From Chuch Asay (click for a larger version):

You get less of what you tax/punish. 

1. Yeee-haaa.
2. Two for St. Patrick’s feast day, here and here.
3. Meanwhile the fast continues.
4. A defense of Mr Madison, for my part I don’t think he anticipated Mr Arnold and what later became the get-out-the-vote machines.
5. No. No No No No. Newspapers do not need federal protection.
6. Speaking of media, some thoughts on Mr Stewart.
7. Hmmm, no communal societies? But, I really liked The Gods Must Be Crazy.
8. A publisher speaks. Oh, I received the book (being a blog neighbor and a conservative … thanks Henry!) and a review will be forthcoming before week’s end.
9. Contra optimism.
10. Love of other and memory eternal.
11. Old and New (Testament).
12. Thoughts on Mr Obama and religion.
13. A film, Ratzinger’s Faith recommended.
14. Capitalism … and a criticism of Ms Rand.
15. Patristics.
16. Loss of faith, oddly enough “faith in polls” was not an item polled.
17. Exactly right.
18. This might make a lot of sense, when dealing with a foreign party, listening to the thoughts of those who have the most to lose and are very close to the situation might be wise.
19. Well, when trying to hold on to delusions about the other, it helps if you over-generalize … and are innumerate to boot. Uhm, “astoundingly large margins” and “sweeping victory?” Uhm, it seems that 2-3% margin of victory looms ever larger.
20. PC stifling conversations and consequence.
21. A rephrasing.
22. And … last but not least … zooooom, in a creepy way.

In an number of previous essays the notions of Bertrand de Jouvenel regarding political theory have been utilized. One of these ideas in particular is that government is rightly formed for a particular society and culture when its authority is freely granted by the people, that is it utilizes the authority granted to it by the people and does not have to resort to coercion. This idea of government does not stem from rights or freedoms and the “standard” contract terminology stemming from Hobbes/Lockean political philosophies. Limitations on government stems from both the withholding of authority and that what actions and freedoms state may grant to a person, does not by that granting make that action ethical or moral. For example, the Roman state (and in fact many states) granted the power of life and death to the state over individual citizens. For over 200 years, Christians were put to death for their faith under this power granted. That however, did not make it ethical or moral for a particular Roman to do put a Christian to death. Or more plainly, it was within the boundaries of Roman rule to put a Christian to death but it was unethical for individual Roman to do so. Nero as Emperor could execute Christians as such but it was unethical for Nero the man to do so.

Christians for just slightly under two thousand years have opposed abortion. A statement regarding abortion made today of and by those against abortion that fixes the idea that the act of abortion is a equivalent to murder and the actor be it the mother or the doctor, is equivalent to a murderer is not unheard of in pro-life circles. Some pro-life activists “go this far” and those criticizing the pro-life Christian position remark that this should be a logical consequence of ascribing personhood to the fetus. It is not necessary to ascribe full or even partial “personhood” to a fetus in order to oppose abortion. But even granting that, a view of government as expressed above combined with Christian ethics does not necessitate that step of equivicating abortion with murder. Read the rest of this entry

The blog "Stop the ACLU" has a run-down of just the recent cases of countries doing things in a manner that doesn’t exactly say they like us again.  Cuba and Venezuela opening up their airfields to Russian bombers.  Ecuador (Ecuador!) expelling US diplomats for the second time this month.  Iran continues its nuclear ambitions (and blames economic isolation for their pushback).  North Korea threatens to test a ballistic that some believe could hit the US west coast. 

Hillary Clinton did, however, use the strongest possible terms to denounce that missile test, saying that such a launch would be "very unhelpful". 

Yeah, that’ll teach ’em.

1. Considering past investment bank bailouts.
2. A letter to one considering leaving the church.
3. Lent and the economic crises.
4. Considering Mr Geithner.
5. Girls on bikes.
6. Manliness.
7. Hmmm.
8. Issues with the stimulus.
9. Box office woes shouldn’t stop Mr Gore from raking in millions via the stimulus package.
10. Considerations on the Brazilian abortion case.
11. St. Gregory Palamas and seeing the uncreated light.
12. The recovery could take 4-5 years?
13. Soooo …. who long for the other shoe to drop on this one?
14. Well, you how else can they afford under-the-table kickbacks?
15. Considering the BSG finale.
16. Noting St. Benedict (although I though it was St. John Cassian who brought monasticism to the West).
17. “I suppose it would be better …” (and I concur it would be better).
18. Of not letting go.
19. In which “go drink carbonated cow’s piss” is not fiction?
20. Exonerating (partially) Mao? With Holodomor denial to boot no less. Which faces this problem too.
21. On using your hands and the whole higher vs lower professions thing.

