Stones Cry Out

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.

Congressman Chris Murphy (D-CT) is championing his support of what’s called the Protecting Patient and Health Care Act of 2009.  From his website:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – With the clock ticking down on the implementation of a sweeping Bush Administration rule that will deny vital health services to Americans, today Congressman Chris Murphy (CT-5) joined a group of colleagues to introduce the Protecting Patient and Health Care Act of 2009 to stop it.

In late December, the Bush Administration finalized the "refusal clause", which would cut off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, health plan, clinic, or other entity that does not accommodate employees who refuse to participate in care that they find ethically, morally, or religiously objectionable. Set to take affect on Sunday, this sweeping change in access to vital health services, including birth control, abortion, HIV and STI testing, end of life care, and fertilization treatments, trumps current practices that accommodate health care providers’ religious beliefs while also providing their patients with access to care. It even goes as far as to allow whole hospitals or health plans to refuse services even if individual doctors and providers are willing to perform them.

What’s missing in this description is the reason the "refusal clause" was needed.  It’s really only emphasizing how the law currently is, because a number of court cases, and the judges of those cases, have shown that apparently the judicial system doesn’t quite understand the concept. 

I’ve touched on one example last August where a pair of doctors in California were sued successfully when they declined to give their services to a lesbian couple.  (Actually, they did everything but the physical insemination, which is all they declined to do.)  Acting as though they were the only option in the state, the couple took the case all the way to the State Supreme Court and won.  This was an elective procedure, and the State Supreme Court seemed to think they were obligated to do it if asked.  (And as noted in the original post, the CA Medical Association was on the side of the doctors until they got bullied by the gay-rights community, and they caved.)

So the action by the Bush administration was simply to reiterate that this refusal is legal, and put some oomph behind it.  The whole idea the people have no where else to go for these treatments, elective or otherwise, is absurd, but the danger to a guaranteed constitutional right is real. 

But Democrats, who insist that they’re just as concerned about religious freedom as anyone, put the lie to that by making the First Amendment a second-class citizen.

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.

The media has, once again, set up 2 different standards for Republicans and Democrats, this time regarding the spending on inaugurations.

Four years ago, the Associated Press and others in the press suggested it was in poor taste for Republicans to spend $40 million on President Bush’s inauguration. AP writer Will Lester calculated the impact that kind of money would have on armoring Humvees in Iraq, helping victims of the tsunami, or paying down the deficit. Lester thought the party should be cancelled: “The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?”

Fast forward to 2009. The nation is still at war (two wars, in fact), and now also faces the prospect of a severe recession and federal budget deficits topping $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. With Barack Obama’s inauguration estimated to cost $45 million (not counting the millions more that government will have to pay for security), is the Associated Press once again tsk-tsking the high dollar cost?

For the (unsurprising) answer, read the whole thing.

Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham, she of the Washington Post and he of Newsweek, have sort of a point / counterpoint set of articles in the "On Faith" section of the paper’s and magazine’s combined website.  Quinn argues that the tag "so help me God" shows "contempt for non-believers, while Meacham argues that the oath to God shows "regard for church and state".  Read Meacham’s piece first, as Quinn responds to specific points in his article.

The foundation of Quinn’s argument is that she thinks that religion should be compartmentalized.

Much good is done in the name of religion and there are many wonderful, intelligent and honorable people who are believers. I simply think that it doesn’t have a place in the public square.

And why is that?

My problem is with God. Actually, my problem is with the concept of God. I don’t know what "God" means.

But it’s not readily apparent that, because of her ignorance, why she might think that discussion of such a topic shouldn’t be allowed in public.  And just because, as she asserts, previous Presidents who invoked God had moral failings, it doesn’t invalidate their God. 

At one point, Quinn confesses confusion over Pascal’s Wager, but her reaction to it only points out her ignorance on this whole "God" thing.

Pascal’s wager never made sense to me. If there is an omniscient and omnipotent God and we believe in him we’re good to go. If there’s not and we don’t believe in him we don’t have a problem. If there is and we don’t believe in him, it’s because he doesn’t want us to and therefore we are following his will.

If you don’t know what "God" means, then how can you possibly draw the inference that if we don’t believe in him it’s because he doesn’t want us to?  How could you possibly assert that?  Isn’t it equally as likely an explanation that we’re not looking for him?  Or perhaps we’re simply on a quest to find out facts about God, but not get to know him.  Or that we’re afraid to find out about him because of what we may find out about ourselves?  Or that we refuse to believe in a God that permits evil in the world?  There are as many reasons to not believe in God as there are human beings. 

Meacham’s argument for "…so help me God" is less about religion and more of a case of "hey, what can it hurt?"  He at least does make a good show of dealing with that Jeffersonian phrase that has been elevated to "founding document" status by some.

The secular nature of the American government is one of its abiding strengths, but moments of prayer or a "So help me, God" here and there are no threat to the wall of separation Jefferson spoke of in his New Year’s Day 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. We can keep church and state separate, and we should. But as a matter of history and human nature, we cannot keep politics and religion separate, and we should not try. For politics and religion are both about people, about their hopes and their fears and their values and their sense of destiny and of duty.

And so we have a new poll on the blog:  Should the President, Obama in particular, use the phrase "so help me God"?  The poll has a simple yes/no answer, but I’m sure reasons for both are as varied as the voter, so let us know why you think he should or shouldn’t.