We’ve just inaugurated our first black President.  I want to reiterate what I said some months back; I’m proud of our country for this accomplishment.  This by no means says that racism is completely dead in America.  But it does speak to the great progress made since Martin Luther King, Jr. had his dream. 

Telling a child of any race that they can, through hard work, be whatever they want to be, even President of the United States, isn’t some guilt-assuaging wishful thinking.  It has happened.  Racists, as with any sin, will always be with us.  But Barack Obama’s move into the Oval Office shows that it can be done.

Congratulations, America.

At least according to the incoming President Obama.  Charles Krauthammer explains, but I just have the bullet points here to get you to "Read the Whole Thing"(tm).  All lines below are quotes from the article.

• Vindication is being expressed not in words but in deeds — the tacit endorsement conveyed by the Obama continuity-we-can-believe-in transition.
• It is the repeated pledge to conduct a withdrawal from Iraq that does not destabilize its new democracy and that, as Vice President-elect Joe Biden said just this week in Baghdad, adheres to the Bush-negotiated status-of-forces agreement that envisions a U.S. withdrawal over three years, not the 16-month timetable on which Obama campaigned.
• It is the great care Obama is taking in not preemptively abandoning the anti-terror infrastructure that the Bush administration leaves behind.
• [On interrogation techniques]  Obama still disagrees with Cheney’s view of the acceptability of some of these techniques. But citing as sage the advice offered by "the most dangerous vice president we’ve had probably in American history" (according to Joe Biden) — advice paraphrased by Obama as "we shouldn’t be making judgments on the basis of incomplete information or campaign rhetoric" — is a startlingly early sign of a newly respectful consideration of the Bush-Cheney legacy.

The upshot?

Which is why Obama is consciously creating a gulf between what he now dismissively calls "campaign rhetoric" and the policy choices he must make as president. Accordingly, Newsweek — Obama acolyte and scourge of everything Bush/Cheney — has on the eve of the Democratic restoration miraculously discovered the arguments for warrantless wiretaps, enhanced interrogation and detention without trial. Indeed, Newsweek’s neck-snapping cover declares, "Why Obama May Soon Find Virtue in Cheney’s Vision of Power."

Another "Now They Tell Us" moment in the mainstream media.  All the anger and disdain thrown at Bush, figuratively here and by a certain Iraqi reporter there, is over ideas and policies that the incoming administration has show it’ll be slow to dismantle.  Those policies have indeed kept up safe for the 7 years since 9/11. 

No, the ends do not at all justify the means.  But for some of us, these were just wars.  For others, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were just, and the reflexively anti-war crowd will continue to push Obama, as they did Bush, to just do whatever our enemies want so they won’t get angry with us.  Or perhaps isolate them, which "worked" so well for the 70+ years of aggressive communism in the Soviet Union.  That even failed miserably with Hussein’s Iraq, with our own "allies" funneling aid to them through the back door. 

No, George W. Bush kept us safe, and, despite the rancor and alarmism, without shredding the Constitution or civil liberties.  Obama played on the fears of his supporters long enough to get elected President, but the time has come for action, and before you judge the actions of his predecessor, see what his actions are.  That will speak louder to the success or failure of George W. Bush than any pundit’s pen can write.

1. One bar set, will it move? Is that where you set the bar?
2. Isn’t the answer, shame?
3. Standing with your dirty undergarments exposed.
4. Will the next major political battle be between left and far-left?
5. A societal rejection to reject or … “is Outrage!”
6. More bingo.
7. Culture, rejection of same, and failure to reject what should be rejected.
8. Academic follies.
9. Pro-life in tomorrow’s nation.
10. MLK, Aquinas and law.
11. The “not indicted” as refutation of connection.
12. No.
13. Still ahead of the bronze age.
14. On the simulator, flight 1549.
15. Change … or not.
16. Not $45 million … in excess or $170 million … and much of the money from Wall Street beneficiaries of bailout dough.

Don Surber says, "The Ws will remain on the keyboards."  So will the Os, I’m guessing.  Nothing but high praise from the incoming administration on how well the transition has been.

Don notes:

$100 million can buy you lots of things.

Class ain’t on the list.

Bush once again does us proud.