Gilda Radner’s character from old Saturday Night Live shows, Emily Litella, was a hard-of-hearing commentator on the show’s Weekend Update segment.  She would, for example, go on and on with her outrage that the Supreme Court was considering a "deaf" penalty case, or with her support of "Youth in Asia".  When Chevy Chase nudged her and let her know that it was instead a "death" penalty case or "euthanasia", realizing she’d misheard the subject, she meekly turned back to the camera and gave her trademark line, "Never mind."

Apparently, Miss Litella went on to become our first woman President.

Confronting misgivings, even in his own party, President Barack Obama mounted a stout defense of his blueprint to overhaul the economy Thursday, declaring the national crisis is "not as bad as we think" and his plans will speed recovery.

Challenged to provide encouragement as the nation’s "confidence builder in chief," Obama said Americans shouldn’t be whipsawed by bursts of either bad or good news and he was "highly optimistic" about the long term.

The president’s proposals for major health care, energy and education changes in the midst of economic hard times faced skepticism from both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill, as senators questioned his budget outlook and the deficits it envisions in the middle of the next decade.

(Emphasis on the "Never mind" added.)  This is why many of us are skeptical of the hand of government trying to direct the economy.  We wind up with "cures", such as these massive spending debt packages, that could be worse than the disease.  Just ask a Democrat in the know.

Sen. Kent Conrad, the chairman of the Budget Committee called the track of future deficits "unsustainable" and singled out Obama’s proposal for adding $634 billion in health care spending over the next 10 years.

"Some of us have a real pause about the notion of putting substantially more money into the health care system when we’ve already got a bloated system," said Conrad, D-N.D.

"Unsustainable"?  I thought Obama was supposed to be the responsible, sustainable lifestyle kind of President. 

Now, frankly, I don’t know for sure if even this new analysis of the economy is correct, and there’s no doubt we’ve in the middle of a significant downturn right now.  The point is, rushing through a "fix", and especially a "fix" we’ll be decades paying for, should never, ever be done.  But cries from Washington Democrats, liberal bloggers and pundits that this had to be done now and be done big (with some still saying that it should be much bigger than it is) are irresponsible. 

The size of the "stimulus" is one thing.  The rush to do something, anything, is the worst kind of "government is the solution" thinking.

1. Taken with Taken.
2. It is taken as a given that we need “good powerful science teaching”. One wonders if that is truly necessary sometimes. I’d always also followed that assumption, but do we need to teach more science to the non-scientists … or do we have to identify and encourage those few who are truly gifted at science? Some math and physics can be found here.
3. Bike messenger delivery of girls?
4. Joe and the Jews. More Jewish cultural musings here as well.
5. Faith, works, and (?) liturgy.
6. Heh.
7. Let your yes mean yes.
8. Architectural contrasts.
9. Pro-choice, some criticism.
10. Systematic theology as oxymoron. Perhaps pneumatological theology might be better?
11. ESCR, Obama and Orthodoxy.
12. The key to the problem with the liberal/progressive agenda.
13. Repentance and lamentation a missing element? Might I suggest visiting a presanctified Orthodox liturgy on a Wednesday or Friday night next week?
14. Same sex love.
15. Recommended podcasts.
16. The stimulus bill put in cultural context.
17. Job. Not theodicy?
18. A suggestion.
19. I couldn’t tell if that was satire or not.
20. Change (or not).
21. Could religion be a factor?
22. Oops.
23. A question asked.
24. Two chapels.
25. A better bike (for the third world).

1. Mr Obama promised to fight earmarks. Oops. A little on some of the earmarks in the latest spending … thing.
2. Mr Obama spoke critically of Mr Bush’s use of signing statements calling them an abuse of power … waits less than 2 months to follow suit.
3. The Christian carnival is up.
4. Science and stem cells, two comparable views, here and here, both from supporters of the research.
5. Underground in Russia.
6. A second decalogue.
7. With the economic woes, the gap between rich and poor shrinks yet oddly enough the cheers of those who think that’s important have been mighty quiet on that front.
8. Modesty and the economy.
9. Another author to investigate.
10. A film as well?
11. Dr and Mr J&H + Tinkerbell?
12. Signs and portents.
13. “Those type of people” in heaven?
14. A faith journey, part one of an interview.
15. Stinking liar!
16. A generation speaks?
17. Considering the Frum/Limbaugh matter (and a little pot/kettle action).
18. A list.
19. A real Iron Man.
20. Is Mr Putin a hero of the global warming crowd?
21. Bailouts and salary caps … and Academe?
22. Mr Biden remains clueless.

