationalize its defensive lines -- in order to (1) protect its citizens, (2) permanently defuse the Palestinian terrorist threat and thus (3) open the door to a final peace.”
Posted by Jim at 09:04 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Blog Radio on Social Security
The fifth Homespun Bloggers Radio program is a special edition on the topic of Social Security. Here's the list of contributors:
· Jay has a couple of segments. One (representing his blog The Radical Centrist) notes that to have a reasonable and honest discussion about Social Security, we have to understand the program as it really is and how it was intended to be. Representing his other blog (The Bird's Eye View), he gives us a bird's eye view of the Homespun Bloggers group and reports on how some of us are covering this topic.
· Derek (Weapon of Mass Distraction) asks how people lived before Social Security existed, and wonders if we dare consider how senior citizens managed before the New Deal?
· Doug (Considerettes) gives the history of the politicization of this issue among Democrats who now say there is no crisis.
Posted by Jim at 08:53 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Algoreithm
Yes, it’s true--Blue Goldfish rolls his eyes—there actually is a Al Gore 2008 website. That’s not going to happen.
Posted by Jim at 08:48 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Genocide in Darfur
The continuing genocide in Darfur is not generating outrage among the American public, which as Blue Goldfish points out, may be why Washington has been tepid in its response. This is the worst man-made catastrophe in the world right now. It isn’t necessarily an American problem (although I believe we should do what we can), but something needs to be done. How about the Arab nations sending troops to stop the killing by their Muslim brethren. Wouldn't that be a shock.
Posted by Jim at 08:44 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
More on Wal-Mart
Concerning my Wal-Mart post below, I initially failed to check out Hewitt's link to a post by Professor Bainbridge. My goodness! The professor absolutely nails the case against Wal-Mart. It's a must read.
Check out Professor Bainbridge on the conservative case against Wal-Mart.
Also: Jay Nordlinger practices more Wal-Mart love in this morning's Impromptus. Maybe I am an elitist, but I invite Nordlinger to leave his operas and symphonies in New York City. Come to any medium-sized city south of the Mason-Dixon line and check out the Wal-Mart Supercenter on the edge of town. The first trip might be nice, but keep going and see how "great" the store can be. Not so much, really.
I just love how big-city conservatives praise flyover country as though it is the noble Shire, a Tolkien-esque world of peace and tranquility. Sorry folks, it's just not true. Sure there are open fields and mountains and nice folks and fishing and hunting and college football and fine churches, but there's also crystal meth labs, depressing Wal-Marts, poor aesthetics, dirty McDonalds and the same set of strip malls in every single town.
The view of red state America might be fine from Manhattan or L.A. And no, things are not insufferable. But they're not the Paradise some of our conservative brethren would like to believe. They would be well-served to leave the Beltway and spend significant time in a suburban red state area. They might find that spending every Friday night at the same medium-sized Barnes and Noble gets old in a hurry.
Posted by Matt at 07:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
35 Facts You Were Perfectly Happy Not Knowing
Just because it’s Friday and some of these are actually interesting, here’s a list I picked up somewhere (sorry, can’t find the source).
1. Rubberbands last longer when refrigerated.
2. Peanuts are one of the ingredients of dynamite.
3. There are 293 ways to make change for a dollar.
4. The average person's left hand does 56% of the typing.
5. The shark is the only fish that can blink with both eyes.
6. There are more chickens than people in the world.
7. Two-thirds of the world's eggplant is grown in New Jersey.
8. The longest one-syllable word in the English language is "screeched."
10. All of the clocks in the movie "Pulp Fiction" are stuck on 4:20.
11. No word in the English language rhymes with month, orange, silver or purple.
12. "Dreamt" is the only English word that ends in the letters "mt".
13. All 50 states are listed across the top of the Lincoln Memorial on the back of the $5 bill.
14. Almonds are a member of the peach family.
15. Winston Churchill was born in a ladies' room during a dance.
16. Maine is the only US state whose name is just one syllable.
17. There are only 4 words in the English language that end in "dous" - tremendous, horrendous, stupendous and hazardous.