And he did so after having a poor example set for him.  Good job, W.

From CNN, Obama may quickly reverse abortion policy,

President-elect Barack Obama is considering issuing an executive order to reverse a controversial Bush administration abortion policy in his first week in office, three Democratic sources said Monday.

Obama’s second full day as president falls on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the United States.

The sources said Obama may use the occasion to reverse the “Mexico City policy” reinstated in 2001 by Bush that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family planning groups that promote abortion or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion services. It bans any organization receiving family planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development from offering abortions or abortion counseling.

Will you begin your term, President-elect Obama, with an act that may begin to help confirm Robert George’s pronouncement of you being our most pro-abortion president ever?

Amidst the incessant proclamations of history being made, what with Obama’s inauguration,  I can’t help but wonder what Dr. King would think of how Obama has already betrayed, and will continue to betray, the most innocent in our land.

Christians: Pray for Barack Obama

The plunging oil prices over the past few months have brought to light a failing of socialism that Hugo Chavez is now having to deal with.  When he was awash in oil revenues, he could afford to give it away and pretend that his utopia was working, and the inefficiencies could be smoothed over.  However, reality set in, and he had his hat in hand, returning to the evil capitalists for what might be called a bailout.

President Hugo Chávez, buffeted by falling oil prices that threaten to damage his efforts to establish a Socialist-inspired state, is quietly courting Western oil companies once again.

Until recently, Chávez had pushed foreign oil companies here into a corner by nationalizing their oil fields, raiding their offices with tax authorities and imposing a series of royalties increases.

But faced with the plunge in prices and a decline in domestic production, senior officials here have begun soliciting bids from some of the largest Western oil companies in recent weeks — including Chevron, Royal Dutch/Shell and Total of France — promising them access to some of the world’s largest petroleum reserves, according to energy executives and industry consultants here.

It’s like that whole idea of government control isn’t working out for them.  Odd, that.

Tom Hanks called the Mormons "un-American" for opposing California’s Proposition 8 which "constitutionalized" the definition of marriage being one man and one woman.  So now, to the Left, changing the state Constitution via the proper process is un-American, but judges who unconstitutionally legislate from the bench are patriots.  Upside, meet down.

But here’s an interesting observation that LaShawn Barber made, and that I’d like to highlight on Martin Luther King Day.  There’s another constituency that voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8 that the Left hasn’t marched against.

Why were they focusing on Mormons, when 70 percent of black voters in the state voted YES on Prop 8? Curious, but not complicated. I made the observation, as did Thomas Sowell, that white homosexuals hadn’t dared and would not have dared “march” to black churches and harass black churchgoers, although it would have made more sense for them to head down to Watts or Compton or up to Oakland and express their disappointment. Can you imagine such a scenario? I’d pay good money to see that.

Now I’m wondering the same about actor Tom Hanks. Singling out Mormons for voting to protect traditional marriage, Hanks called them “un-American.” An overwhelming majority of blacks supported the measure. I suppose the same applies to them, yes? Perhaps Hanks is waiting until MLK’s birthday on Monday or Barack Obama’s inauguration on Tuesday to make his pronouncement. What do you think? I’d pay good money to hear that.

Save your money, LaShawn.  You and I both that that ain’t gonna’ happen.  It’s a dirty little secret of the Left (generally) that it’s still OK to bash the religious. 

What’s actually un-American, in my opinion, is this mashup of Google maps and public information to point out the addresses and locations of people who donated to the Prop 8 cause.  Legal?  Sure.  Petty, vindictive, inflammatory and McCarthy-ist?  Oh yeah, you got that right.  And sure enough, McCarthy was looking for folks who were un-American, too!  Scott Payne over at The Moderate Voice notes a bit of disingenuousness on the part of same-sex marriage advocates. 

I’ve thought for a long time that the African-American community has, in general, been a very conservative group, but have been sold a bill of goods by internal leaders to look to government to save them rather than themselves.  I think if they took an issues test showing which party or politician fits their values most, a lot of them would be surprised.  Bill Cosby has been a huge factor in getting the word out, not so much politically, but in the sense of taking ownership of one’s own situation and not waiting for someone else to fix it.  That shouldn’t be a left/right thing, but far too often the measure from the Left of how well things are going tracks with how many people are on welfare and how much money they’re getting.  Government dependency was most decidedly not MLK’s dream. 