1. Church as a noetic Jeremiah.
2. “Hope he fails” and a little hypocrisy from the left via cricket races.
3. Those last moments and eschatological fate.
4. Time on hand.
5. Geek chic.
6. Mean/not mean? I say not.
7. A look back at a look forward and education.
8. Zap.
9. Hmm, will inexperience show up in the comments?
10. I “vant to suck your … fishy parts?“
11. Paglia on the Rush/Obama kerfuffle.
12. Cue, “Talk to the Animals”.
13. Things to do with filters (HT: Swap blog).
14. Not just a crook. A fool. With some unusual concurrence?
15. A toast.
16. Mr Obama as “conditioner”.
17. Kinda what I said on the popularity of Keynesian economics in politics.
18. Ooops.
19. On that “robust” economy (from a comment yesterday) of the 70s and 80s.
20. Well, I’m firmly in category “B”.

By "they" I meant American Democrats.  Not the establishment; the rank and file.  And by "President", I meant George W. Bush.

In a poll (PDF file) conducted in August of 2006, one of the questions was this:

10.  Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?

Hat tip: Patterico, who notes that we were in the thick of a war whose outcome was uncertain.  When Democrats try to take the moral or patriotic high ground regarding what one man, Rush Limbaugh, said, just remind them what a majority of all of them said just 2 1/2 years ago.

President Obama, demonstrating another example of what Jim called an "incomplete life ethic", rescinded Bush’s executive order, reversing the ban on most federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.  Bush’s restrictions were informed by his moral beliefs, but Obama will have none of that.

Aides to Obama told reporters in a phone conference Sunday that the new administration intends to be led by a “responsible practice of science and evidence instead of dogma.” Harold Varmus of the president’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology said, “We view what happened with stem cell research in the last administration as one manifestation of failure to think carefully about how federal support of science and the use of scientific advice occurs.”

He once said that determining when a baby gets human rights was "above my pay grade".  Apparently, deciding when to destroy them isn’t. 

This, then, is apparently the "rightful place" that he promised to restore science to.  It doesn’t sound like morals and ethics are part of the equation anymore. 

Ryan Anderson, writing in the Weekly Standard, brings this point home (as well as noting a "big lie" that Obama continues to perpetuate).

During the ceremony this morning, Obama announced that by signing this executive order "we will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research." Of course there never was a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. President Bush was, in fact, the first president in history to fund embryonic stem cell research. The compromise Bush reached, however, put restrictions in place that prevented the further destruction of human embryos. It is these restrictions protecting human life that Obama has lifted.

Anderson notes that, while Obama did appeal to "moral values", he set up a straw man that he could easily knock down and brush aside, supposedly taking the issue off the table.  Anderson’s article covers this and a number of other objections that Obama’s decision simply ignores.  Read the whole thing.

The Washington Post headlined their article, "Obama Aims to Shield Science From Politics".  It not only touches on the signing of the EO, but notes how this value system will affect us going forward.  A memorandum was issued along with this signing.

The memorandum will ensure that "people who are appointed to federal positions in science have strong credentials and that the vetting process for evaluating scientific information doesn’t lead to any undermining of the scientific opinion," he said.

That is to say, Obama wishes to shield science from similar ethical concerns, or indeed any debate, during his administration.  Heck, his spokesmen injected politics into the debate by trash-talking "the last administration as one  manifestation of failure to think carefully."  One wonders how the WaPo headline writer actually came up with that summary of the story.

And finally, Scott Ott satirizes this whole situation, such that it can be, with this:

As he signs an executive order Monday lifting limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, President Barack Obama said he intends to make the wealthiest Americans “bear their fair share of the burden.”

Following through on his inaugural promise “to restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost“, the president will order the National Institutes of Health to extract stem cells from embryos whose parents earn more than $250,000 per year, and to inject them into “the sick and crippled middle class.”

“Let me be perfectly clear,” Mr. Obama said, “if your family earns less than $250,000 per year, the federal government will not harvest one single stem cell from your embryos…not one single cell. In fact, for 95 percent of working families, my stem cell plan contains nothing but miraculous healing. That’s right, the cures are on the way.”

Again, read the whole thing, and get a good chuckle.

1. Art and arithmetic.
2. Yes, and a majority of Americans want a pony with that too.
3. 40 martyrs almost 1700 years ago.
4. Truth or (and?) unity.
5. Makhala-something-or-other.
6. Another not-quite-as-far away place … and bananas too.
7. A conversation between a Christian and an atheist (on faith).
8. A conversation (of sorts) with a liberal.
9. Weirdness in SF … that’s not disgusting?
10. The life use cycle of houses.
11. Drink, drank, drunk.
12. Some remarks on Mr Obama’s stem cell order. More here.
13. Collapse and war … or the reverse.
14. Church and state.
15. So. Would you buy these?
16. I don’t think that word “consistent” means what he thinks it does.
17. Not socialists.
18. Heh. Logic and Lent.