18. Los Angeles' full name is "El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora la Reina de los Angeles de Porciuncula"
19. A cat has 32 muscles in each ear.
20. An ostrich's eye is bigger than its brain.
21. Tigers have striped skin, not just striped fur.
22. In most advertisements, the time displayed on a watch is 10:10
23. Al Capone's business card said he was a used furniture dealer.
24. The Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie were named after Bert the cop and Ernie the taxi driver in Frank Capra's "It's A Wonderful Life."
25. Some dragonflies have a life span of 24 hours.
26. A goldfish has a memory span of three seconds.
27. A dime has 118 ridges around the edge.
28. It's impossible to sneeze with your eyes open.
29. The giant squid has the largest eyes in the world.
30. In England, the Speaker of the House is not allowed to speak.
31. The microwave was invented after a researcher walked by a radar tube and a chocolate bar melted in his pocket.
32. Mr. Rogers was an ordained minister.
33. The average person falls asleep in seven minutes.
34. There are 336 dimples on a regulation golf ball.
35. "Stewardesses" is the longest word that is typed with only the left hand
Posted by Jim at 07:12 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Anglican Leaders Tell Rebellious North Americans to Stay Home
The worldwide Anglican communion is thrashing about desperately to find a way to avoid schism. Many of the Anglican leaders around the world were infuriated by the Church’s relatively mild rebuke of the American Espiscopalians last fall when they consecrated an openly gay man as bishop.
Now, (from the NY Times) the Anglican hierarchy has asked the “Episcopal Church U.S.A. and the Anglican Church of Canada to withdraw their representatives temporarily from a key governing body of the denomination.”
“The annual meeting was regularly scheduled, but the main task facing the 35 primates who attended was fashioning a response to a report last fall that examined the North American churches' decisions on homosexuality, their impact on the global communion and the options of continuing as one denomination in light of fierce opposition among many other national churches to the moves.The request to withdraw representatives from the June meeting was meant to appease critics, including many bishops in Africa, Asia and Latin America, who wanted a sharper rebuke of the North American churches than the fall report offered, members of the Episcopal clergy and experts on the church said."
Posted by Jim at 07:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 24, 2005
Hewitt and Wal-Mart
Hugh Hewitt contintues the proud coastal conservative tradition of loving Wal-Mart. I'll say it loud and I'll say it proud: I loathe Wal-Mart. It's an ugly store. It takes over every town it visits. Yes, it provides jobs but conservatism should stand for something other than a financial bottomline. And even conservative and libertarian types have noted that Wal-Mart has become notorious for abusing imminent domain.
My colleague Jim detailed it earlier this week. I also discussed the battle of Target vs. Wal-Mart back in the fall. And yes, I know, Target made a boneheaded corporate decision regarding the Salvation Army, but it wouldn't take me long to find some information about Wal-Mart's delightful reputation of employee abuse. Then we can all have a fun contest to see which corporation is nicer. And here's a newsflash - no one is winning that contest.
Posted by Matt at 11:33 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Saint Vladimir: Putin Religious, by Russian Standards?
Russian President Putin communicates well with the Christian U.S. President George Bush because Putin is quite religious, by Russian standards. So said Mortimer Zuckerman, editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report today on Fox News.
That is an unexpected thought, given Putin’s history as the chief thug of the KGB.
But evidently, Putin has many faces. This from The Atlantic Online:
“Over the years, Atlantic correspondent Paul Starobin has researched Putin's history and background and spoken both with those who know him personally and with political analysts who have studied his behavior. In "The Accidental Autocrat," Starobin portrays Russia's leader as a complex mixture of seemingly incongruous parts. There is Putin the fighter—a man who describes himself as having a "pugilistic nature," and who has long held a black belt in judo. There is Putin the canny former KGB operative—rigorously trained to calculate his every move and to dispense information sparingly. And then there is Putin the believer—a man of faith, who as a child absorbed his mother's strong Orthodox Russian beliefs and continues to practice devoutly.”
I have a relative who teaches in a seminary in Moscow. I’ll see what he thinks about all of this.