1. Ewww. I think the idea that there is “no law against it”, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be fired for doing it.
2. Well, there you go. A counter to Mr Warren being offered a chance to offer public prayer.
3. The other side of the sweatshop coin.
4. A good story from the desert.
5. On MLKj.
6. Standing against a classless society.
7. Identity vs conviction … and those standing convicted of a lack of conviction.
8. Failing to mention his graduate students … who likely did the real work?
9. Journalism and a question.
10. Troy Polamalu and taking one’s faith seriously.
11. Yet again, bias and the media.
12. History and a blogged discussion. The original. A dissenting view. Another response.
13. Suffering for purpose.
14. For those with BDS.
15. An Orthodox reading plan. Now I just need a Philokalia reading plan to put along side it. 🙂
16. Next year … how will Mr Obama treat with Sanctity of Life Sunday?
17. Heh.
18. Job and Galactica considered.
19. I concur.
20. Gosh another Ponzi found.
21. My daughter was there.
22. An odd road glyph.
23. Bad advice I think?

With this warning echoing on the web against amateur philosophizing. But that being noted, I will forge ahead nonetheless. Meta-ethics is that branch of ethics not describing normative ethics (how we act) but instead the means by which we do ethics. Two popular branches of ethical methodologies are deontology and consequentialism (of the latter, utilitiarianism is a particular example). It is my sense that virtue ethics via Aristotle and later supporters, while put forth some ancient Greeks, is less in favor today. Deontology, roughly speaking, is rule based ethics. Some time ago, I suggested that Christian ethics are neither of these. Christian ethics, described meta-ethically, I suggest are pneumatological.

Christian ethics is not deontological. Jesus time and time again speaks out against deontological Phariseeism, rejecting rigid, or perhaps even non-so-rigid, following of laws described and set down by man.

Christian ethics is not consequentialist. We don’t do our actions in order to “store up pennies in heaven” as it were. Salvation is not garnered via works of men.

What does this mean? In theology, pneumatology relates to the Holy Spirit. That is the Spirit, in the Trinitarian sense, is the center of Christian ethics. Why might we think of ethics for the Christian as pneumatological. As a Christian, to borrow a phrase from R.R. Reno, we are called to be “transparent” to Christ, that is to perform his will through us as if we were transparent. This is effected in the world, via the Spirit to inspire us as to how to do His will.

How might Pneumatological ethics work in practice? How does one discern the will of the Spirit. What has been said and laid out in Scripture and in our Tradition is one source for seeking guidance in this matter. But, for example, bio-ethics today is consistently throwing up questions and issues which are new to this age. How does one act in those cases. I’d suggest, prayer, fasting, being open to inspiration, and seeking advice from those who have more spiritual insight seem all likely possibilities.

Thoughts?

In some accounts of the Roman Empire, if memory serves (my dates might be off), between the 9^th and 10^th centuries historical accounts for the Empire don’t match. The Empire consistently shows a lot excess spending. Military ventures, building projects/public works, and other expenditures don’t match with the income. One proposal is that there was a “secret” gold mine, perhaps in Bulgaria or Romania that, until it went dry, served as the source of this public funds.

Today the only “secret gold mine” left to us in our age and to our states is to be found not in the financial sector. But instead in the abilities of our technological and scientific research to create avenues to wealth.

It’s really too bad that the educational system is so focused on multiculturalism and such matters and not on funneling the kids talented in science and maths into an environment in which they will flourish. Our gold mine is drying up. Will we share Constantinople’s fate? To be sacked by barbarians and ultimately the infidel?

As we approach the end of George W. Bush’s presidency, many postmortems will be written to explain how horrible or wonderful the President performed depending on point of view. No doubt many liberals will be quick to proclaim Bush as the worst president ever. But he did in fact have many achievements.

I believe that history is likely to judge him far more kindly as time passes. President Bush’s lasting legacy will be the War on Terror. His response to the 9/11 attacks reset forever our approach to terrorism. Unless President-elect Barack Obama totally dismantles the anti-terrorism measures adopted under President Bush (and I don’t think he will), President Bush will long be remembered as the President who forever changed America’s approach to terrorism.

But there are those critics of President Bush who will bring up the economy as evidence of malfeasance on the part of the outgoing President. A couple of factors to consider: (1) the foundation for the economic collapse was laid back during President Clinton’s time in office when regulations restricting lending practices at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and (2) the financial crisis occurred so late in President Bush’s term that there was not time for him to see the crisis to a conclusion.

Come January 20th, the economy will be Obama’s problem. It will be the issue most likely to dominate his presidency much as the Great Depression did for most of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s time in office. The best way that President-elect Obama can succeed is to realize first that blaming President Bush will get him nowhere.

Mr. Obama has stated on several occassions that FDR has been a role model for him as he prepares for the presidency. He would do well to remember that Roosevelt’s economic policies did more to prolong the Great Depression that to relieve it. Unfortunately for him, Democrats have never met a government program that they didn’t like. Unless Mr. Obama can demonstrate a willingness to stand up to his party and try to relieve the economy through other means besides more spending we may be in for tough economic times for many years to come. That will  be the legacy that will dog President Obama, not President Bush.

1. Humor and the incoming President. If humor about the President is a duty of the loyal opposition, perhaps the uniformity of political alleigence of the comedy writers is problematic?
2. A “window” into pro-life in action.
3. This satirical piece makes an interesting point. If the “multiplier” idea is dumb … why isn’t it dumb when the Feds do it?
4. Atheist/Pagan and a little history.
5. Today in 1919.
6. A teen alternate history book, the Explosionist reviewed.
7. Does Shamsia Hsseini = Rosa Parks? Will the mainstream press notice … after Monday when they are allowed to care about reality again?
8. Plagarism discussed.
9. (faint?) Singular praise for Mr Bush from a Libertarian.
10. Or … perhaps akin to listening to atheists describe the faith experience and motivations.
11. Does that mean that Christians should shed self-control? After all, like St. Paul we would be servants (really slaves from the Greek) of Christ, no?
12. 3 miles?
13. Suspecting the enthusiasm … after all look how well that worked out the last time.
14. Of Cato the Elder.
15. Mil-tech geekery.
16. Mommmmmmaaaaaa.
17. Whence the outrage … bias perhaps?
18. Some more links.
19. Getting facts straight.
20. Fiction, truth and lies.
22. I do need that book.
23. One reason for the quantity of illegal aliens … Mexico’s problems.
24. “smart power” as stupid adspeak.
25. Verse + math.

I was recently reading about some protesters fasting in order to raise awareness for one cause or another.

It struck me that the secular left and the religious right have very different notions about fasting and its means and purpose. Read the rest of this entry

The NY Times’ Eric Lichtblau, who apparently thought he was blowing the whistle when he first reported on this, now has to report that this was all legal.  You consort with the enemy, you’ll be listened to.  Listening in on international calls or reading international e-mails when the bad guys are involved is legal.

In validating the government’s wide authority to collect foreign intelligence, it may offer legal credence to the Bush administration’s repeated assertions that the president has the power to act without specific court approval in ordering national security eavesdropping that may involve Americans.

UPDATE: More analysis at Q&O, where a dissenting point of view from the Right is taken on.

1. I for one have never been a member of a non-small church.
2. Of gymnastics in Belorus today.
3. War and life, and being consistent.
4. Here and there and Mumbai.
5. Kiddie soldiers and the ICC.
6. Are Jews closer to Islam in their beliefs?
7. Hints for blogging.
8. I got this book during the holidays … in a few weeks, I’m traveling again … I’m looking forward to reading it.
9. On that affirmative action thing.
10. Dostoevsky on the individual.
11. Focus for your tolerance.
12. Marx attribution faked. Why?
13. Gene Robinson’s multi-religion prayer considered (in advance of that actual prayer). Or a view of how real-life philosophers pare down the “stupid or evil” choice.
14. So who’d blink first?
15. It’s not just cold in Chicago it seems.
16. I was there this summer, but a hockey game … hmm.
17. Ms Paglia on Ms Couric.
18. I don’t really thing the idea of a postulant is all that new.
19. Memory eternal, a death noted.