My friend John Murdoch, a conservative writer who is also concerned about climate change,  has written a perceptive critique of his interchange with Al Gore at a Climate Project training.  As I have written, the development of a total life ethic, recognizing the threats to life of both abortion and environmental degradation, is elevating to our Christian witness and could effectively batttle both offenses. 

John confronted Gore about the disconnection of the these life issues.  He writes:

Face to face with Al Gore, the meaning of life was on my mind as well. I raised the credibility gap created by invoking the plight of future generations to advocate global warming legislation while elsewhere lauding Roe v. Wade which blocks protections for the unborn of today. 

Gore stated that abortion “is best dealt with in a way that leaves the principle responsibility to those most affected by it.” (The developing child was notably absent from his “most affected” list.) Stressing that disagreement “doesn’t keep [him] from seeking common ground,” Gore closed by expressing hope that many would be willing to “join together to address global warming, a common threat to born and unborn.” 

Gore’s batting one for two. The life issue extends beyond the womb, but it certainly extends to it as well.

Confession is a sacramental rite which is, to my admittedly somewhat incomplete knowledge, waning amongst the Roman Catholic communities (especially in the US) and very rare to non-existent in the Protestant communities. For myself, as a somewhat recent convert to Orthodoxy (a community which has not left confession behind), I have had had just a little exposure to confession. I have found the experience, actually, surprisingly salutary. Father Andrew, the priest of my parish, shared some interesting thoughts on confession which I would like to attempt to share.

A common notion about confession is that is a juridical one. In the juridical view, we confess to Christ with the priest as our advocate and adviser of the sins of which we are aware. After (and perhaps by) our confession and repentance we are then forgiven those sins. The juridical formula is clear. We admit our guilt and sin, we repent and are perhaps assigned penance, and are forgiven and our slate wiped clean.

This is not the Orthodox understanding of confession. When I am in a relationship with someone I love, sharing of our thoughts, our desires and so on is part of growing close to that person. Of those thoughts and desires and actions regarding the beloved which were contrary to that relationship which are accompanied by repentance and sorrow are especially important toward growing ever closer. Confession to the beloved of those actions and thoughts are especially painful and difficult. Often the difficulties, especially with a loving and forgiving lover, lie not with the other but with the facing of those part of one’s self. But the experience is enormously helpful in growing ever closer to your beloved. Confession then is exactly this sort of sharing. It is sacramental because it involves our relationship with God. Its purpose is to help us in our striving toward Theosis, toward communion with the Creator. It can be hard, in fact should be difficult. Because, honesty about our failings hurts. Facing our sinful nature and in particular our memories of our past sins is needful for this is one of the large obstacles holding us back from growing closer to God. Confession of these sins helps us move beyond these memories and helps us to confront those parts of ourselves.

The weakness of the juridical view of confession is that it is less effective in aiding us in repentance and to move to a place in our relationship with God in which we are less likely to commit those same sins yet again. A communal sacramental view of confession is stronger. It places the motivation in a different place as well. It is not a penal/juridical action. It is an action which is intended, like so very many other parts of this season of Great Lent, to bring us closer to God. That is a motivation which seems at the very least, much more positive in outlook and ultimately if stronger a better one to help us tame our passions and to stoke the fire of the Spirit of God within us.

Peter Robinson, writing in Forbes, notes three guys who are shocked to find that Obama is such a liberal.

“To see what is in front of one’s nose,” George Orwell famously asserted, “needs a constant struggle.”

Congratulations this week to three journalists who have finally taken up that constant struggle: Christopher Buckley, David Gergen and David Brooks. All three used to insist that Obama was some species of centrist or moderate. Now that Obama has proposed the most massive expansion of government in the history of the republic, each has recognized that just conceivably he might have been mistaken.

I touched on Brooks last Friday, but read the article for details on Buckley and Gergen.  The wool over their eyes is slowly being pulled back up, and they don’t like what they see.

What’s interesting is to hear Robinson compare who got Obama wrong with who got him right.

Buckley, Gergen and Brooks all attended expensive private universities, then spent their careers moving among the wealthy and powerful who inhabit the seaboard corridor running from Washington to Boston. If any of the three strolled uninvited into a cocktail party in Georgetown, Cambridge or New Haven, the hostess would emit yelps of delight. Yet all three originally got Obama wrong.

Contrast Buckley, Gergen and Brooks with, let us say, Rush Limbaugh, whose appearance at any chic cocktail party would cause the hostess to faint dead away, or with Thomas Sowell, who occupies probably the most unfashionable position in the country, that of a black conservative.

Limbaugh and Sowell both got Obama right from the very get-go. “Just what evidence do you have,” Sowell replied when I asked, shortly before the election, whether he considered Obama a centrist, “that he’s anything but a hard-left ideologue?”

The elite journalists, I repeat, got Obama wrong. The troglodytes got him right. As our national drama continues to unfold, bear that in mind.

Please?