Posted by Jim at 03:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Name a Guardian ad litem for Terry Schiavo
The best route for the Florida legislature to protect Terry Schiavo from her estranged husband (to put it mildly) is to declare him an unfit guardian.. The court could name her parents as guardians, or perhaps name an independent guardian ad litem, as the court sometimes does for a minor child.
Terry Schiavo’s parents, the Schindlers, are urging the Legislature to amend state law so a spouse cannot serve as a guardian if he is living with someone else.
The Florida Senate President hints that such a change may be the most feasible action the Legislature could take.
“We have a guardian who essentially has moved on and is living another life but retains the responsibilities and obligations of guardianship," said Sen. Tom Lee. "I think that is unique in this situation."
Posted by Jim at 02:37 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Witness
Korn's guitarist quit the band due to moral objections to their music (HT: What Attitude Problem?).
Guitarist Brian "Head" Welch, a founding member of Korn, has left the band and has rededicated his life to Christianity, according to the group's management.In 2000, Korn toured Europe with Christian band, Payable on Death (P.O.D.). Former P.O.D. guitarist, Marcos, used to attend my church (as did other members of the band on occassion) and I recall him saying shortly after the tour with Korn that, while they never really connected with any of the band members, a couple of Korn's crew gave their lives to Christ while on the road through their ministry.
Some plant, some water, some reap, but all do God's work. You may not see immediate fruit from your ministry, but that doesn't mean your work for Him is in vain.
SIDE NOTE: In 1995, before I was saved, I attended a concert headlined by a band called Sublime, with No Doubt. This was before either band had made MTV, although Date Rape (Sublime Song) made it to KROQ. The opening act was P.O.D. When I got to the show, buses were all over the parking lot with chruch names. I was so confused.
P.O.D. was loud and very annoying, but there were about 500 "kids" moshing and crowd surfing and stuff with all these youth pastor types hanging out around the crowd (and a few mixed in with the fun). I was standing in the back next to Gwen Stefani of No Doubt who had the same expression on her face as I did: What is this?
When P.O.D. finished their set, the place cleared out, leaving only a couple hundred for the "headliners." That was my first encounter with P.O.D. Class guys who love the Lord.
ANOTHER SIDE NOTE: I was snowboarding in Aspen Colorado in 1994 and No Doubt and Submile were playing at a club. I wasn't 21, so I couldn't get in, but I stumbled across Bradley having a Rum and Coke at one of the open bars on the slopes. I stopped, he got me a drink, and we chatted for quite a while. He was pretty drunk. I noticed him playing with his hand. I asked him what he was doing and he looked up with a fiendish kind of smile and said, "A new vein!" I knew then that he was going to die. Two years later, Bradley Knowell died of a heroin overdose. My uncle died of a heroin OD only a few years before.
Brian Welch of Korn is making a good decision leaving Korn. The industry is near impossible to navigate as a Christian without being surrounded by others for accountability.
Posted by Rick at 10:01 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Evangelical First Things in Public Life: 12 Things We Should Expect of Evangelicals
After the election, I wrote a post at The Rooftop Blog titled What Do the Evangelicals Want? As evangelicals continue to gain visibility, I think it is worthwhile to turn the topic around and ask: What Should We Expect of Evangelicals in the Public Arena?
What is the role of individual followers of Christ in the public arena? By this I do not mean solutions presented by the political parties and the governing philosophies that must guide public policies. For evangelical Christians in public life there must spiritual first things--the bedrock that precedes and provides the foundation for actions, traits, and political positions, and that must supercede interest in re-election.
Individuals that are engaged in the public arena in any way find it tremendously difficult to find—and even to do—thinking about public policy and public life that precedes political philosophy and does not rely on the positions articulated by politicians, media commentators, and other political observers.
With some exceptions, Christians looking at public issues are faced with religion-based information in two groups. First, biblical teaching on spiritual life and personal growth that does not attempt to address public issues. And second, political discourse that starts with political philosophy then seeks biblical proof-texting.
I agree with what Jim Wallis wrote in the introduction of God’s Politics: “The best contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable or loyally partisan but to maintain the moral independence to critique both the Left and the Right” (pg. xix).
Unfortunately, Wallis immediately puts his counsel in question by his own measure when a few pages later he reprints the copy from his pre-election advertisement: God is Not a Republican. Or a Democrat. The language sounds like it is directly from a John Kerry campaign speech (“Do the candidates policies pursue wars of choice or respect international law and cooperation.” “Do the candidates tell the truth in justifying war.”) How is repeating the Democratic litany for international cooperation anything close to a biblical issue or moral independence?
I have probably posed bigger questions than I can come close to addressing at this time, but I will plod forward, nonetheless, with brief thoughts in 12 areas. Perhaps I will return to each at another time.
12 First Things
What should we be able to expect of evangelical Christian in the public arena? I suggest that there are the 12 first things that should be embraced by faithful Christians whatever their political philosophy. While there can be honest and worthy disagreements on how to apply political philosophy to adddress these concerns, they should transcend the call of the party.
1. Value Character
2. Support Human Rights
3. Develop a Consistent Ethic of Life
4. Honor and Protect Families
5. Help the Poor and Imprisoned
6. Be Responsible Citizens
7. Be Good Stewards
8. Do Justice
9. Recognize Evil
10. Seek Spiritual Vision
11. Demonstrate a Graceful Spirit
12. Share Your Faith
Now, a closer look at each of these:
1. Value Character. Recognize, honor and create public policies that promote personal character and virtue, such as personal responsibility, temperance, duty, respect, kindness, perseverance, and patience. These and other virtues are clearly held in high regard in the Scriptures, and they need champions among policymakers.
2. Support Human Rights: I do believe that the basic human rights of safety from abuse and bondage, the opportunity to worship as we please, freedom of movement and livelihood, and fundamental fairness are God-given, not government-given. It is the role of government to confirm and protect these human rights.
3. Develop a Consistent Ethic of Life: The ethics of life are perhaps the most difficult and divisive issues in the public arena, although there are those who would say that they are the simplest.
Abortion
When people say life ethics are simple they are in most cases speaking of the unacceptability of taking innocent human life through abortion. I agree that it impossible to develop a Christian ethic that supports abortion on demand as a means of birth control.
To back up a bit, it is essential that the Christian in public life develop a consistent ethic of life. Something like this: To influence culture and create laws to best save and extend lives; to honor the inherent value of human life, made in the image of God; and to safeguard lives in the present and in future generations.
Death Penalty
A life ethic that argues only against abortion is not complete. I believe it must also re-examine the death penalty, which is routinely supported on both sides of the aisle. The taking of human life by the government is always troubling, and must be constantly scrutinized. If execution is necessary to save lives, then there is an ethical reason to continue is use for capital offenses. But both the death penalty and life imprisonment without the chance of parole effectively remove the perpetrator from society. As such, the death penalty is not necessary for that purpose. If, however, it can be proved that the death penalty is a deterrent to other potential murderers, we should support the death penalty, because it will save lives. I haven’t seen such findings, by the way, but would be open to this proof.
Is it necessary to kill a murderer in order to exact justice or fairness, or is that simply retribution masquerading as “closure?”
Euthanasia
Life is a precious gift of God. But what should we allow when the gift is terrible burden to its holder. Should we allow the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. Strong emotional arguments for euthanasia are presented in cases where an individual’s pain is overwhelming or remaining days will be essentially unconscious. But as merciful as it seems at times, and do not believe that we are granted the divine right to take innocent life before God’s time.
Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, M.D. wrote:
"... we must be wary of those who are too willing to end the lives of the elderly and the ill. If we ever decide that a poor quality of life justifies ending that life, we have taken a step down a slippery slope that places all of us in danger. There is a difference between allowing nature to take its course and actively assisting death. The call for euthanasia surfaces in our society periodically, as it is doing now under the guise of "death with dignity" or assisted suicide. Euthanasia is a concept, it seems to me, that is in direct conflict with a religious and ethical tradition in which the human race is presented with " a blessing and a curse, life and death," and we are instructed '...therefore, to choose life." I believe 'euthanasia' lies outside the commonly held life-centered values of the West and cannot be allowed without incurring great social and personal tragedy. This is not merely an intellectual conundrum. This issue involves actual human beings at risk..."
