« February 2005 | Main | April 2005 »
March 31, 2005
The Docs WERE in his Socks!
Okay, maybe not in his socks, but Sandy Berger will plead guilty to swiping classified documents from the National Archives.
Posted by Rick at 08:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Pope John Paul II Condition Worsening, news agency reports
Pope John Paul II is probably more gravely ill than the Vatican has said.
This just came across the wire from APcom, the Italian news agency.
22:13 PAPA/ CONDIZIONI DI GIOVANNI PAOLO II SI SONO MOLTO AGGRAVATE
BabelFish.com translation:
22:13 POPE CONDITIONS DI GIOVANNI PAUL II IS ITSELF MUCH AGGRAVATING
Fox News says the agency is reporting that the Pope's health is worsening, with concerns about the drop in his blood pressure.
UPDATE: Vatican reports at 3:55 that the Pope has a high fever as a result of a urinary infection.
Posted by Jim at 03:37 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Requiem for Terri
Heaven opens its doors this day for a soul in flight from its diminished body, a life cut off from its fullness years ago and cut short today because she could not ask otherwise and those assigned to guard her in her weakness grew weary of her unnecessary presence.
We cannot celebrate her passing, for although Terri’s spirit is eternally alive without tubes or tethers and--no longer an object of pity or revulsion--in the embrace of God, we mourn for those who wanted more time with their damaged kin and for a nation that would not rise above legal arrogance to give life another day. We mourn in shame.
Requiem aeternam dona eis Domine
Posted by Jim at 10:26 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Neuhaus on Colson
In the newest issue of First Things, Richard John Neuhaus' column, The Public Square, has a very kind blurb on Chuck Colson. The piece is not yet online, but if you're a reader of FT - and you should be! - you'll find the piece very refreshing.
Posted by Matt at 08:14 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Generation M: More Multi-tasking Media
Young people are spending more time using computers, the Internet, and video games without reducing the time they spend with television, print, and music. Young people are able to fill increasing amounts of media content into the same amount of time each day because of "media multi-tasking," e.g. going online while watching television, according to the study. (Source)
This from a new study released earlier this month by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Generation M: Media in the Lives of 8-18 Year-olds.
.
One area of concern raised by the study is that children's bedrooms are increasingly becoming "multi-media centers." Two-thirds of all 8-18 year olds have a television in their bedroom, and 49 percent have a video game player there. Fifty-four percent have a VCR or DVD player; 37 percent have cable or satellite television; 31 percent have a computer; and 20 percent have Internet access in their bedroom. The study shows that youth with a television in their bedroom spend almost 1 ½ hours more in a typical day watching television than those without a set in their room.
The study also finds that a majority of all 8-18 year olds say their parents have no rules about television watching. Forty-six percent indicated they do have rules, but only 20 percent say their parents enforce the rules "most" of the time.
Now if Gen M could do all of this and communicate with other human beings at the same time, we'd be getting somewhere.
Posted by Jim at 08:12 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
A Rumor of War
Instapundit notes the possibility of civil war in Venezuela.
This doesn't sound pretty.
Posted by Matt at 07:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Legislation to Protect Religious Freedom in the Workplace
There is good bi-partisan support for a reasonable bill introduced by an odd couple of northeastern Senators to require workplace accommodations for an employee’s religious practice or observance, such as time off and attire.
The Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA) of 2005 was introduced in the Senate by Rick Santorum (R-PA), and John Kerry (D-MA). Similar legislation will be introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Mark Souder (R-IN), Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), Bobby Jindal (R-LA), and Anthony Weiner (D-NY).
“Throughout the ten years that I have been in the Senate, I have worked to raise the profile and importance of religious freedom, both domestic and international, including currently leading a working group to discuss these issues. “While most employers recognize the value of respecting religion in the workplace, sometimes employees are forced to choose between dedication to the principles of their faith and losing their job because their employers refuse to reasonably accommodate certain needs. We need to be respectful of people’s expression of faith in the workplace and in the public square. Senator Kerry and I hope that through this legislation we can find a balance for people who want to have their religious convictions respected at work and an employer who is trying to run a business.”
Kerry said at a press conference that he has been pushing the bill for almost a decade, since he was contacted by "two Catholic ladies who lost their jobs because they couldn't work on Christmas. No American should ever have to choose between keeping a job and keeping faith with their cherished religious beliefs and traditions.” (Source)
However, leave it to the ACLU and a homosexual lobby to find a problem with the WRFA.
Evidently, the ACLU sent an action alert to its members on June 9, implying that the Workplace Religious Freedom Act is an attempt designed to restrict access to abortions and to privilege harassment of homosexuals. (Source)
Christopher Labonte, legislative director at the Human Rights Campaign, said that though the bill was apparently created with good intentions, the way it is written could cause harm to gay people.
“The concern here is that employers would have serious difficulty resolving instances where an employee posts a sign reading ‘God hates fags’ in his office or cubicle; where workers proselytize on the ‘sins of the homosexual lifestyle’ over lunch and on breaks; where a social worker proffers a religious objection to being the case manager or counselor for a youth who is gay or transgender; or where a truck driver on 24-hour driving shift who gives a religious reason for refusing to drive with a co-driver who is gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.”
More on the legislation from Family Research Council:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. ' 2000e-2, prohibits employers with fifteen or more full-time employees from discriminating against an employee based upon that individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Title VII requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious belief or practice, unless such an accommodation would impose an "undue hardship" on the employer.The "undue hardship" standard worked well until the Supreme Court ruling in TWA v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977). In Hardison, the Court ruled that requiring an employer to "bear more than a de minimis cost" in order to accommodate an employee's religious request constitutes an undue hardship on the employer's business. The Court specifically cited as the reason for its ruling Congress's failure to define "undue hardship" in Title VII.
Because the de minimis standard is exceptionally low, employers routinely and summarily deny requests and religious workers are left to deny their faith or lose their jobs. Many lawsuits asking for reasonable accommodations are unsuccessful.
