Hey, Folks: There's a great article by Marvin Olasky just published online at Townhall, listing resources for learning about the Islamic religion. If like me you're pretty ignorant on this major world religion's specifics, you might want to note a few of his recommendations.
This entry was tagged. History Islam Philosophy
A quote extracted from Jon Stewart's hosting of the latest Oscars:
"I have to say it is a little shocking to see all these big names here, these huge stars. The Oscars is really, I guess, the one night of the year where you can see all your favorite stars without having to donate any money to the Democratic Party."
In American politics today, there is a simple question that divides us: who makes our choices? Do we make our own choices or do we stand aside and let someone else make our choices for us? This is the question that fuels the debate over school choice, over ethanol mandates, over FDA drug approvals, and over a host of other issues.
There are those that believe that only government employees can be trusted to make decisions. They believe that parents cannot be trusted to choose a school for their own children. They believe that drivers cannot be trusted to choose the best fuel for their vehicles. They believe that patients cannot be trusted to choose which medicines to take. As a result, they established the FDA to pick and choose our medicines for us. They established local School Boards to run the schools, making it as difficult as possible for parents to use non-government schools. They support ethanol mandates, to make us use the fuels they like best.
This governmental paternalism is always presented as a benevolent service. A service that government willingly provides to its citizens. But is it benevolent? Does government paternalism really make our lives better? Are we really better off if the government makes our choices for us?
Let me make this entire issue more personal: do you trust the FDA to make the right decisions about your drugs? Be cautious how you respond. The FDA has two criteria for approving drugs: is it safe and does it work? Every drug must be tested thoroughly -- a process that often lasts 10 years or more. Some drugs make it through these tests and are approved for sale, most don't.
What does it mean when a drug fails its tests? It means that the drug doesn't work more often than it does. It means that the drug hurts more people than it helps. It doesn't mean that the drug never works and it doesn't mean that the drug always causes harm. FDA employees look at the test results and make a decision. Does the drug work often enough, in a safe enough manner to be sold? In some manner, these decisions are arbitrary. There is no hard and fast line that can determine whether or not a drug is appropriate for human usage.
FDA doctors look at all of the variables, all of the tests, all of the evidence and make one decision. This decision is binding on all 300 million American citizens. This decision is no mere recommendation. It is a crime to use a drug that the FDA has not certified as being safe and effective. Both the patient taking it and the doctor prescribing it can be thrown into jail if their usage of the drug does not meet FDA "guidelines".
Is the FDA's decision really that valid? Is it really valid for all 300 million Americans? Probably not. There are tradeoffs involved in the decision to take any drug. Is it going to work? How well will it work? What side effects will there be? How severe will the side effects be? Is there a danger of death? How big is that danger of death? What benefits does the drug offer? How dramatic are those benefits? Are those benefits worth the danger of death? These are questions that don't have a one-size fits all answer. Some drugs may be very dangerous for some patients and very safe for others. Some drugs may have no effect on one person and a life-changing effect for another person. And yet, the FDA makes the same decision binding on both people.
Case in point: yesterday, the FDA heard testimony from patients with multiple sclerosis about a called Tysabri. This drug has been called a breakthrough for the treatment of M.S. Multiple sclerosis is a neurological disease that affects about 400,000 Americans. It wouldn't be surprising if a drug that treats neurological defects has neurological side effects. So it is with Tysabri. Tysabri has been linked to P.M.L. (progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy), a rare but deadly neurologic virus.
On the one hand, we have a drug that's been hailed as a breakthrough treatment for a debilitating disease. On the other hand, we have a drug that can kill those who take it. Should it be available for patients to take or not? The FDA is currently deciding. The FDA is currently deciding whether or not M.S. patients can take a potentially life-changing (and possibly life threatening) drug. Why is the FDA deciding this issue? Why can't these patients make their own decisions? Pamela Clark of Salt Lake City told the agency that "We understand the risks of using experimental drugs, but we also understand the risks of doing nothing." She also reported that "Tysabri had allowed her to walk to a duck pond with her two 5-year-old sons and stand up long enough to cook dinner."
Tysabri has made Pamela's life better. It's allowed her to enjoy life again. She weighed the risk and decided that the benefit of the drug was worth the risk. Unfortunately for Pamela, she's not allowed to make that decision. She has to wait for the FDA to make the decision for her.
Do you think that's right? Do you think that Pamela should be prevented from deciding for herself? Do you think that her illness distorts her judgment in such a way that she is incapable of making her own decision? Would your answer change if you were in Pamela's shoes? Are you willing to turn control of your life over to government employees?
It's time to make a choice.
This entry was tagged. Government Nanny State Regulation
A little black comedy from the Associated Press to start your day off right, Lords and Ladies:
CHICAGO "” Nation of Islam officials on Tuesday said Jewish leaders who resigned from a state hate crimes commission rather than serve with one of their members should rejoin the panel or quit criticizing it.
Two former commission members said they had no intention of returning to the Governor's Commission on Discrimination and Hate Crimes because Sister Claudette Marie Muhammad refused to repudiate the religious movement's leader, Minister Louis Farrakhan.
In her first comments since four commissioners resigned last week, Muhammad said it was ridiculous that she has been condemned for Farrakhan's remarks.
Gov. Rod Blagojevich's appointment of Muhammad to the commission in August drew no public attention until she invited commissioners to attend a speech given by Farrakhan, who is known for his disparaging remarks about Jews, whites and gays.
Some commissioners began criticizing her presence on the panel after Farrakhan's speech Feb. 26 in Chicago that included references to "Hollywood Jews" promoting homosexuality and "other filth."
On Tuesday, Farrakhan's chief of staff, Brother Leonard Muhammad, said the Nation of Islam forgave the former commissioners because they "left out of confusion."
"You misunderstand what the commission is all about," Leonard Muhammad said on WVON-AM. "Come back to the commission and debate your point."
He later issued a stronger challenge for them to return.
"They need to come back or shut up," Leonard Muhammad said.
Claudette Muhammad urged her critics to leave her alone.
"For those who try to condemn me because of the honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan's remarks," she said, "it's ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous."
Claudette Muhammad said she and her family have been victims of hate crimes and discrimination, and that she has Jewish family members, has traveled to Israel and has worshipped in synagogues.
"Please know I am not the victimizer here, OK, but instead I am the victim," she said. She refused to repudiate Farrakhan and recommended that people who disagree with him, speak with him.
"I have no intention of returning to the commission until it is cleansed of the stain and stench of bigotry caused by Sister Claudette's continued presence," said Hirschhaut, executive director of the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center.
As a cherry on this little sunday, the governor has stated that he didn't actually have any idea that he hired a Nation of Islam follower for his commission, apparently thinking that this would make everyone feel better.
This entry was tagged. Ethics Government Morality Philosophy
About two weeks ago, I stumbled on to an interesting article. The founder of Domino's Pizza is planning on building a town that would be run strictly according to Catholic principles.
Abortions, pornography and contraceptives will be banned in the new Florida town of Ave Maria, which has begun to take shape on former vegetable farms 90 miles northwest of Miami.
Tom Monaghan, the founder of the Domino's Pizza chain, has stirred protests from civil rights activists by declaring that Ave Maria's pharmacies will not be allowed to sell condoms or birth control pills. The town's cable television network will carry no X-rated channels.
The town will be centred around a 100-foot tall oratory and the first Catholic university to be built in America for 40 years. The university's president, Nicholas J Healy, has said future students should "help rebuild the city of God" in a country suffering from "catastrophic cultural collapse."
Monaghan has argued that the owners of the town's commercial properties will be free to impose conditions in leases -- notably the restriction on the sale of contraceptives. But that has been challenged by Howard Simon, executive director of the Florida branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Simon said the U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled "ownership [of a town] does not always mean absolute dominion." "If he wants to build a town and encourage like-minded people to come and live there, that's fine. We get into problems where he tries to exercise governmental authority."
Adam and I promptly discussed this idea. Because we were using instant messenger to discuss it, you can read our thoughts.
Adam: Wow. That's fascinating. So what's your reaction?
Joe: I like it. It's going to kick up a huge mess of controversy. Probably spawn a Supreme Court case (or seven). It gets back to the roots of a lot of Constitutional areas that have gone off of the rails, freedom of contract being the most obvious. Jefferson, Washington, Madison, et. al. would have considered it to be constitutional. I'm not sure about Messrs. Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Souter, and Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer. The only person on the court that I know would rule the town legal is Justice Thomas.
Adam: And in the eyes of the LORD?
Joe: Biblically, I don't see anything wrong with it. It's basically the church, writ large. I see it as an Acts 2 type of situation. Only, more formal.
Adam: How is Ave Maria like Acts 2? Not sure I follow.
Joe: It's a bit of a stretch, admittedly. but the early church was a lot more closely knit than the modern church is. I think Ave Maria would do a lot to bring back the centrality of the church, to life. Church members would actually be required to live according to church teaching, which is a fairly radical concept right now.
Adam: But the original church was surely more closely knit because of the oppression it faced and the maturity and belief of its members, not simply because they had people looking over them more. And is centrality particularly important to the work of the Gospel? The Christian church only truly began to grow when its very head was cut off.
Also, if this is ultimately what it seems to be-a haven for Catholics-what does that say for those people's understanding of their mission here on Earth: to go ye out onto all the world and preach the Gospel to every living creature? That is, the Church is a missiological creature, not an institutional one.
Joe: The Great Commission still applies, obviously. And witness in the local town is only a part of the Great Commission. A larger part involves going out into the surrounding region: county, state, nation, etc. This town could provide a valuable (both in the material and non-material sense) base of operations for missions work. A place to raise a family and a place to return to in time of need or when spiritual renewal is needed.
Having the town literally built around a church need not necessarily involve centrality of government (although that will obviously play a role). It will, more importantly I think, emphasize how faith is supposed to be a central defining part of our daily lives. Having the entire town run along those lines will only reinforce that centrality of faith to life.
I think excommunication has always been a vital part of church discipline. Obviously, it's a last line of discipline, but I think it needs to be a valid option. In today's society being excommunicated from a local church doesn't mean a whole lot. Being kicked out of town, certainly would mean something.
I also view the aspect of "people looking over them" with a somewhat benign eye. It's true that the church would have a lot of authority in the town. On the other hand, everyone that lives there does so with the full knowledge and expectation that that will be true. Thus, the "coercive" aspects could be viewed as a form of hyper-accountability.
Adam: Hm. I take issue with the idea that there is any relief from the Commission, or that separation from mainstream society will ever ultimately service it. I am certain at the least that the raising of a man's family is not to be, as conventional wisdom would dictate, done in the most secure place possible. Every man's possession is to be given up freely to the LORD's service, and that includes his family, as horrifying a thought as I know this is (and one day, it will be all the more horrifying to me; I can't know the half of it now, quite literally). Point is: a Christian in NYC has far more opportunity to serve the Master and affect change than a Christian will in this Ave Maria, because all our knowledge and keeping of the law is ultimately of no consequence. As for excommunication, I agree that with far more individual churches out there now, many of which might not look into a new member's history, it might not mean as much-were we the full arm of God. But we discipline to our extent, I think, and should not concern ourselves with anything further. I guess what I'm saying here is that I see $400 million going to the creation of a greater structure-Catholic town for people who are Catholics-which is not an increase in the Church, which would be $400 million going to, say, church planting by Catholics for heathen. Community transformation.
Like Roberts Jr. said: If this Catholic town were wiped off the face of the planet, who would miss it? Catholics. Who does it serve? Catholics. Am I calling this foray selfish? No; but self-centered, yes. And the two are different, I think.
A friend of mine I consider a spiritual father to me has always told me that if you want to grow in Christ, in your faith, the best way to do it is to pray for others and to serve others. We might extrapolate from that and say that the best way for the Church to grow in Christ and in its faith is to pray for and serve others. I'm inclined to think that in focusing solely on such, I neglect myself and leave myself open to corruption by not 'shoring myself up', and perhaps if there is a total imbalance this is certainly the case. But might there not be point to the fact that Jesus's immediate reaction to hearing about John's death was to start ministering to others again?
That is, the recipients are not the only ones to receive. And this seems to me very characteristic of the Gospel.
Joe: Paul grew up in a devout community and learned from the best before beginning his earthly ministry. Jesus was 30 before He began to minister. Samuel grew up in the temple, before beginning his ministry. Moses lived a fairly insulated life before getting kicked out and into reality. These may be isolated exceptions to the rule, but I'm not positive that they are.
I'm also certain that I'm over-simplying the case a bit. Still, I think it's possible that Ave Maria has the potential to become a training ground for evangelists, apologists, ministers. I don't think it's a town that one should necessarily spend one's entire life in. On the other hand, I don't think that living there for a few years would be a negative experience either. I think it would be a good place to be from.
Adam: Moses may be out. He spent nearly 40 years being raised by the royal family, another 40 in Midian, which was pagan. And the royal family wasn't exactly a group of synagogue-lovers. :)
Joe: Well, yeah. My broader point was that ministry didn't always start at a young age. There is precedence for going through a long period of preparation. Of course, the opposite is true as well. Which just goes to show that the Boss likes to mix things up.
Adam: This is true, which is why I'm not outright condemning it; not sure it's possible to condemn any approach when He's that versatile.
What do you think, readers? Please hit the "Comments" link below and let us know your thoughts on this idea.
This entry was tagged. Christianity
Local radio personality John Peterson wrote a blog post yesterday called The Voucher Wedge. In it, he talked about his displeasure with the voucher program that allows students to leave the Milwaukee Public Schools and enroll in various types of private schools. He has two specific complaints about giving families vouchers to use at non-public schools:
First, the choice program is sending taxpayer dollars into private schools that are not accountable to people of this state. I had heard Republicans were the party of accountability. Not only is there is no standardized test to compare private and public schools ability educate children, but choice supporters have blocked an honest evaluation to support their contention that private schools are better.
Second, public schools could not budget accurately for the next year without knowing enrollment numbers. Suggesting that there be no cap demonstrates a lack of business savvy.
As a supporter of vouchers, I'd like to respond to John's complaints. Now, I'm definitely not an "educational expert". I'm a guy with a blog that likes to ask questions and raise concerns. I'm probably overlooking some subtleties of the educational system. I'm not an expert on the Milwaukee Choice Program or on the private schools that are currently accepting vouchers. These are simply my reactions to John's assertions.
I must admit that I'm a bit surprised by his first complaint. He claims that private schools are not accountable to "people of this state". Well, as I see it, the private schools are accountable to one very important group of people: the parents who are sending their children to these schools. The vouchers, that the parents receive, are usable at many different schools. If the parents see that their children are doing worse in a voucher school than they were in a public school, it's a simple matter to move the children to a new voucher school or back into the MPS (Milwaukee Public Schools).
That's why I think this complaint is a bit of a red herring. WEAC (Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state teachers union) would love to keep Milwaukee's children in their schools. To that end, WEAC moans about a lack of oversight and a lack of standardized testing. What they really mean, is that WEAC is not able to oversee the schools or determine if Milwaukee's children are measuring up to WEAC's standards. (Now it's true that John only mentioned state oversight of the private schools. But really, which group has the most influence over Wisconsin's educational policy? WEAC does. Therefore, it seems to me, that any state oversight of eduction really boils down to WEAC oversight of education.)
I don't think a teacher's union should be the final arbiters of whether teachers are doing a good job. I don't think teachers should be determining which school system does the best job of teaching children. I think doing so creates an inherent conflict of interest for the teachers. I believe parents are the best judge of school effectiveness. I think parents are the best judge of which school does the best job of teaching their children. I think parents will do a better job of providing school oversight than other "people of this state" ever would. I may be wrong. I'd love to hear from anyone who can point me to widespread examples of parents making poor educational choices for their children.
John's other complaint revolves around the budgeting process for MPS. Specifically that with vouchers public schools could not budget accurately for the next year without knowing enrollment numbers. Again, I'm not an expert at this, and I may be wrong. It seems to me that, with an expanded voucher program in place, public school enrollment will only be going down, not up. If that's case, what's so hard about budgeting? Stick to the same budget that was used in the previous year. It should be more than adequate to cover expenses for the current year. It will probably even have money left over. Am I wrong? Am I missing something obvious that would make the budget process something truly worrisome?
This entry was tagged. Education Policy Vouchers Wisconsin
Some sad news came down the pipeline today, at least for those of us who count ourselves closest in agreement, of all the United States' political parties, to the Libertarian Party. That is to say, the LP's presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, Mr. Harry Browne, has died. According to an AP article:
[Harry] Browne, an author and investment adviser, died at his home Wednesday night, family friend Jim Babka said. He died of Lou Gehrig's disease.
Browne received 485,134 votes, or 0.5 percent, for president in 1996 and 384,431, or 0.367 percent, in 2000.
A few of you out there may remember (yeah, sure you do) that Mr. Browne wrote How You Can Profit From The Coming Devaluation, in which he predicted powerful inflation and the dollar's losing its power. It's a good book.
While I'm mentioning Libertarian candidates, however, I have to ask: is the Libertarian Party's battle to wrestle one-half of one percent of the vote away from the dominant political parties here in America worth its trouble? Might the resources (and I really am just pontificating here, I don't know) not be better used in securing more and higher municipal offices than in playing the national gadfly?
Consider New York City or Chicago. A large percentage of the population know the names of these cities' mayors; more than know the names of their senators or governors, I'd be willing to bet. What if the Libertarian Party just threw its back one year into getting one of its people in such an office? I know the Libertarian Party's pollsters consistently find that more people would vote for them if they thought the Libertarian Party had a chance of winning. Seeing a viable Libertarian Party candidate-who does not owe his name recognition to celebrity status, like Clint Eastwood-in a serious office would go a long, long way to meeting that goal.
So I suppose what I'm saying here is, maybe an extremely impressive man like Mr. Harry Browne was wasted on a national platform.
This entry was tagged. Libertarian
Owen reminds us about today's hearing on the Taxpayer Protection Amendment:
I'll be there to speak up for myself and my family. Will you be there to speak up for yours?
I'd love to be there. Unfortunately, we're still a one car family and my wife needs the car this afternoon. I'll be stuck in Madison, but my thoughts will be in Pewaukee. Owen, make sure the legislators know about the people who aren't there, as well as the people who are.
I didn't post anything yesterday. I probably won't post anything today. I have several good essays in the hopper, but work commitments and personal commitments have kept me from being able to finish them. Stick around, there's definitely more to come.
This entry was not tagged.
Callimachus on why George Washington matters:
Washington is beginning to recover his reputation; he deserves it. He was the steady hand on the tiller when we set sail as a nation. Steadiness, not reckless innovation, was the thing America needed at the time. It's to his credit that we forget the serpents of tyranny and mob rule that slithered about the American cradle. To remember, read the history of the French Revolution.
To me, Washington is American history's grand exemplar of the virtue of civic duty. Say "actor-president" and people think Reagan, but Washington played a role so thoroughly, and so perfectly, that people still think he was that regal, noble Roman hero. When you read the accounts of him written by his intimate circle during the Revolution, you see the American man -- vain, hard-driving, hard-cussing, clever in a farmer's ways. And you appreciate what he did to get America launched on an even keel: passing up a life he could have spent happily among his horses, transforming himself into a living virtue as a gift to the new nation.
Now regarded as almost surely mythical, Cincinnatus was a real hero to the Founders. And when Washington resigned from public life in 1783 after the great victory and returned to Mount Vernon rather than mounting the throne of the new nation, he was the marvel of the world, and he was behaving quite deliberately on the classical model.
As America's first president, Washington literally had to invent the job of being an elected leader of a nation, because there was no model for it in modern times. He had to parse out decisions about what title people should use when addressing the president, how a president should interact with Congress, how he should receive dinner invitations.
I've never thought about Washington in quite this way before. Please do, go read the full essay. It is doubtful whether America would have survived without Washington's leadership. Callimachus reminds of what George Washington did, why he did, and why it mattered so very much.
Madison's liberals spend a lot of time talking about helping the poor and improving the lives of the poor. This is, bluntly, a load of hogwash.
The Capital Times published another article about Wisconsin Health Care for All and their plan to offer health care to everyone in the city of Madison. In this article, I learned that most of the group's members are former Kerry campaign members. They were, understandably, depressed after Senator Kerry's loss in the 2004 election:
"We decided that we wanted to keep working," said Barbara Spar, who teaches human resources management at Madison Area Technical College. "We wanted to be for something. We wanted to use our energy instead of being depressed."
They decided to use their energy to implement universal health care on a local level -- Madison, specifically. As I wrote previously, the group wants to implement their plan by requiring all businesses in Madison to pay a portion of their payroll into an insurance fund. Businesses that already provide healthcare will be exempt from this new "fee".
The group boasts that they have an economist as one of their leaders: John Kalfayan. Therefore, group members are certain that their plan will not hurt businesses in Madison or lead to layoffs. Quite possibly they're right. If they are able to implement their plan, I have every confidence that no existing businesses will close. Furthermore, I'm fairly confident that no one will be laid off as a result of this plan.
That's not to say that this plan will good for everyone. This is one small group of people that would be hurt by this plan: those who have few marketable job skills. As an economist, I would expect that Mr. Kalfayan is familiar with the idea of "marginal utility". Simply put, marginal utility is the value that someone gets from the last unit of something. Think of it this way: for a hungry man, a single burger has great value. A second burger would be appreciated, but a little bit less than the first burger was. A third burger would be okay, but he might not miss it if it wasn't there. A fourth burger might even be ignored. The fourth burger then has a much lower marginal utility than the first burger did.
The same principle holds true in business. As businesses hire more employees, each employee will have a lower marginal utility to the business. If it is too expensive to hire an additional employee (for instance, if the employer must provide healthcare in addition to minimum wage), the business may choose to make do with the employees they already have. Thus, while this healthcare plan may not cause any layoffs it will, quite possibly, prevent new jobs from being created.
There is another factor that will come into play. As employees become more expensive, businesses will choose to hire only the best employees. If this new "healthcare fee" causes the minimum wage to rise from $5.50 an hour to $5.94 an hour, the employer will only hire employees who can contribute more than $5.94 an hour to the bottom line. This means employers will only hire someone who is fully trained and competent.
What about less qualified applicants? What about people who might have had trouble holding down a job in the past or who have limited work experience or who simply require a lot of on the job training? The answer is simple: it will be much harder for them to find work. They will be passed over in favor of applicants who can justify the higher pay scale.
Implementing this healthcare plan would remove the lowest rung from the economic ladder. Implementing this healthcare plan would lead to businesses squeezing out applicants who are inexperienced or under-qualified. For these people, Wisconsin Health Care for All is not offering a choice of a job without healthcare benefits or a job with healthcare benefits. No, for these people, Wisconsin Health Care for All only offers the choice of a job with healthcare or no job at all. Which do you think a desperate man would prefer: a job without healthcare or no job whatsoever?
I know which option I would prefer. The simple fact of the matter is, this plan would neither help the poor nor make them better off. It is a purely cosmetic fix that will have large, hidden repercussions. While Madison's liberals will pat themselves on the back for the workers they've helped, they'll be completely oblivious to the people they've hurt.
I'd rather focus on why Madison's businesses can't voluntarily offer health insurance. I have a sneaking suspicion that it might have something to do with the fact that only four states in the nation have higher taxes than Wisconsin. Unfortunately, that problem will only be made worse by taking a new payroll "fee" from local businesses.
This entry was tagged. Healthcare Policy Madison Morality Regulation Socialism
Boots and Sabers has been all over the Wisconsin Taxpayer Protection Amendment. Yesterday, Owen reported on a conference call, concerning TAPA, sponsored by American's for Prosperity. Dr. Milton Friedman participated in the call. This is important because:
Milton Friedman, for those of you who may not know, is a Nobel Prize winning economist who has been fighting for tax and spend restrictions on government since Proposition 1 in California in 1973, when Governor Ronald Reagan began trying to bring our governments back to fiscal sanity. Proposition 1 failed to pass, but it helped start a revolution. He has seen measures like the TPA written and tried across the country for 30 years and knows what works and what doesn't.
He came out strongly in favor of the amendment. Good enough for me.
Earlier in the week, Owen relayed information about a public hearing on TAPA. The hearing is Wednesday afternoon. Pending approval from my boss, I plan to leave work early so that I can attend. I support this amendment and I want to make sure that Wisconsin's Republicans know that.
In no particular order:
Tibetan monks, who overstayed their immigration visas, were arrested by a SWAT team. A SWAT team? For Tibetan monks? It's not enough that they get visited by paramilitary Chinese troops? They have to get raided by paramilitary Americans as well?
Frank Miller is writing "Holy Terror, Batman!", a story that chronicles Batman's fight against al-Qaeda. Says Miller:
I'm doing this mainly as an explosion from my own gut in reaction to what's happening now, but also as a reminder to people who've seem to have forgotten that we're up against an utterly ruthless existential foe who is as vile as any we've ever faced. I'm appalled at the equivocations, and I wish that the entertainers of our time had the spine and the focus that the ones who faced down Hitler did. Superman punched out Hitler. So did Captain America. That's one of the things they're there for. These are symbols of our people, of our country. These are our folk heroes. It just seemed to be kind of silly to be chasing around the Riddler when you've got al-Qaeda out there.
Kevin Robke is selling DoubleUps, sheets designed to end the problem of sheet-stealing, forever.
Rule changes for figure skating have had some unintended consequences: skaters are skating uglier, less artistic programs because falling is more valuable than skating clean.
Ever wondered about the origins of ethnic slurs? I have. Callimachus has the answers.
Who is more objective about reporting: the "real" reporters or the bloggers? Take a look at reactions to the Gillette Fusion Razor and see for yourself.
The New York Times reports favorably on the many ways that capitalists are solving societal needs like poverty, literacy, and the environment.
David Friedman thinks that police officers should execute search warrants in the nude. He has good reasons too.
Did you know that your parking spot is worth more than your car?
Most people talking about the trade deficit are criminally clueless. (I'm looking at you, Lou Dobbs.)
This entry was tagged. Capitalism Civil Liberties Parking
A quote I think could very well summarize what the methodology of any follower of the LORD should be:
"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." - Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
We're now using the veryplaintxt theme by Scott. We think it gives the site a simpler, cleaner look. What do you think?
This entry was not tagged.
I present: Feet of Clay. This is a new feature here at Minor Thoughts. Many Biblical characters are far more interesting than we realize. With all of the familiar stories floating around, it's easy to forget just how, well, human they sometimes were.
This first edition of "Feet of Clay" grew out of a recent IM conversation between Adam and me. The ideas are Adam's. The presentation is mine. Enjoy.
Moshe was the creepiest man on Earth. Think about this, really: This was the guy with all this power, but he never spoke when he came into the courts, etc. Aaron always talked for him. Maybe Moshe whispered into his ear or something, but he was the silent big guy that gave orders to the man who talked. Plus after Exodus he always wore a veil across his face because his face was radiant -- from talking to God -- and frightened the heck out of everyone. So, really, you have this image of this old man who doesn't talk, constantly veiled but there's a glow underneath that cloth... More than intimidating as a visual image, if you ask me.
He killed an Egyptian at 40. And the rest wasn't physically strenuous, so by the time he's walking around with a stick and glowing he could just be old and thin.
I'll bet the Midianites didn't recognize him when he returned to kill them all. And isn't that the big twist at the end of the Torah, incidentally? The Midianites are all put to the sword by the Hebrews. You have to wonder how Jethro felt about that, his wife, etc. His wife didn't Moshe anyway ("you are a bridegroom of blood to me" is hardly a flattering remark), but...
Incidentally, do you think Moshe divorced his wife or just literally sent her out of Egypt? Because the Bible uses the phrase "sent her away", which is the phrase that's always used for divorce... Which makes Moshe all the more interesting. Divorced and the product of an incestuous marriage. He can hardly get more interesting. (ed: Somehow I missed the whole incestuous marriage angle. That certainly wasn't covered in Sunday School. :-) ) Oh, yeah. His father married either his sister or his half-sister. Either way. It was a marriage that Moshe would go on to condemn in the giving of laws.
Read the first two chapters of Pastor Bob Roberts, Jr.'s new book Transformation: How Glocal Churches Transform Lives and the World today. I received an advance copy of it free of charge at the Glocal Conference in Rome back in January, due to my being so blessed as to be a pastoral intern who gets free goodies like this, but it didn't come off my shelf 'til now (which I grant you kinda defeats the purpose of having an advance copy).
Anyway, it's out now and it's very good, so I thought I'd share a few quotes from the first chapters with you here. Away we go:
"When people say the name of your church and the church you attend or in which you serve, what do they think?" (p.24)
"Being centered on Christ isn't just part of our statement of faith, but a recognized practice of that fact to which the world and community of nonbelievers can attest." (p.25)
"Someone is 'called of God' not because of the way the person lives but because of the way the person speaks!... In the Western church, few are remarking about our current leadership style, 'If only I could know Jesus as he or she does.' Neither have I heard... the performers say like Paul, 'Imitate me.' We talk about the qualifications for ministry in terms of education, ordination, rules and regulations. However, isn't the main qualification for ministry the ability for a person to say, 'Imitate me'?" (p.26-27)
Do you realize Gandhi spent an average of two hours per day meditating on the Gospels? By his own admission, Jesus's teachings in the Sermon on the Mount became the basis for a large portion of everything he did... Something is tragically amiss when a man without Christ can change a nation and Christians who possess the Holy Spirit can't." (p.33)
If the church in a local community were gone, who besides its adherents would miss it?" (p. 36)
"The kingdom means that we are committed to being salt and light whether the people we serve all become Christians or not. Today's notion of 'us against them' Christianity would be foreign to the early church." (p.36)
"During my seminary days, planting a church actually meant you couldn't land a position with a 'real' church, so you had to go start one." (p.39)
If you are sufficiently enticed, go thumb through a copy at your local bookstore and maybe plop it down on the checkout counter.
The following's an excerpt from Mark Joseph's most recent column, entitled 'A&E;'s faith problem':
My wife and I sat riveted the other night, watching Larry King Live as he showed clips from A&E;'s made-for-TV version of the events of September 11th on board Flight #93. Among King's guests was Lisa Jefferson, the Verizon operator who stayed on the phone with one of the flight's heroes, Todd Beamer. It was Jefferson who documented Beamer's last words, which, depending on the account, went either "Help me God, help me Jesus," or "Help me Jesus."
The actors on the show made a point of telling King how accurate and true to the transcripts this movie was, so I was curious to hear how they handled Beamer's last moments. As I suspected would happen, Beamer's final prayer to his God was excised. Although A&E; did allow the two to repeat the Lord's Prayer together, when it came time for Beamer's final, fateful appeal to God, it dropped Beamer's sectarian prayer...
"Jesus, help me," Beamer said. He recited the 23rd Psalm. Then Jefferson heard him say: "Are you guys ready? Let's roll."
The main thrust of the article is, of course, why A&E; chose to delete Beamer's prayers, but to be honest this subject of why the establishment is resistant to broadcasting Beamer's Christianity doesn't really interest me (and neither do these other stories: "Sun still shining", "Scientists say we breathe oxygen"). Today's Christians are way too shocked about things they were warned about by our Christ Himself, in the Gospels.
This may surprise, but despite being a church-attending son of God, this is the first I've heard of Beamer calling on the Messiah prior to his attacking the hijackers, and I'm thrilled.
I'm always the last to know these things.
It's something Christine and I aren't doing. However, it looks like Alan Greenspan's legacy just might be helping millions of Americans to get comfortable with debt. The entire linked article is worth reading, but I'll provide a few excerpts:
Today, borrowing against equity in real estate occurs at rates never seen before. Mortgage equity withdrawal was unheard of generations ago - a second mortgage was the last recourse for a family in trouble.
Today it is routine.
Septuagenarians shake their heads as they see young people living lifestyles which don't square with what they know of their incomes and expenses. Debt it seems has not taught any hard lessons lately - debt has become too friendly, too tame, and too forgiving.
In the last three years alone, nearly three trillion dollars of new mortgage credit has been extended - first mortgages, second mortgages, home equity loans, and lines of credit.
Some dismiss concerns of too much debt by pointing to the bottom line.
Debt, they say, is not a problem because household balance sheets are the best they've ever been. Today, household net worth does look impressive - against a meager 12 trillion dollars in debt stands a hefty 64 trillion dollars in assets.
A closer look at net worth, however, shows that while liabilities have marched steadily upward, assets can go up or down
What happens if real estate assets suffer the same fate as equities did a few years ago? Or, what if real estate values simply go flat for an extended period of time?
This entry was tagged. Debt Fiscal Policy Home Ownership
My wife and I voted in Madison for the first time, this evening. I was already registered, she registered at the poll (taking advantage of Wisconsin's notoriously lax voter ID requirements). Madison's 56th Ward was voting in two elections: a primary for Seat 1 on the Madison School Board and County Supervisor for District 24.
We voted after I got home from work, around 7pm. We cast the 93rd and 94th votes of the day, for our ward. I wouldn't have known about the election if it had not been for Jenna, at Right Off the Shore. She blogged about her vote, which alerted me to the fact that an election was actually happening.
Unfortunately, while I knew about the primary for the Madison School Board, I hadn't noticed that we were also supposed to be voting for a County Supervisor. So, we just cast our votes for Maya Cole and abstained in the County Supervisor's election.
I'm still in the process of getting plugged into the political scene here in Madison. I was surprised today, I don't intend to let it happen again. Fortunately, there will be another election in April. I'll be ready for that one.