War
Our Christian duty as we approach the issues of war and peace is to first look at them as issues of life and death, not geopolitics. Although the temporal issues may need to be factored, questions of life must be first because warfare kills people. Not going to war can either save lives or cost many more lives that the war itself. That recognition is why a longer view of impact must be considered in life ethics. I do believe that strength is the best peacemaker, a contention that has gained great credibility with the collapse of communism.
However, war is unacceptable to satisfy national ego, to gain creature comforts, or to settle scores.
4. Honor and Protect Families: God ordained the institution of the family and His children need to try to keep it together. We must recognize that the family is the primary conduit of the values that civilize us. The leading cause of economic and moral poverty is a broken families. Kids need to grow up with a mom and a dad to love them, to teach them virtue, and to train them up in the ways of the Lord.
There is probably no greater challenge for our culture than maintaining strong families, and there are many forces pulling in the opposite direction. Curbing these negative forces is a worthy role of the public servant.
(By the way, I believe the advance of homosexual unions is way down the list of dangers to the traditional family).
5. Help the Poor and Imprisoned: There is no clearer mandate in Scripture than to bear good news to and serve the poor, those in prison, and the brokenhearted. (Luke 4:18). To care for the widow and orphans. This should be high on the agenda of individual Christians and the church. It is vital that believers personally demonstrate that they follow Jesus Christ by their care for the poor.
How do we deal with this mandate as it relates to the levers of government?
As my colleague Matt at SCO wrote:
“I see the Bible with a lot to say about caring for the less fortunate, but I never see Scripture advocating that we use the state as a means of doing so. If anyone can provide with clear Biblical teaching and some church history that suggests otherwise, I'm all ears, but I've yet to see it. I don't believe that the state is an effective means of curing poverty. It has never proven to be such a thing.”
If government largesse was effective at creating anything dependence, I believe we could assume biblical support. The Bible certainly doesn’t prohibit action of the state to assist the poor. But our history shows that government isn’t good at anything but providing relief. Government fails at community and personal development.
6. Be Responsible Citizens: As Christians we are called to submit to the governing authorities (Romans 13). Although in cases when the laws of the state violate God’s laws civil disobedience is the right path, there are far fewer times when that is necessary than some lead us to believe. The Bible clearly calls for submission in most cases, even when the authorities are unjust.
Christians in public life must lead by adhering to this teaching, but must also appreciate and teach the tension between the state and the church. In The City of God, Augustine wrote:
“The heavenly city, or rather the part of it which sojourns on earth and lives by faith, makes use of this peace only because it must, until this mortal condition which necessitates it shall pass away. Consequently, so long as it lives like a captive and a stranger in the earthly city, though it has already received the promise of redemption, and the gift of the Spirit as the earnest of it, it makes no scruple to obey the laws of the earthly city, whereby the things necessary for the maintenance of this mortal life are administered; and thus, as this life is common to both cities, so there is a harmony between them in regard to what belongs to it.” (Book XIX, Chapter 17)
7. Be Good Stewards: We should expect evangelicals in public life to acknowledge that all good gifts are from God and that He calls on us to be grateful for them and to be good stewards and worthy caretakers of all he has given us.
When there is bounty, God calls for personal generosity. We are to enjoy good things in moderation. And we are to care for the earth, our temporary home. It is right to determine the truth on the impact of human actions on the environment, and exaggerations and blatant lies have undercut the credibility of environmentalists. We cannot fall prey to the emotional earth-worship of hyper-environmentalism.
However, there is simply no biblical support for being anti-environment. When we blindly follow the ravings of many conservative commentators in their criticism of all things pro-environment, we are falling in line with a political strategy, not biblical teaching.
For more on the evangelical approach to the environment, look at the Evangelical Environmental Network and its Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation.