The WRFA would restore the intent of Congress in Title VII by providing clear statutory guidance to those employers who wish to comply with the law but are unsure what level of deference the law requires. The WRFA is also good for business, as it is likely to significantly reduce employee lawsuits and any associated costs.Case Examples:
· In 1999, Edward Pipkin, a truck driver, was forced to leave D. M. Bowmen, Inc., a Maryland trucking company, because he refused to compromise his Sabbath observance even though he had expressed his beliefs about Sunday work during his job interview and was assured that his beliefs would be accommodated.· In 1999, California nurse Michelle Diaz was fired from the Riverside Neighborhood Health Center for refusing to distribute the "morning-after" pill based on her belief that dispensing the medication would be assisting with an abortion, a violation of her religious beliefs.
· In 1996, Kmart fired Karen Brauer, an Ohio pharmacist, for refusing to dispense Micronor, a birth-control pill. K-mart did so even though Ms. Brauer had informed them when she was hired in 1989 that, based on her religious beliefs, she would not do so.
· California's Department of Financial Institutions refused to allow an employee to hang a religious calendar in his work cubicle because the calendar was "inappropriate and offensive."
· A twenty-seven-year-old evangelical Christian filed suit against the Delaware State Police after being denied a position as a state trooper because a psychological screening test determined that he had strong religious beliefs.
· The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority has threatened to fire a Christian bus driver for wearing a head covering on her job based upon her religious beliefs.
The Rutherford Institute has issued a special report and 10-year overview of religious discrimination in the workplace. Specifically, the report calls for the passage of the proposed legislation.
Posted by Jim at 07:48 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
US Count Votes to Release Study
US Count Votes will release a "Scientific Study on Exit Polls" tomorrow that they say will highlight National Election Pool (NEP) data, which suggest that election fraud may be the best explanation for the 2004 exit poll discrepancy. The study is signed by the following academics and analysts:
*Josh Mitteldorf, PhD - Temple University Statistics Department
*Steven F. Freeman, PhD - Center for Organizational Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania
*Brian Joiner, PhD - Prof. of Statistics (ret) University of Wisconsin
*Frank Stenger, PhD - Professor, School of Computing, University of Utah
*Richard G. Sheehan, PhD -Professor, Department of Finance, University of Notre Dame
*Paul F. Velleman, PhD - Associate Prof., Department of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University
*Victoria Lovegren, PhD - Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University
*Campbell B. Read, PhD - Prof. Emeritus, Department of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University
*Jonathan Simon, J.D., National Ballot Integrity Project
*Ron Paul Baiman, PhD, Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago
For an insight into the thinking of one of the US Count Votes' statisticians, read this article from The Capital Times of Madison Wisconsin. The retired University of Wisconsin statistics professor,
can't just pretend everything is rosy, he says, when he reads that Steven Freeman, a respected University of Pennsylvania professor, says the odds of the exit polls in the critical states of Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania all being so far off were about 662,000 to 1.Dr. Joiner is referring to a quote from The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy by Dr. Freeman.
I recently circulated a paper critical of Dr. Freeman's work and have previously posted similar criticism in response to analysis from Jonathan Simon and Dr. Ron Baiman. (The Social Science Research Council, National Research Commission on Elections and Voting posted my recent paper and Mystery Pollster, Mark Blumenthal's review can be found here.)
I know you all are drooling over the study's pending release. I certainly am. No, really - I am. This is quite exciting for a data dweeb like myself (scary huh?). In all seriousness, most of these professors are affiliated with major universities and have distinguished careers. Sure they are biased and have an agenda, but who doesn't? Hopefully they didn't let this bias get in the way of their science. Should I find time in the next week to pour over their analysis, I'll do my best to report back. I bet you all can't wait (hey! clean that slobber off your keyboard!)
Posted by Rick at 02:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 30, 2005
Jonah Says Chill
In the second of a three part series, Al Mohler examines the implications of the Terri Schiavo tragedy. Take a look at Question Four, wherein Mohler examines conservatism's future. I won't quote too much of the piece, because none of it really stands out. At the same time, it's worth a read. See this one small quote:
"Conservatives need to acknowledge the divisions in the conservative movement and the reality of conflict in conservative principles."
I realize Mohler's "blog" is more column than blog, but where has he been? This conversation has been going on for years. And it's been pretty intense throughout the blogosphere for the last two weeks. It took him this long to comment? I'm not sure his analysis is that on target, at any rate. Jonah Goldberg's syndicated column, without dealing with Mohler specifically, addresses such worry in a pretty clear fashion.
Speaking of syndicated columns, Deroy Murdock nails the argument that Terri's Fight is only for Christians.
Posted by Matt at 06:29 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Old Man on A Feeding Tube: Extending Schiavo Ethics to the Pope
On the wire this morning comes the troubling news that Pope John Paul II is now being nourished through a feeding tube. Why in the world would we use the precious resources of the Church to artificially maintain an elderly prelate who has outlived his usefulness? My goodness, the aging bishop of Rome couldn’t even speak a blessing over the Romans on Easter. What good is he? Not just is he having trouble breathing and eating normally, which greatly restricts his effectiveness as Catholic leader, but his body is wracked with Parkinson’s Disease. And that isn’t going to be going away any time soon.
Let’s use some logic here. It’s time for a new Pope and there are quite a number in men in red prepared to step in. If there’s anyone who is ready to meet his Maker, it’s got to be this wonderful Pope who has served so long, so well. It’s practically a moral imperative for us to unplug him.
(jk)
Yes, that’s where the culture of death will take us!
Posted by Jim at 03:35 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
This Just In . . .
The Minneapolis Star Tribune passes on this Washington Post story about a new study of academia:
College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.* * *
The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty members are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.
"What's most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field," said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. "There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It's a very homogeneous environment, not just in the places you'd expect to be dominated by liberals."
Religious services take a back seat for many faculty members, with 51 percent saying they rarely or never attend church or synagogue and 31 percent calling themselves regular churchgoers. On the gender front, 72 percent of the full-time faculty members are male and 28 percent female.
Shocked! Shocked and dismayed I am. College faculty are liberal? Who'd a thunk it? Seriously, does this "study" surprise anybody?
In any event, given the clearly pro-Democratic party tilt of college faculty, I wonder if the Federal Election Commision should start looking into this?
(I acknowledge stealing the title for the post from the Wall Street Journal Online's The Best of the Web Today.)
Posted by Mark at 01:34 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
"No Hard Evidence That The Memo Is Fake"
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post establishes a new standard for determining "news" in the old media: If a memo comes into your hands that is embarassing to the Republican Party and you have "very reliable, multiple sources who indicated the memo was distributed to Republicans on the floor of the Senate," but have no idea who produced, or even circulated the memo, then the story is worthy of national headlines.
Also, see Joshua Claybourn's Mea Culpa (HT: La Shawn Barber's Corner).
Posted by Rick at 09:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Religious Right and The Reasonable People
Most contemporary references to the religious right are an attempt to tarnish today’s Christian conservatives with the unsavory image of those who awkwardly returned fundamentalism to political life 20 years ago. It became a pejorative term some time ago, and is used to discount the arguments of the newly powerful evangelical activists.
Unfortunately, when media are looking for conservative Christian voices, they often look not to the experts in a given field who are Christian conservatives, but to the tried and true voices of the right who will speak on anything (whether or not they have speak with an authority on the topic). The messages aren't that different, just the messengers and methodology.
The old voices of the religious right—Falwell, Robertson, and others—are joining the new voices of evangelicalism in the fight for Terri’s life. They are joined by people of all stripes who recognize the profound evil in starving a handicapped woman to death. Jesse Jackson is passionate on the subject. As Matt mentioned below, Ralph Nader of all people is aligned on the side of life.
The moral bankruptcy of the right-to-murder campaign cannot be hidden by the tired tactic of besmirching those lobbying for life with old labels like “the religious right.”
Jeff Jarvis ended his Easter post trashing people of faith who are passionate about saving Terri Schiavo’s life by separating them from himself and others who on Easter morning “go to church -- huge numbers of them who may not be devout in media terms and, in fact, go only once or twice a year. These are the reasonably religious, not the zealots, not the theocrats, just Americans.
Let’s see. Religious people who attended houses of worship a couple of times a year and aren’t passionate about human life. Neither hot nor cold. Jesus had a few things to say about them (Rev. 3:16).
Posted by Jim at 09:18 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Drunkard's Prayer
The new Over the Rhine album is, in a word, fantastic. I shall give a more in depth review of it later, after a few more listenings. My initial response is one of pure enjoyment; a husband and a wife have created something majestic and beautiful, addressing God and marriage and love with a delicacy that is stunning.
Posted by Matt at 09:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Few More Thoughts...
I had said that I won't be posting anymore links on Terri Schiavo, but here's a couple more.
First, Rod Dreher on Jess Jackson's appearance:
"It strikes me as profoundly meaningful, and profoundly depressing, that Jesse Jackson -- Jesse Jackson, for crying out loud! -- made a point to go to the hospice and stand by the Schindlers and speak out for Terri's right to life, but not a single American Catholic bishop has done so."
Indeed. One could also substitute the words "evangelical leader" for "Catholic bishop," as well.
Also see Jay Nordlinger's NRO piece this morning:
"I am asked — by readers — whether I think the Bushes have done enough. The answer is no. I am further asked whether Governor Jeb should go for the (Bill) Bennett option: Do what it takes to feed Mrs. Schiavo, risk impeachment and jail. Yes. There is more to being an American — and more to being a leader — than following the edicts of judges."
Food for thought, no?
Posted by Matt at 09:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
A Glimmer of Hope in Atlanta? Is It Too Late for Terri Schiavo?
[The Court of Appeals] will consider the request for a new hearing based on the facts of the case, rather than whether previous Florida court rulings have met legal standards under state law. (Source)
Why didn’t the 11th circuit consider this before? It is a new finding of fact, not cold rulings on points of law or jurisdiction, that the family and others have been looking for all along.
Posted by Jim at 05:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
An Honest Being-With
This March 15, 2005 entry from Henri Nouwen's Daily Meditations struck me as being particularly apt, coming as it does in the midst of Terri Schiavo's ordeal:
Being with a friend in great pain is not easy. It makes us uncomfortable. We do not know what to do or what to say, and we worry about how to respond to what we hear. Our temptation is to say things that come more out of our own fear than out of our care for the person in pain. Sometimes we say things like "Well, you're doing a lot better than yesterday," or "You will soon be your old self again," or "I'm sure you will get over this." But often we know that what we're saying is not true, and our friends know it too.We do not have to play games with each other. We can simply say: "I am your friend, I am happy to be with you." We can say that in words or with touch or with loving silence. Sometimes it is good to say: "You don't have to talk. Just close your eyes. I am here with you, thinking of you, praying for you, loving you."
Sometimes your presence, and gentle silence, is all that those who are suffering need.
Posted by Mark at 12:14 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
March 29, 2005
Unsearchable God
Interesting insight from a weed picker:
The lenten [liturgy] last night included words from Isaiah 40Venture on over to Agricolae and read the rest of the post...The LORD is the everlasting God,It struck me at the time that an unsearchable God has new meaning in the age of Google.
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He does not faint or grow weary;
his understanding is unsearchable.
Posted by Rick at 08:52 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
What Is the Religious Right?
Continuing with our discussion of the religious right, John Mark Reynolds offers his definition of the subject at hand:
A person is a member of the religious right if and only if he is a person who allows his religious knowledge to impact his decision making, he votes, he votes for Republicans, he does not privilege secular beliefs over religious beliefs as demanded by people with secular beliefs, and argues that some behavior at present favored by the majority of the editorial board of the LA Times is wrong and should not receive the approval and support of the state.
Interesting definition, and I wouldn't entirely disagree with it. It's a definition that I need to consider. In a post below, I took issue with some of the spokesmen of the religious right. In retrospect, a few of my comments were particularly strong, so let me offer a mea culpa. In my post I said, "I have very little use for the public face of the religious right, as identified in Dobson, Falwell and Robertson. I believe these leaders have outlived there usefulness as public spokesmen." To say I have "very little use" is perhaps stronger than I intended, particularly in light of Rev. Falwell's recent hospitalization. My prayers of with him and his family.
Still, I am unabashed in noting that I am uncomfortable with these men as figureheads. While I am thankful for their work over the last twenty-five years, I simply believe that at this stage in our society, these men have become ineffective as spokesman. Is it likely that nonbelievers, particularly those outside the red states, find these men convincing? I have a hard time believing it. James Dobson isn't doing anyone - the GOP or the Church - any favors by arguing with George Stephanopolous, and Jerry Falwell arguing with Al Sharpton is completely unnecessary. At some point, we as believers are going to have to decide if these men are effective public figures. In my own estimation, and feel free to correct me, that hour will be sooner rather than later. I say this with a great deal of hestitancy in light of Rev. Falwell's illness, but I am not speaking of him alone; he is part of the issue, not the root or even the center of it.
So where does that leave us? What is the proper marriage of faith and politics? Is it wrong to have Reynolds' stance where faith and theology informs political decision making? Is Rick Santorum wrong?
And here's my neverending quandry when it comes to public figures: Why is that I almost always feel comfortable with William F. Buckley, John Podhoretz, Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh? Why do I usually, though not always, feel comfortable with Al Mohler and Richard Land? And why do I rarely feel comfortable when I see James Dobson on my television?
Posted by Matt at 06:31 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Instapundit on the Religious Right
Glenn Reynolds is commenting on the Hugh Hewitt/Jeff Jarvis discussion on the religious right. He offers us all some sage advice:
On the other hand, here's some advice, very similar to advice I gave to the antiwar movement: If you don't want to be confused with a movement led by theocrats, don't let actual theocrats be seen as your spokesmen. It may be impossible to shut Randall Terry up -- though if I were Karl Rove, I would have tried really hard -- but he needs to be loudly and regularly denounced as a nut. Otherwise you're in the same boat as lefties who don't want to be identified with Ward Churchill, but happily use him when they want to draw a crowd.
Words of wisdom, methinks.
Posted by Matt at 06:28 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Statement from Governor Owens
Sean Duffy, Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications to Colorado Governor Bill Owen passes along the following statement from the Governor:
OWENS STATEMENT REGARDING SUPREME COURT DECISION ON HARLAN DEATH PENALTYI believe that a majority of us at SCO are against the death penalty, or at least lean that way, but the issue here is not about the death penalty, but the rationale of the courts in reaching this decision. I recommend Jim's post on this subject below.Owens: Ruling "demeaning, subjective"
(DENVER) - Gov. Bill Owens today issued the following statement on the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to not impose the death penalty on convicted killer Robert Harlan:
"Today's decision is demeaning to people of faith and prevents justice from being served. The death penalty in a heinous crime has been overturned by a highly subjective ruling that truly splits hairs. Even the justices who voted to overturn the penalty agreed that moral values and religious beliefs are important and can be part of the debate among jurors.
"For example, a juror could recite biblical passages from memory. But because of a subjective interpretation that reading the same passage is somehow prejudicial, a convicted killer has avoided the appropriate sentence. I'm disappointed to see that the Court would supersede the will of the jury and the people of Colorado regarding the death penalty on such a technicality."
Posted by Rick at 03:48 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Michael Schiavo Guility of Bigamy; The Court Ignores Marriage
Terri Schiavo moves ever so close to death. The only thing we don’t know about this right-to-murder case is the truth. We hear the hyperbolic screeches of Randall Terry and Michael Savage, we cringe at the calculation of Michael Schiavo, who may very well be an evil man, and we almost have to look away from the wishful thinking of Terri’s grieving family.
I believe the President and the Governor—and even the Congress—have done what they can under the law. It has failed. But to expect them to engage in civil disobedience and do for Terri by force what the courts have not down by law is to wish for a breakdown of constitutional rule that would be far worse than the tragic result we are about to endure.
The original and fundamental error made by the Florida court was to ignore the fact that marriage is a civil and spiritual relationship defined by law, by many faiths, and by 4,000 years of human history. There are reasons that it is solemn, sacred, and given rights and responsibilities. Two people in a marriage are expected to have special consideration for each other, their mutual interests are intertwined, and their common experiences are expected to create a future desire to provide and protect each other.
The marriage between Michael and Terri Schiavo has been over for some time. Perhaps not when Michael began seeing other women, but certainly when he established a common law marriage with another woman and started a family.
I should make it clear that I do not blame Michael Schiavo for moving forward with his life and settling down with another woman. That is understandable.
In most cases, there is no reason to formally divorce a spouse in this condition. But how could a judge grant the hangman’s power to a man who has in body and in spirit gone through a de facto divorce?
In Utah, by the way, Michael Schiavo would be charged with bigamy. And in Florida, he could be charged with Openly Living in Adultery. (h/t): A Soft Answer.
When the Florida court ignored the responsibilities of marriage, it seems now, Terri’s fate was sealed.
--------------
From Release the Hounds:
Here is something that troubles me deeply about the Terri Schiavo situation. I have heard more than once from the proponents of simply killing her...pardon, letting her die...that withholding food and water would not result in a painful death but rather would allow her to peacefully "slip away.'Why then is she being administered morphine when nurses noticed Terri Schiavo was "moaning and grimacing"?
Posted by Jim at 03:12 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Faith and Decisions
Questions of innocence and guilt and life and death are moral judgments. On what shall jurors derive their morality, if not on their own faith and values.
In an interview Christianity Today editor Stan Guthrie did with Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, the senator said:
"The idea that we cast aside our faith and don't replace it with something else to influence your worldview is ridiculous. If you don't have faith, you replace it, I assume, with some secular concepts, or with some other belief system, which goes unidentified. I think that really is—I won't say dishonest, but I think it certainly lacks intellectual honesty to say that by removing your faith as a component of how you conduct yourself that you somehow can do so neutrally. You don't. You just do so with another worldview or another set of values that come from another source."
Posted by Jim at 02:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
An Argument for Bible Memorization
Just when we think the courts can’t get any more absurd, along comes this case from the Colorado Supreme Court.
“In a sharply divided ruling (3-2), Colorado's highest court on Monday upheld a lower court's decision throwing out the sentence of a man who was given the death penalty after jurors consulted the Bible in reaching a verdict. The Bible, the court said, constituted an improper outside influence and a reliance on what the court called a ‘higher authority.’”In the decision on Monday, the dissenting judges said the majority had confused the internal codes of right and wrong that juries are expected to possess in such weighty moral matters with the outside influences that are always to be avoided, like newspaper articles or television programs about the case. The jurors consulted Bibles, the minority said, not to look for facts or alternative legal interpretations, but for wisdom.
"The biblical passages the jurors discussed constituted either a part of the jurors' moral and religious precepts or their general knowledge, and thus were relevant to their court-sanctioned moral assessment," the minority wrote.
Would it matter to these three Colorado judges if the jurors had the Bible verses memorized, rather than consulting the written text?
Good fodder for the U.S. Supreme Court.
After the last couple of weeks maybe I’ll change my vote on whether to use the nuclear option to make judicial appointments filibuster proof. There are just too many judges outside the mainstream of American justice and out of touch with ancient wisdom.
Posted by Jim at 02:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Black and Asian Women Earning More Than White Women
I’m going to recommend that my wife file a lawsuit, or stage a protest, or write a scathing article about the terrible inequity she and others like her are suffering.
Last week, the Census Bureau released data that showed that black and Asian women with bachelor's degrees earn slightly more than similarly educated white women. A white woman with a bachelor's degree typically earned nearly $37,800 in 2003, compared with $41,100 for a college-educated black woman and nearly $43,700 for a college-educated Asian woman. Hispanic women took home slightly less, at $37,600 a year.
You can practically hear the hand wringing by liberal groups that can’t quite explain how this has happened.
Notions that black women are struggling financially as much other groups are should not be dismissed, said Barbara Gault, research director of the Institute for Women's Policy Research.
We’ve reached equity in this area, and exceeded it. The advocacy groups will need to whine about something else.
Of course white men with four-year degrees still make more than anyone else. So sue me.
Posted by Jim at 01:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Foreign Affairs
Now for something we can all agree on. Instapundit points to two very interesting foreign issues.
First, Glenn notes an article reporting the difficulties facing the Iraqi resistance. Sounds good to me.
Second, Zimbabwe looks to be in the news soon. Elections are upcoming; see here and here.
Third, and completely unrelated, the new Over the Rhine record comes out today. I can't wait to break open my copy this afternoon.
Posted by Matt at 08:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
BASEBALL!!!!
Okay all you new SCO readers, baseball season is right around the corner and if I don't get www.rickbrady.net up and running soon, I will take over this blog with posts about the Texas Rangers.
My cousin, Rod Barajas, is their catcher. Here's a great little story announcing that Rod will get the starting honors April 5 against the Angels. Rod walked-on to the Arizona Diamondbacks and played his first pro season in 1999. He had a so-so career until last year when his bat got hot and he earned the respect of the Texas pitching staff. Rod's hitting .385 in pre-season, so let's hope he can carry some of that flare into April!
Oh. I have another cousin that plays with the Giants - Noah Lowry. But, I don't recall ever meeting him. I'm told that I have, when I was younger, but I'm an old guy (28) and that was a long time ago. Besides, I don't really like the Giants. :-)
Posted by Rick at 02:34 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
March 28, 2005
LA Times Hit Piece: DeLay in the Crosshairs
After reading and posting on what I thought was a decent and fair article from the LA Times on Jim Wallis, my jaw about dropped when I read this article from the paper that asserts hypocrisy on the part of Tom DeLay regarding both his leadership in federalizing the Terri Schiavo case and his push for tort reform.
The article starts:
CANYON LAKE, Texas — A family tragedy that unfolded in a Texas hospital during the fall of 1988 was a private ordeal — without judges, emergency sessions of Congress or the debate raging outside Terri Schiavo's Florida hospice.DeLay’s father was in a terrible accident that left him severely brain damaged and on full life support, but DeLay consented when his family decided it was time to pull the plug.
The article continues with this jab:
And DeLay is among the strongest advocates of keeping the woman, who doctors say has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, connected to her feeding tube. DeLay has denounced Schiavo's husband, as well as judges, for committing what he calls "an act of barbarism" in removing the tube.to let his father die. (emphasis added)
In 1988, however, there was no such fiery rhetoric as the congressman quietly joined the sad family consensus
The article’s authors include a token quote from a spokesman for DeLay who tried to said that the situations were not comparable, but the LA Times reporters inserted quickly pointed out the broad similarities in the cases. Further on in the article, the Times is sure to note that the DeLay family filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the tram equipment that killed DeLay’s father, but that the Representative “since has taken a leading role promoting tort reform, wants to rein in trial lawyers to protect American businesses from what he calls ‘frivolous, parasitic lawsuits’ that raise insurance premiums and ‘kill jobs.’” The family settled for what is said to be $250,000 and DeLay is said to have given his portion to his mother. The
The article ended with a nice interview with DeLay’s mother:
Like her son,Is it not important to the LA Times that DeLay’s father’s organs were failing and was on full life support as opposed to needing only a feeding tube? Mr. DeLay was dying – Terri is not. Is it not relevant that Mr. Schiavo has abandoned his wife and is engaged to another woman with whom he has lived for years and has two children? And perhaps the most basic and pertinent distinction missed in this LA Times hit piece on DeLay: There is no among Terri's family about her wishes, chance for recovery, or what should be done with her; but with DeLay, there was not a single dissenting family member.she believed there might be hope for Terri Schiavo's recovery. That's what made her family's experience different, she said. Charles had no hope.” "There was no chance he was ever coming back," she said. (emphasis added)
Outrage.
Posted by Rick at 11:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Simon Cowell is good for Self-Esteem
Accompanied by a rather frightening illustration of Paula Abdul, Bret Stephens' WSJ editorial last Friday focuses on "American Idol," and suggests that the real star of the show is Simon Cowell, not because he's a particularly pleasant individual, but because he's "judgmental."
Of the three judges, Stephens has this to say about Randy Jackson:
He is strictly about performance. If a singer does poorly, he'll complain she was "pitchy"; if she does well, then she's Mr. Jackson's Dawg: "You were hot, man: I give you props for that." In the Jackson world view, either you succeeded or you didn't, but no performer's feelings will ever be hurt by a word he says because it's all about the singing, never about the singer.
I'd also like to add this: Randy Jackson needs to build a bigger vocabulary. A'ight, dawg?
Of Paula Abdul, Stephens says:
Although she is the only performer among the judges, she never seems to care about the performances themselves. What she cares about is each contestant's "potential": She wants them to feel proud no matter what. If she were a pedagogue, she'd be into social promotion; her fundamental belief is self-belief. It certainly took her far.
And Paula Adbul certainly seems to enjoy her role. Watch closely and you will often see her leaping to her feet and groovin' along with the contestants. She'll also swoon dramatically if some crooner makes her weak in the knees. And she also seems to be the most emotionally invested in the contestants, and perhaps it's because as a performer herself she remembers all too well the cold hand of judgment.
But the cold hand of judgment is what's needed sometimes, and that's where Cowell comes in:
And then there is Mr. Cowell, the daddy who is not afraid to spank the children. . . . The greater part of Mr. Cowell's appeal, however, is his honesty. . . . of sparing people from the worst of themselves. "I met someone the other night who's 28 years old," Mr. Cowell said once, "and he hasn't worked a day since he left college because he's pursuing a dream he'll never, ever realize: He thinks he's a great singer. Actually, he's crap. But nobody has said to him, 'Why have you been wasting your time for eight years?'"
Sure, Simon's harsh judgments garner him lots of boos from the audience, but aren't his judgments exactly what some people need to hear?
Back in February, USA Today had this interesting article on how the seeds sown by the "Self-Esteem Movement" back in the 70s have now grown:
Kids born in the '70s and '80s are now coming of age. The colorful ribbons and shiny trophies they earned just for participating made them feel special. But now, in college and the workplace, observers are watching them crumble a bit at the first blush of criticism."I often get students in graduate school doing doctorates who made straight A's all their lives, and the first time they get tough feedback, the kind you need to develop skills," says Deborah Stipek, dean of education at Stanford University. "I have a box of Kleenex in my office because they haven't dealt with it before."
. . .
Roy Baumeister, a psychology professor at Florida State University in Tallahassee, says he had "high hopes" for the benefits of boosting self-esteem when he began studying it more than 30 years ago. But his lengthy review of 18,000 articles, published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, ended with the realization that only two clear benefits emerge from high self-esteem: enhanced initiative, which boosts confidence, and increased happiness. "There is not nearly as much benefit as we hoped," he says. "It's been one of the biggest disappointments of my career."
I don't find any of this particularly surprising. Nor did Orson Scott Card, who wrote on the subject in his Jan. 23rd column at Ornery.org. Card manages to bring in both American Idol and the Baumeister study which was the subject of an article in the January issue of Scientifc American.
Roy F. Baumeister, Jennifer D. Campbell, Joachim I. Krueger and Kathleen D. Vohs published an article in the January 2005 Scientific American titled "Exploding the Self-Esteem Myth."Their method was not so much research as a review of research.
They went through all the published research on self-esteem and immediately eliminated all the studies that depended on self-reporting along.
Here's the problem: If somebody reports that they have a very positive self-image, and then tells you that he is very successful in his job and his social life, what have you actually learned?
That people who have a high opinion of themselves have a high opinion of themselves.
Duh.
. . .
There is no statistically significant connection between high self-esteem and genuine achievement, ability, or successfulness. Not in the real world.
Except in one area: Making new acquaintances like you. If you have high self-esteem, you're probably a little bit better at making friends (though it's not inevitable -- just slightly more likely).
Card doesn't suggest completely eliminating "You can do it!" boosterism, but says it's important to strike a balance between building up esteem and leveling the necessary critique. Failing to provide the honest truth, Card says, is actually a selfish act, which I think is an interesting way to look at it.
The truth might hurt at the moment -- but nowhere near as badly as seeing themselves made ridiculous in front of an audience of millions.Yet I can also understand their friends and family. It's so much easier just to say, "Sure, you're great, you're wonderful" and then change the subject. No confrontation. No moments of unhappiness that you've caused.
Praising people who have done nothing to deserve praise is the lazy, selfish thing to do. It makes them like you while setting them up for embarrassment and failure later.
He closes with some good advice:
Here's what works: You teach children the connection between work and achievement.Great achievements aren't made by feeling good about yourself. They're made by boldness, originality, hard work, painstaking attention to detail, long practice, self-effacing cooperation, reliability, and a host of other attributes and actions.
Whom would you rather hire to work for you? The person who thinks he's wonderful all the time, regardless of what he does, or the person who is always questioning the quality of his own work and trying to do better?
. . .
Children need encouragement -- but they also need realistic assessments of their current level of achievement so they know what they need to work on.
The people who know them best and love them most are in the best position to do this.
. . .
Praise real achievements, however small, and you help a child. Praise him regardless of achievement, and you do damage, either to your own credibility or to the child's ability to know himself well enough to improve.
This is so obvious it shouldn't even need saying.
Probably. But it's always good to hear people say it.
Boo Simon Cowell if you like, but he might just be doing these contestants a favor.
Posted by Drew at 11:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Two Easter Tales
Rod Dreher recounts a conversation from this Easter weekend. Yep; this is how things get done down in Dixie.
My own thoughts on Easter Sunday.
Posted by Matt at 11:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Progress Report: No Child Left Behind
Surprise! Accountability seems to be working:
Seven in 10 schools in districts represented by the council have improved math scores since 2002, when testing under the act began, according to the group's study, "Beating the Odds." Four in 10 have improved reading scores.The report isn't all rosy though, as nearly half the 7.3 million students tested from urban areas were still less than proficient for their grade level. In addition, high schoolers still aren't doing so hot.
"Results show clearly impressive gains at the elementary level," Casserly said. "However, high school levels remain fragile and uncertain."
I suspect that there is not a whole lot one can do for high schoolers that have been allowed to skate through school for more than 8 years. Sure, you could throw a ton of money at the problem, but I suspect that the problem has more to do with a teenage "culture" that has been cultivated by the education system than with a lack educational programs or low teacher-student ratios. If you have been promoted from grade-to-grade since kindergarten without basic proficiency at each level, study habits (or lack thereof) and attitudes are likely codified by high school. I hope I'm not being too pessimistic about our nation's high schoolers, but I really fear that they have been failed by our education system that has lost sight of its basic purpose. I'm happy to hear that there have been impressive gains at the elementary level - I hold out hope for the education of our future high schoolers.
Posted by Rick at 11:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
LA Times Profile: Jim Wallis
Jim Wallis received a lot of ink from the LA Times with this article today. Having not yet read his book, God's Politics, I really can't comment on his ideas, but I do know that other SCO contributors are not impressed. However, when Wallis gets criticized by the UCC Rev. Barry Lynn, I can't imagine the guy is all that bad. :-)
Posted by Rick at 10:53 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
The Christian Response
In my post below, I noted the Internet Monk's post on the Christian media response to Terri Schiavo. I noted the post because while I think Michael Spencer makes some good points, I simply believe the timing of the post was wrong. But Spencer has posed the questions, and they are questions that need examining.
I felt then, as I feel now, that this is too important an issue for us as believers to be distracted over the political bickering that is taking place. I also noted Hugh Hewitt's post below concerning the Christian right. Clearly there is some debate within the religious right, and I myself am not immune. I have very little use for the public face of the religious right, as identified in Dobson, Falwell and Robertson. I believe these leaders have outlived there usefulness as public spokesmen. Yet Spencer stops there. What about Hugh Hewitt, Bill Bennett and John Mark Reynolds? These are not knee-jerk reactionaries. Are they part of the same crowd that Spencer (correctly) cites as being problematic?
I didn't join the "Let Terri Live" crowd because of James Dobson or Rush Limbaugh or Jerry Falwell. (Though I admit that Rush has been nothing short of flawless on this issue). I support the Schindler family because life should always, always be given the benefit of the doubt. I didn't do it because I was raised Southern Baptist or because I listen to Rush Limbaugh. I haven't been watching O'Reilly or Hannity & Colmes. I think Randall Terry is an embarrassment.
The point that Spencer seems to ignore, at least concerning the blogosphere, is that dozens of pundits not normally considered to be a part of the Christian right - Bill Kristol, Wesley J. Smith, Stanley Kurtz, John Podhoretz, John Leo, and Ralph Nader, for heaven's sake - have taken the side of Terri Schiavo's parents. Does that mean they're right? Not necessarily, but it should be a hint that the Dobsons and Falwells of the world aren't out there fighting this battle alone. I have no doubt at all that every Christian blogger who has shown even the slightest divergence from the standard religious right position in this case has recieved an inbox full of anger. I don't condone nasty e-mails and angry comment threads. I realize that many Christians, often uninformed on the matter, have the capacity to become belligerent. But I won't step away from the position that life must always be protected, and it is incumbent upon Christians to protect life. Not because it will win us points in the 700 Club, but because a stable, decent society depends on it. I'm not trying to defend or even establish the Southern Baptist America. Simply a just and decent society. It's what we've had in this nation for over two hundred years, but we're fools if we allow it to slip away.
Does salvation depend on this issue? No. No one will end up in hell because they sided with Michael Schiavo. Is James Dobson the final voice on the matter? Nope. Shall I say that there is a defacto Christian position on this? Not quite, at least not in the sense that one's salvation is revealed or denied in the issue. But as it concerns the taking of a life, the slow starvation (ten days and counting) of a woman, the precedent of an unfaithful husband determining his wife's fate against the rest of her family's wishes, the kangaroo court that has masqueraded for the last ten years...if a believer finds this fair and decent and just, be my guest. That position will be between the man and God, but I shall have no part of it.
Posted by Matt at 09:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
One Easter Thought...
The Apostle Paul suggests that if Christ is not risen from the grave, and if the Christian has no hope for the future, then we are a pitiable lot. Thank God this is not true, and that Christ indeed has risen! We have something in which to hope, and the powerful knowledge that, as Gandalf told Sam, every sad thing will be made untrue. What joyous knowledge.
Posted by Matt at 06:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Final Word
This is likely the last I'll say on this matter for a while, because like Jay Nordlinger, I am: "I'm so appalled by it. I am still adjusting to the fact that I'm living in a country that will gladly starve a helpless woman to death."
I can't believe how odd this whole thing has become. I've read too much as of late by people with whom I typically agree suggesting things that I just can't stomach, things that aren't even dealing with the major issues at hand.
It's given me a headache, save for exposing one issue.
What is the religious right, and what do I, on a personal level, think of it? Hugh Hewitt's morning post addresses some of the issue, but it's worth continual evaluation.
More later, I reckon.
Posted by Matt at 06:15 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
"Fake but Accurate": Take II?
John Hinderaker provides a very useful summary of the controversy surrounding the alleged GOP talking points memo on Schiavo (HT: Instapundit). Read the whole article, but here's 5 points to keep in your back pocket for now:
To sum up, then: (1) The memo itself conveys no information about its source. (2) It is very poorly done, containing a number of typographical errors, failing to get the number of the Senate bill correct, and using points cribbed word-for-word from an advocacy group's website. (3) The politically controversial statements are out of place in a talking points memo, and seem, on the contrary, ideally framed to create talking points for the Democrats. (4) Somewhat bizarrely, after the contents of the memo had been reported, someone corrected those typographical errors--but only those errors that had been pointed out by ABC. (5) No one has reported seeing any Republican distributing the suspect memo; the only people confirmed to have passed out the memo were Democratic staffers.Will the MSM do their job and get to the bottom of this story?
Posted by Rick at 03:35 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
I Know That My Redeemer Lives
“I’m guilty.”
“Lord Jesus, you are innocent.”
“Remember me.”
These are the simple words of a sinner who faced his own guilt, recognized a holy God, and asked for help. They are the words of the repentant thief on the cross next to Jesus. The appeal of Easter for all of us is that in the only passage where an individual is actually promised a place in heaven, Jesus responds: “Today, you will be with me in paradise.” This promise is valid only because the man on the middle cross rose from the dead and defeated death. Jesus died on Friday and death died on Sunday.
I’ve spent many an Easter weekend over the last 20 years in prison. No, not as an inmate, but as part of a Christian ministry, accompanying Chuck Colson. We journeyed into the tombs of our society on the weekend each year that holds great meaning to those men and women behind bars who have come to know the One who promised paradise to the criminal who called on him.
Because society has issued sentences of condemnation to those in prison, their sin is publicly declared. With that help, many inmates genuinely see their need for a redeemer. It’s something many of us on the outside have a harder time admitting. As we complete another Easter weekend, it’s a recognition that can break chains far stronger than prison bars.
Posted by Jim at 12:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 26, 2005
How to Remodel a 20sf Bathroom in 6-Months
Jokingly, I suggested to the other SCO guys that I should write a series on how to remodel an 820sf bathroom in six months (thanks for the catch Newton). Then I spent over an hour stripping 6 inches of moldy and cracked caulking from the shower and I realized that the project, which started back in January, may really take 6 months! As with many projects, I underestimated the level of effort involved.
Anyways, this is the kind of thing that I would normally post at www.rickbrady.net, but I can't seem to locate my web-designer... Oh! There's another project that I've undersestimated and is on the "to do" list :-).
Here's a couple of pictures of the project (yes, we've done a lot of work since these photos and they are in reverse chronological order) and since I'm using this space for personal stuff, check out some family and related photos at BradyPics.
If I don't get around to posting, Happy Easter everyone! His resurrection brings hope to the world. "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” 1 Corinthians 15:55 (also Hosea 13:14)
Posted by Rick at 08:41 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
March 25, 2005
Iraq's Insurgents ‘Seek Exit Strategy'
Great headline and encouraging article from the Financial Times of London today (HT: Drudge).
Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein, who heads Iraq's main monarchist movement and is in contact with guerrilla leaders, said many insurgents including former officials of the ruling Ba'ath party, army officers, and Islamists have been searching for a way to end their campaign against US troops and Iraqi government forces since the January 30 election.Sharif wants to make sure that we all know that the insurgents he’s talking about are the good ones:
Unlike Mr Zarqawi's followers, who are thought to be responsible for the big suicide bomb attacks on Iraqi civilian targets, the other Sunni insurgents are more likely to plant bombs and carry out ambushes against security forces and US troops active near their homes.Genuine minutemen aren’t they? To the encouraging part of the article:
Sharif Ali said the success of Iraq's elections dealt the insurgents a demoralising blow, prompting them to consider the need to enter the political process.Hence this report from Reuters that the rate of American troop deaths have fallen 50 percent from pre-election levels.
Whether Iraqi government decides that it wants to include these thugs in the political process now is up to them. I would love to see the Iraqi’s vow to hunt down and prosecute every insurgent terrorist in Iraq; however, this concession that democracy has prompted a move to lay down arms and embrace the political process should be viewed as a positive development in the global war on terrorism. It’s one more example of the power of freedom to overcome tyranny and terror.
UPDATE: Austin Bay has an idea:
Fact is, turning in Zarqawi would be the Baghdad equivalent of Monopoly’s “Get Out of Jail Free Card” for the lower-level holdouts who engineer it.Interesting...
UPDATE: Austin Bay has an idea:
Fact is, turning in Zarqawi would be the Baghdad equivalent of Monopoly’s “Get Out of Jail Free Card” for the lower-level holdouts who engineer it.Interesting...
Posted by Rick at 08:28 PM | Comments (2)
A Marriage of Convenience? Fiscal Incentives and Residential Development Patterns in California
The editors at the Planning Forum finally got around to publishing their 10th Volume electronically. The latest volume includes an article that I wrote last year, which challenges the perception that land use fiscalization is a leading cause of housing affordability problems in California. If that sort of stuff interests you, check it out here. The formatting looks a bit strange when compared to the print version of the journal, but oh well.
The Planning Forum is a journal of Community and Regional Planning, published by the School of Architecture, University of Texas at Austin.
Posted by Rick at 08:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Schindler's List
At Mere Comments, James M. Kushiner absolutely nails the crux of the matter. The media can be studied later. We can talk later about how we got here and the problems with marriage laws and medical ethics.
It is a day in which judgments are made, but they are not always as they appear. In the Terri Schiavo case, while it is about her, and her parents, it is also about much more. It is about a culture of death and a culture of life. Can a society that is expanding the "right to die" while at the same time restricting the "right to life" be anything other than a culture of death?I think it is ultimately a contest between two views. One says that life is a Gift from God, the other that it is not and it is for us to decide by our own lights what to do with life. It is ours to manipulate, ours to end when we want to, ours to create for experimental purposes, in short there is no Divine mystery to Life before which we must in all humility bow.
Posted by Matt at 11:23 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
The Africa Crisis
Africa is a mess, and it needs our help. On that, we should all be able to agree. As a lifelong U2 fan, I've been sympathetic to Bono's concern for the continent, which in turn inspired another favorite band, the Innocence Mission, to record an album to benefit African relief.
A few weeks ago, I noted a Bono quote suggesting that American Christians are viewed as stingy by the rest of the world, even our fellow Christians. Now Fareed Zakaria has a column in Newsweek discussing America's Africa policy. John Miller took great offense to Zakaria's commentary. So did Ramesh Ponurru. And John Derbyshire. And Jonah Goldberg. And Nick Schulz.
Concerned readers should follow the Corner on this one. Bono, whose heart I believe to be in the right place, and others talk often about Africa and the need for help, but it is the American right that has offered the most innovation in recent years. The WHO and other organizations have been an abysmal failure as of late. While I support efforts to repair that damaged continent, we must be mindful that we are not led to feel guilty by those whose ideas are stale and worn.
Posted by Matt at 10:50 AM | Comments (0)
Hewitt on Sullivan
Andrew just got served, as the kids say.
Posted by Matt at 10:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
What's Next for the Pro-Life Crowd?
Michael Spencer has put up a thought-provoking piece, questioning the media sensation surrounding Terri Schavo's gruesome situation. For the record, we're approaching seven days with no food or water. A painless death, indeed.
Witness this quote from Spencer's commentary:
It is at times like this that I realize how much of what we all "care about," is generated by our media of choice, and what it tends to focus on. In a very real way, our compassion is directed- perhaps manipulated- by the media we watch or read. Without demoting the importance or reality of any of the stories we focus on, I wonder if we've considered why we care, and more importantly, what we don't care about- and why?(Emphasis is Spencer's)
There are fine points worth considering. We must not and should not abandon Terri's Fight. This case is important because it is the most notable of its kind to date; it is setting all sorts of precedents. But let's pay heed to Spencer's words. There are people suffering all around us. The inner cities of our country are just bad as they ever were; how can we change this? The Delta region of the Southeast, the Appalachian regions, the desert Southwest; all of these areas are full of poor and desperate people. Our own suburban neighborhoods are populated with folks whose lives are empty, having fallen victim to a debased consumerist culture.
How can we help? I don't pretend there are any answers; I'm setting in my nice apartment wearing nice clothes watching Sportscenter and listening to Cross Canadian Ragweed worrying about how my NCAA tournament bracket is busted. All I know is that there is a suffering world out there and I'm called to help, whether it's Terri Schiavo or a black kid from the inner city or a white kid from the mountains or a native American kid...we've got to do something.
Posted by Matt at 09:49 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Really Strange Bedfellows
Ralph Nader speaks out in favor of life for Terri Schiavo.
(Note: I had originally posted a sentence expressing my surprise at Nader's views. In retrospect it was a bit inappropriate. The line has been removed, and my apologies to Mr. Nader.)
Still, given that a lot of Nader voters have been fans of folks like Peter Singer, this is interesting.
Posted by Matt at 08:34 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack