Today, for brevity and the holiday, you’re getting the whole list that normally get posted on my (personal) blog. On other day’s I cull them for what I think might be of higher interest to what I perceive as the reader’s interest here.

Yet another wordle, the Trisagion prayer. Tomorrow Le Tour begins (some history … the cannibal and his domination here).

Fourth of July

• From the Scoop.
• And Orthodoxy.
• Coolidge.
• Reasons to celebrate.
• Best wishes from the other side of the planet (and a prayer request).
• From Jay.
• A religious holiday?

Not holiday related:

•  University President, what not to do.
• A book, noted and recommended (in fact a series). Clever title too.
• Of Art, Evil underlining Doestoevsky’s note that Beauty willl save the world.
• God and silence.
• Verse (or more beauty).
• Faith and the State.
• Religion and state, in Russia. And conservation there as well.
• Yaay.
• 7th day Adventist Baptist wordle (updated: see the comment).
• One of the strangest picture’s you’ll encounter.

St. John Chrysostom wrote, just a few years ago (in the 5th century), the Divine Liturgy used in by the Eastern Orthodox. The link is to a wordle-ization of it.

Mr Obama is, as we speak, swinging to center. A question for those few who read this blog and support Mr Obama. Apparently, he is reneging on his, perhaps most emphatic primary campaign promse, that of “immediate” pullout from Iraq. I’ve three question(s):

• Do you believe the shift a lie? Why is this the lie and not the prior promise?
• What shift, if taken by Mr Obama, would cause you to no longer support him?
• If there is none, what does mean?

Or, if you want to explain the “shift” is due to “changes on the ground in Iraq”, uhm, those changes have been plain to see for almost the entire primary season. It seems disingenuous to just notice it “now” when it’s politically convenient is not inherently dishonest.

This post spurred some conversation which led me to further reflections.  My neighbor the Jewish Atheist (blogging here), remarked:

You don’t see it as “problematic” that person A has to work his ass off for minuscule wages, send his kids to the crappy local public school, and go without decent health care, while person B gets paid a king’s ransom to sit on a thousand-dollar office chair in a climate-controlled office for 40 hours a week? B should just count his lucky stars and live it up and not worry about A?

Consider the following:

 Examine a group of  kids in elementary school (or secondary school), compete. Our measure of merit for the day, instead of schooling, healthcare, and wages is speed in a running race. One kid will win, one kid will come in last. It is also likely that the one of the kids coming in close to last will be far greater than those who come in the top few places. Effort it seems does not necessarily grant results.

One might ask, if the winner should feel “guilty” because he won the race, perhaps even won it easily. My contention is that the answer is no. There is no “guilt” inherent in being gifted with greater talents, better circumstances (one might imagine in this second case some of those in the bottom of the race had less “opportunity” at home and had less chance to exercise, perhaps too much food, or other disadvantages).

The (correct) answer it seems to me to this question follows the Scriptural suggestion noted by Mr Carter (linked in the above linked post), to whit the Pentateuchal suggestion that we not covet that which is our neighbors. The winning kid not feeling guilty is the other side of the coin to the losing kid not coveting the winner’s athletic gifts. Neither feeling is any way to arrive at love (agape/charity) for the “Other”. Read the rest of this entry

• On the Square looks at the New England “Pregnancy Pact.”
• China. Pollution.
• A book to disabuse the notion of a violent angry (Old Testament) view of God.
• Rights and jobs, rightly put.
• A film to anticipate.

• Being human.
• Global warming and the “scientific consensus myth.”
• Christians at war.
• Progressive culture and sustainability.
• Orthodox marriage tradition … one difference … no vows.
• The very catholic John McCain.

Spurred on by the prior post of Doug’s and in attempt to start something more of a conversation here, I’ll offer some thoughts on healthcare.

Liberals and progressives like to hold forth the ideal that healthcare should be affordable and available to everyone. After all, we’re a wealthy country. However, this is one might say a Juan Ponce de Leon gambit, that is holding forth a search for the fountain of life which alas doesn’t exist. Health care suffers from one basic problem, which is so far insurmountable (although I’ll suggest how it might be surmounted at the close of this little essay). The problem is, of course, that health care is infinitely expensive. The amount of care which might be applied to the dying grows almost without bound if one disregards cost. For almost a decade we have been told that the biological “sciences” have been expanding their capabilities exponentially (Moore’s Law) like the computer sciences except … at an even faster rate (the doubling period of capabilities is shorter). However this hasn’t substantially been, as yet, bringing down costs, just making ever more expensive options tantalizingly available. Cancers which would kill 5 years ago are sometimes defeated today, however at great financial cost.

The elephant being missed is, alas, rationing is a necessity. The question is comes down to, how to ration.  Does the market decide unfettered? Do the knuckleheads in our legislative offices decree how rationing will go down. The conservatives would claim that ability to pay is fairest. The liberals and progressives largely deny the existence of the elephant, which is alas either a lie or some other form of self-induced insanity/delusion.  Read the rest of this entry

• A conservative suggestion of SSM critiqued.
• Le Tour begins Saturday. A look back at the 1968 edition for a little history.
• What passes for slings and arrows in the judiciary. Different fonts, my gosh.
• Marriage in perspective, and Hillaire Belloc.
• Some beauty for your Tuesday morning.
• Servers, liturgy and gender.

From Joe Carter at EO, we find a gem:

10. Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?

Recent surveys have indicated that conservatives, on average, report being happier than liberals. Two psychologists wanted to know why, so they re-analyzed data from several large national and international surveys. The conservative-happiness relationship was not explained by differences in demographics or thoughtfulness but was largely explained by conservatives’ greater rationalization of inequality, including belief in a meritocratic world. According to the authors, such beliefs serve a “palliative function” or act as an “emotional buffer” when confronted with inequality. The same was true overseas, especially in countries with lower standards of living. Moreover, the authors found that the happiness gap between liberals and conservatives in the United States has widened over the last three decades as inequality has increased here.

Alternate explanation: Lack of covetousness makes one happier.

If indeed part of the reason is that conservatives view inequality as less problematic I’d offer perhaps it’s less disturbing to not be bothered by inequality because it’s intrinsic to reality. The old maxim, “Yes, the game (life) is rigged, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t play.” Everyone’s abilities are unequally bestowed, and our luck in finding a way to maximize the abilities we do have to our benefit is unequally distributed as well. Furthermore, our parents and their parents all had unequal abilities and in an unequal fashion bestowed as they saw best what advantages they could on their children … unequally. This is not unjust. It is just a fact of life and nature.

I tell my children that if they are bored, that’s not a problem intrinsic to the universe around them, it’s a problem with them. The universe has plenty to interest everyone all the time (especially in the absence of TV and computers).

By the same token, if you’re bothered by inequality between men, that’s a problem with you, not the universe.

Mr Obama has denounced Mr Clark’s remarks on foreign policy and Mr McCain’s service, being shot down, tortured, and so on. The remark:

When moderator Bob Schieffer interjected that “Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down”, Clark responded: “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”

Well, no. But, Mr Obama is running for President. Is he doing that out of loyalty to his country and a sense of duty … or is it out of a personal drive for power or personal aggrandizement. That is a question that doesn’t need to be asked of Mr McCain. He put his life on the line for the country. Mr Obama has not. The distinction remains. Mr Obama, in theory, may be as patriotic as the next veteran like Mr McCain and thousands of others. But … unlike the veterans and those serving … and I might add like me, his (and my) claims of patriotism remain untested by fire.

No it does not qualify one for President, but it does give us some valuable information about the man and his character. Information which is lacking in the case of Mr Obama.

• Google changing brains one googler at a time?
• A two part essay on war. Part one. Part two. Two women on war. Two views.
• A survey which is “not even close” which may impact the election.
• A path from pro-choice to pro-life recounted.
• And toss the key.
• Nerfing the world … or not.

Mr Obama is (rightly) demonized by the pro-life writers for saying,

Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

Hmm. Now I’ve two remarks to add to the fray on that. I wonder if this was on his mind, was he also (in subtext) offering:

I don’t want to be punished with a grandchild (for my failure to teach them morals and values) .

For after all, that is also in the mix. And in any sane family arrangement, if your child becomes a pre-teen mom … it is likely grandma and yourself who will be bearing a large part of the child-rearing until your child is ready and on her feet in her life’s journey. That could take a decade or more. This responsibility of course, would negatively impact the time he has available for raising his children … and to be honest I’d question sharing the time commitment of raising two children well with that required for running for President (and also being one).  So one might ask, “When are you going to teach them about values and morals?”

One also wonders, how removing consequences for actions “teaches morals and values”. Nerfing the world, removing all consequences from our choice is the pivot point for what this view of abortion. Declare non-human and outside that sector of society (the unborn) and we don’t have to deal with the consequences yet another sector of our choices. Great.

And to stave off at least one line or argument recall Mr Obama fully supports late term abortion which is certainly inside everyone’s notion of fetus as having a right to life, after all if one induced labor and brought it to term … the child would live without extreme measures to sustain life required. Mr Obama after all signed on to legislature trying require hospital staff to kill any children “which accidentally are delivered alive.” One wonders how he contrasts that with his exegesis of the parable of the Good Samaritan.

• Big big big screen.
• 8 down, 5 to go?
• On the games.
• Speeding up change, in the military.
• With tongue firmly not in cheek.
• Guns and gurls.
• On SCOTUS.

Today, the Jewish Atheist noted in response to the my proposal that “death has no sting” in the context of the death penalty:

Regarding your last paragraph, I’m aghast that you are so dismissive of the possibility of error.

Errors in long term imprisonment discovered decades after the crime can’t “undo” the incarceration and loss of freedom, relationships damaged, and youth incurred.

Of course not. But it’s a thousand times better than death, right? This isn’t some hypothetical, btw. This stuff happens.

Secondly, I’m Christian, and as such have ontological freedom granted by Baptism and my Faith. Death has no sting … really.

Maybe you should think about whether Christ would be as cavalier about other people’s lives. If death has no sting, I think you’re doing something really, really wrong.

There are a few that issues that come up here. Read the rest of this entry

• On the Square looks at the myth of the crackup of the religious right.
• Mr Obama’s words amplified.
• Mugabe policy considered.
• China, America and Taiwan.
• Priests palaver, and locating the problem within abortion as contraception.
• Gosh, he seems such a nice man … not.
• Islam in Indonesia … and conflict.