8. Do Justice: When we hear someone calling for justice, it is usually a cry for a right to be wronged or for the government to help with pay-back. Getting even. Micah 6:8 says that God requires us to “do justice,” or to “act justly.” The task of the public servant is to look deeply at the biblical call for justice, which has embedded the understanding of fairness, of justification, of equal treatment, and of reconciliation:
"[In biblical times] when wrongs were done, ordinary people went to the city gates to seek justice in a 'legal assembly' in which citizens participated. The focus of this court, sometimes called an 'organization of reconciliation', was not to satisfy some abstract concept of justice but to find a solution. Restitution and compensation were common outcomes. Biblical Justice seeks first to solve problems, to find solutions, to make things right, looking toward the future." (H. Zehr, Changing Lenses, p. 140-1, 152)
9. Recognize of Evil: The Bible teaches that the forces of evil are aligned against the forces of good. Evil is not a concept; it oozes from every heart not constrained by love. It seeks to overcome the world. The Christian seeking to impact public policy must recognize what the founders did—man is inherently inclined toward evil and dominated by self-interest. It is not a popular thought, but thinking otherwise makes for deadly policy.
“The total depravity of man,” said G.K. Chesterton, “is the one doctrine empirically validated by 4,000 years of human history.”
We have lost sight of this in modern society, which endangers the republic.
“The most common myth of [our time] is that people are good. We aren’t,” wrote Charles Colson, who after a career in cut-throat politics and 20 years in prison and prison ministry knows of what he speaks.
10. Seek Spiritual Vision: The Christian cannot view the struggles and triumphs of our days only through the lens of our immediate interests and of our age. The eyes of the Christian soul must see further, with a view of the unseen (spiritual vision) and a view of the world (world vision).
Although we acknowledge in our churches and personal study that we are only passing through this world, it is difficult to apply this to the rough and tumble struggles of our days and in public life. When we are granted spiritual vision, we see a spiritual dimension to how history is unfolding and our role in it. Paul wrote: “So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” (II Corinthians 4:18).
Also, I am not sure that a mature Christian can be a thorough isolationist, at least not as he or she becomes aware of the violation of human rights around the world, and the persecution of the church. This requires a world vision.
11. Demonstrate a Graceful Spirit: The Christian in public life undercuts his witness and diminishes his effectiveness if he does not show the grace that his been shown to him by God. For the many in leadership the twin challenges in this area are showing humility and forgiving others. Both of these graces are in rare supply in the halls of power and there is no higher work for the Christian public servant than to model these disciplines.
C.S. Lewis said to British servicemen after World War II (the text of which was to become Mere Christianity):
Everyone says forgiveness is a lovely idea, until they have something to forgive, as we had during the war. And then, to mention the subject at all is to be greeted with howls of anger. It is not that people think this too high and difficult a virtue: it is that they think it hateful and contemptible. “That sort of talk makes them sick,” they say. And half of you already want to ask me, “I wonder how you’d feel about forgiving the Gestapo if you were a Pole or a Jew?”So do I. I wonder very much. Just as when Christianity tells me that I must no deny my religion even to save myself from death by torture, I wonder very much what I should do when it came to the point. I am not trying to tell you in this book what I could do—I can do precious little—I am telling you what Christianity is. I did not invent it. And there, right in the middle of it, I find: “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those that sin against us.” There is no slightest suggestion that we are offered forgiveness on any other terms. It is made perfectly clear that if we do not forgive we shall not be forgiven. There are no two ways about it. What are we to do.
12. Share Your Faith: Those who observe evangelicals for any length of time should at some point be aware that they are telling others about their faith in Jesus Christ for the grace to live each day and for eternal salvation. IN a day when “proselytizing” is said with curled lip and a sneer, it should be known in the public square that this is part of the Christian’s obligation. To be obedient we must tell of the hope that is in us and the source of that hope. It is gives us joy to do so. To do otherwise creates a much high level of condemnation.
Observers should also expect evangelicals, along with everyone else, to fail. We are but “jars of clay” who recognize that it is through our weakness that God’s strength can be seen.
Posted by Jim at 08:45 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack
February 23, 2005
Sanctity of Life #1 Moral Issue Facing America
Greg over at "What Attitude Problem" passes along this list from Chuck Colson, outlining what Colson feels are the top ten moral issues facing America today. It should come as no surprise that Colson puts "Sanctity of Life" at #1. Colson doesn't limit this to mean only abortion, but defines this as "preserving sanctity of life by resisting the encroachment of abortion, euthanasia, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research."
One might also add: defending the disabled from those who seek their destruction. Terri Schiavo, for example. Stand in the Trenches is one of many blogs that has been following her story closely.
Today on his "Breakpoint" radio program, Chuck Colson highlights a sneaky bill going through the Washington State legislature that purports to outlaw human cloning. In fact, the bill doesn't do that at all. It merely outlaws bringing a cloned human to full term.
The bill] takes advantage of the public’s confusion about cloning to sell the moral equivalent of snake oil. To understand why this is the case, we need to understand cloning. It’s a process known as “somatic cell nuclear transfer,” or SCNT.In SCNT, a “biotechnologist removes the nucleus from a mature human egg.” He replaces that nucleus with “nucleus of a body cell from [a] DNA donor. . . . A little shot of electricity comes next, and if all goes well, a new human cloned embryo comes into being.”
While all of this is much easier said than done, the important part is that “there is no more cloning to be done since a new human organism now exists.”
The Washington bill, like similar legislation in New Jersey, does nothing to prevent SCNT. All it would do is prohibit implanting the cloned embryo “with the purpose of producing a human being.” But since a human being has already been produced, when they use the words producing a human being, what the sponsors mean is bringing the cloned embryo to birth. Anything short of that is permissible under this bill.
You could clone human embryos and harvest stem cells, or you could grow fetuses for medical experiments, or let embryos gestate for nine months, abort them, and harvest the organs. Wesley Smith, writing in National Review] gives these moral horrors a fitting name: “fetal farming.” People in the state of Washington have been misled into thinking that the bill would prevent the advent of a “Brave New World.” Instead, as Smith says, it ushers it in.
In other news, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Bush Administration's challenge of Oregon's assisted-suicide law -- the only law of its kind in the country.
Oregon's Death With Dignity Act, the administration's target, was approved twice by the state's voters and took effect in November 1997. According to the state, in a brief filed last month, 171 patients have used the law to administer lethal doses of federally regulated drugs that their doctors prescribed for them. In the administration's view, suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose" under regulations that carry out the federal Controlled Substances Act. Consequently, the administration will argue before the Supreme Court, as it did unsuccessfully in the lower federal courts, that doctors who prescribe drugs for committing suicide violate the federal law and are subject to revocation of their federal prescription license. The license applies to broad categories of medications and is necessary, as a practical matter, for a doctor to remain in practice.
Posted by Drew at 09:25 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
What the heck does "heteronormative" mean?
Posted by Drew at 07:09 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
iPods and Our Love/Hate Relationship
A few weeks ago, over at Matt Crash!, I pointed to this piece in the New Atlantis. The crux of the article was that technology has left us more isolated than in the past. I tend to agree. I can walk around campus and see otherwise normal people zoned out, thin white wires connecting their ears to the iPod in their pocket. Lord knows I've got nothing against an iPod, but surely we can make it from the car to class without slowly fading into our own world of music.
Apparently I'm not alone in my criticism. Andrew Sullivan had a similar argument last week's piece for the Sunday Times. He's not always right, but when he's on - he's on.
Witness this quote:
You get your news from your favourite blogs, the ones that won’t challenge your view of the world. You tune into a satellite radio service that also aims directly at a small market — for new age fanatics, liberal talk or Christian rock. Television is all cable. Culture is all subculture. Your cell phones can receive e-mail feeds of your favourite blogger’s latest thoughts — seconds after he has posted them — get sports scores for your team or stock quotes of your portfolio.
I discussed the idea of split subcultures in a post last week. See here, and I would like some comments on the idea.
Posted by Matt at 06:31 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Would You Vote for A Woman for President?
More than 80 percent of Americans would vote for a woman for president, according to a poll, conducted by the Siena College Research Institute and sponsored by Hearst Newspapers. (Source)
Of those polled, 53 percent think New York Hillary Clinton should try for the job, 42 percent of voters said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should run for the White House, and 33 percent named North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole.
Posted by Jim at 05:16 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Two or Three
Two or Three is a new collaborative blog written by the authors of three individual blogs:
Tom of Daddypundit is a friend of this blog and I'm excited to hear of the other contributors. Be sure to bookmark their new blog and visit often.How did Two or Three form?
Aaron from The Wardrobe Door was overworked from trying to be a one man posting machine, and asked about co-blogging. So seeker from When You Return and Tom from DaddyPundit responded, and here we are.Hey, sounds a lot like the way SCO got together!
Read this for more information how they formed, their mission, and statement of faith.
Posted by Rick at 03:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
More Skepticism on Deep Throat
I wrote earlier this month that Woodward and Bernstein’s Deep Throat May Be A Composite of Multiple Sources, which has been the opinion of Nixon aide Charles Colson. Here, Jonah Goldberg explains why he believes Deep Throat is “Bob and Carl’s imaginary friend.”
Goldberg also adds to the composite theory:
Recently, Fox News media analyst Eric Burns revealed that the late, great historian Stephen Ambrose had told him there never was a Deep Throat. Burns' evidence was second-hand at best. He said Ambrose had shared an editor with Woodward and Bernstein - the legendary Alice Mayhew - and she had told him that Deep Throat was a composite of various sources. Mayhew told Ambrose that the first manuscript of "All the President's Men" contained no references to Deep Throat and that she told them the book needed a stronger plot device. D.T. was the result.
Posted by Jim at 03:17 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Pardon me, You’re in My Kitchen: The Supreme Court and Eminent Domain
When you walk through the housewares section of your local Wal-Mart, remember that it used to be Maggie Smith’s kitchen, and she’s not happy you’re there.
Or at least there a fair chance the area used to be someone’s kitchen, or living room, or back yard.
Wal-Mart has been a common beneficiary of local governments using their power of eminent domain to seize private property for the economic advancement of the community. Wal-Mart is hardly alone, as communities across the country have found more and more reasons to seize private property for the enrichment of their citizens (except the property owners whose homes were taken).
The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to hear a typical case brought by a group of New London, Connecticut homeowners. The Supremes heard oral arguments yesterday.
It’s risky to jump to conclusions on the sentiment of the Court based on oral arguments. Here’s what some media outlets thought:
Striking an unusual populist tone, the Supreme Court appeared divided Tuesday over whether city officials in Connecticut have the authority to seize homes in a working-class neighborhood and turn the property over to private developers.
The Supreme Court appeared sympathetic Tuesday toward a group of New London, Conn., homeowners fighting to keep their land, but justices seemed equally skeptical of their own power to keep the city from seizing property to create an upscale development.It's the first major case on eminent domain -- the power of the government to condemn property for redevelopment -- to reach the high court in years.
An attorney for a group of Connecticut homeowners told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that his clients have a constitutional right to stay in their houses even though their city says it needs the sites for privately developed offices, hotels and parking, in a case that could affect property rights nationwide.The lawyer, Scott Bullock of the libertarian Institute for Justice, said that if New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to force Susette Kelo and six other owners to sell for the sake of jobs and tax revenue that private-sector development brings, the Fifth Amendment guarantee that private property cannot be taken for "public use" without just compensation would be a dead letter.
If you think private property rights are important this may very well be the most important case facing the Supreme Court in our lifetime.
Posted by Jim at 10:55 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
He Gives and Takes Away - Blessed be His Name
Abigail Brayden manages to praise God even as she grieves with a family close to her who recently lost their 3 month old baby boy.
Abigail's attitude toward the terrible loss reminded of the Matt Redman chorus:
He gives and takes away,
He gives and takes away,
My heart will surely say
Blessed be His name.
Please visit Abigail and remember this family in your prayers.
Posted by Rick at 09:25 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack