Stones Cry Out

1. Right wing … why right? Just to demonize the right I guess.
2. Why is the left denying affirmative action regarding Ms Sotomayor? (As opposed to pointing to it as a shining example)
3. Drifting left.
4. Betrayal.
5. Politics in the land of the cossacks.
6. A happy blogger.
7. Mr Biden then and … now?
8. Endoxes.
9. Open your mind.
10. A problem for the Treas Sec.
11. Of Constantine the Ethnomartyr.
12. Hope.
13. And zombies.
14. 7 notes.
15. A choir.
16. This meme is resurfacing again … why now?

Mr Obama and those in his coterie want to press for a major shift in our healthcare system to one which far more strictly controlled by the government. I think Mr Obama’s interest in healthcare in this manner is likely a charitable impulse for the 10% at the bottom combined alas with a disregard for the state of the middle 85% which will likely be substantially harmed by this shift and the realization that those at the very top (of which he is one) will be unaffected. The question for future elections will be how well will the Democratic party be able to re-write history and shift blame for the disaster that this will become. For if they fail that project then their predicted demographic demise of the GOP will not occur, but that a decade from now the two-party system which naturally arises in the American project will not include one which coins itself the “Democratic party”.

In the interest of completeness, is should be pointed out that the AMA hawking for market control of healthcare is a somewhat disingenuous plea. The AMA strictly controls their medical school graduating population into the various specializations in a centralized manner attempting to predict and fix the markets and quantities of various specialty (and generalist) numbers. Their plea for market forces is more in the nature of a complaint that power which had been theirs might be lost.

Today it was noted (by a liberal blogger no less) that approximately 10% of medical expenses go the mostly loudly demonized portion of the industry, i.e., the pharmaceutical companies. Given the effects of the advances that internal medicine has been able to achieve in the last few decades if that the result of 10% of our expenditure … there should be no grounds for complaints. Those touting “gains” in efficiencies of the proposed system fail to recognized the following (or at least have failed to counter them in anything I’ve read):

• To get a drastic gain in efficiency has to mean that today there are drastic inefficiencies. To this matter, a question should be asked. In your visits in hospitals and doctors offices do you see Doctors the nursing staff just doing busy work? Or are they at at task dealing with patients? In my experiences with medical staff, one sees busy doctors and the industry standard “waiting room” time is on account of emergency and other over-booking and under estimates of the time it takes to deal with individual patients. The point is, if doctors and nurses and other practitioners don’t have idle time and are actually working close to capacity … where’s this big gain in medical capacity going to come from?
• It is claimed that government involvement will streamline and make the paper work and billing matters more efficient and more streamlined. Why just stating this doesn’t cause those touting this notion’s head to explode with the cognitive dissonance is beyond me. Government. Increased efficiency. Aren’t those antithetical concepts? There is no project, no task, no aspect of life in the past 2000 years that government bureaucracy has added efficiency and smoothed out the wrinkles. Less paperwork and lower costs with more government involvement. Riiiight. Name just one time in the past where that transpired.
• If improvements in medical costs and quality of care are to be actually realized, it’s going to be when more and more of your medical interactions are in the form of something more like a internet subscription service, i.e., far fewer doctors managing a largely automated network. It’s going to take real innovation and paradigm shifts in how medicine is done. So let me ask, will entrenching our medical culture and industrial complex into a large government beaurocracy will make things more or less amenable to large changes? Less likely seems the realistic answer. If you think the answer is “more likely” … again I’ve failed to even see this issue addressed anywhere … so what is the argument to that.
• Finally, the insistence that increased administrative efficiency and methodology is where the solution to the so-called healthcare problem is to be found is harmful in that it causes thousands if not millions of people to be looking for the solutions in the wrong place.

Here are three fatal flaws with every “unified government run” healthcare proposal such as the ones that the Democrats are pushing.

1. Praising Keynes … but a different book perhaps and a look at inflation and our debt.
2. Exams noted.
3. In which it is noted we are all crazy.
4. DIY 3-d.
5. Stating the obvious.
6. Rearranging those deck chairs (on the Titanic).
7. Recursion and art.
8. Do what I say and not what I do is commonly seen, less known is the do what I say and not what I say.
9. Although perhaps its not as uncommon as I thought.
10. No. It’s not a right. If rights are at all intelligible (and that is doubtful) then you have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness … healthcare, a good education and so on … not on the list.
11. Teaching Edwards.
12. Praising modesty.
13. Oops.
14. Heh.
15. Discussing disgust and morals in two parts.
16. Elegance.
17. Considering Sodom.
18. Anti-Semitism. Three statements from … a liberal Jew, a conservative Jew, and a theological study noted.

1. Rewarding the wrong bunch.
2. Viewing polarization and Congress.
3. Of Che and Burke.
4. Math is beautiful … and if you can’t take the class, this book (The Book of Numbers) might do in a pinch.
5. Of tolerance.
6. I think this is misleading and is being used dishonestly. A number of banks were forced against their will to take TARP money. They weren’t in distress and didn’t need or want it. Now they’ve paid it back. To not recall that in noting this is dishonest.
7. Stories conservatives tell their children to scare them before bedtime.
8. In other news, Mr Biden remains clueless, which I gather is his primary function.
9. The MSM just noticed?
10. Star Trek and Mr Obama.
11. Watching Pakistan.
12. Evangelism as abuse?
13. Morton’s fork.
14. Core strength training.
15. A stumbling block for recovery.
16. A translation project?
17. Alas, the next kerfuffle … and this is probably not unrelated. People need thicker skins.
18. Ikon and corner.
19. A YA book recommended.

Separation of church and state is as a necessary element for a free society is a fundamental block in the foundational grounding assumptions on which our country is based. Americans assume that this is necessary and that it leads to a much better and happier society. But … is it even true?

Supporters of this claim point to Eastern European post Reformation wars which were nominally religiously based, i.e., the Protestant/Protestant and Protestant/Catholic struggles. There certainly was a strong religious element to element to many of these conflicts although in many cases religious differences lay parallel to other important political, cultural, and economic fault lines and therefore religion was not the sole cause of many if not all of these struggles. However, the Eastern Roman history lies as a counter-example. Over one thousand years of unbroken church/state intermingling to which one cannot attest clearly that the lack of church state separation was harmful, in fact it may have been the reverse.

An important factor however distinguishes those governments in which church/state mingling “worked” and those in which it didn’t. In the ones which “work” the religion practiced in the state was almost completely uniform, that is one single religious tradition was unquestionably dominant to the point in which it did not need to suppress or put pressure on the others. This an important distinction.

So, consider the case in which one religious tradition exists within a state. In this case when that religion is not separated but can work closely with each other this can be beneficial for both. Religious traditions can stabilize the state and build trust in its institutional organs. On the other side, the state can recognize and validate in the state arena religious sacramental activity. One might suggest that if “pursuit of happiness” were the goal that indeed people would naturally be happiest in a state which is supported and supporting of their religious tradition.

Yet, we dwell in Babylon. There is not one religious tradition in American or perhaps in any country of the world. So the question might be posed, is there any way to reap the benefits of non-separation and at the same time the protections that we hold dear that are derived from separation? Here is one suggestion. By allowing the smallest parts of government, the village, the precinct or the rural whistle-stop to incorporate and use religion and soften the church/state boundary, we retain the global protections of separation but may at the personal level reap some of the advantages of non-separation.

The logic of this is as follows.

• People in aggregate are happier when church and state are not separated.
• However, this only holds when church in question is of a tradition which is the same or very similar to a great majority of the population.
• This is not possible at a national level in any modern state.
• However, it is possible at a much finer level.
• So … perhaps it should be allowed in places which do present a uniform church tradition within a community.

Objections? Comments?

Out of one side of his mouth:

WASHINGTON, June 9 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama sought on Tuesday to show he was serious about improving the U.S. budget picture as he called on Congress to pass new limits on tax cuts and spending programs to avoid adding to deficits.

Obama urged passage of "pay-as-you-go" legislation that would require any new tax cut or automatic spending program to be paid for within the budget.

"The ‘pay as you go’ principle is very simple. Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere," Obama said in a speech at the White House attended by several Democratic members of Congress.

Out of the other side:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed budget rules that would allow Congress to borrow tens of billions of dollars and put the nation deeper in debt to jump-start the administration’s emerging health care overhaul.

The "pay-as-you-go" budget formula plan is significantly weaker than a proposal Obama issued with little fanfare last month.

It would carve out about $2.5 trillion worth of exemptions for Obama’s priorities over the next decade. His health care reform plan also would get a green light to run big deficits in its early years. But over a decade, Congress would have to come up with money to cover those early year deficits.

Congress (under either party) is extremely adept at spending up front, promising to make up for it later, and then subsequently forgetting those promises.

And Obama knows this full well. 

"Buyer’s remorse" is a phenomenon where, once a purchaser gets a product home and uses it, they decide it’s not living up to its potential, the advertising hype, or their expectations (realistic or otherwise).  According to Rasmussen, looks like America is getting a case of "Voter’s remorse".

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on six out of 10 key issues, including the top issue of the economy.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues, while 39% trust Democrats more.

This is the first time in over two years of polling that the GOP has held the advantage on this issue. The parties were close in May, with the Democrats holding a modest 44% to 43% edge. The latest survey was taken just after General Motors announced it was going into bankruptcy as part of a deal brokered by the Obama administration that gives the government majority ownership of the failing automaker.

Voters not affiliated with either party now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues by a two-to-one margin.

If voters didn’t realize that a President and a Congress in the hands of Democrats was going to be a big-spending perfect storm, they were just reading the advertising hype before casting their ballots.  Republicans certainly tarnished their "fiscal conservative" image in the last 8 years, no doubt about it.  But claims of "It would be worse with Democrats" is ringing true right on cue. 

And how about that "culture of corruption" that the Democratic party has tried hard to pin on Republicans?

Republicans also now hold a six-point lead on the issue of government ethics and corruption, the second most important issue to all voters and the top issue among unaffiliated voters. That shows a large shift from May, when Democrats held an 11-point lead on the issue.

There are others, and it’s worth reading.  Again I will say that most polls (or as fellow Stone Mark refers to them as, "cricket races") are simply a measure of emotion, and it’s also true in this case.  Polls that ask whether or not the economy is getting better measure what people think is happening.  What is really happening may be completely opposite to that. The general public, myself included, don’t know enough about economics to make the answer anything but a hunch.  But this poll is asking who people trust, which they, in fact, are experts on.  If the winds blow a different way tomorrow, these numbers could in fact change again.  However, the trend right now is that folks see where we’re heading, and they don’t like it.

Neither do the folks in Europe, where EU Parliamentary elections finished up recently.  This election, following the global financial crisis, shows which way the world leans when the find themselves in an economic pickle; to the Right.  The love affair with the Left and the Socialists has grown cold — more voter’s remorse — especially in France, which started a move to the Right with Sarkozy and continued with a crushing defeat for the Socialists, losing almost 20% of its French seats.  They may cheer Obama on the Left, but then they go home and vote Right when the chips are down.

1. Race error? Heh.
2. A taster?
3. Very pretty.
4. Misunderstanding markets (and perhaps the role of government).
5. Not candy coating works too.
6. Links and a hope that our President will get some needed education.
7. Pimping your parish … or not.
8. Lebanon.
9. Considering end of life.
10. Kids. They’re just so darn immature.
11. And keep them away from operating heavy machinery (in some cases).
12. A book noted.
13. Isn’t “chronically homeless” a euphimism for the mentally ill?
14. A Saint.

Politics often disgusts me. President Obama gave a pretty speech at Ohama beach recently. In it we find these remarks:

We live in a world of competing beliefs and claims about what is true. It’s a world of varied religions and cultures and forms of government. In such a world, it’s all too rare for a struggle to emerge that speaks to something universal about humanity.

The Second World War did that. No man who shed blood or lost a brother would say that war is good. But all know that this war was essential. For what we faced in Nazi totalitarianism was not just a battle of competing interests. It was a competing vision of humanity. Nazi ideology sought to subjugate and humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder on a massive scale, fueled by a hatred of those who were deemed different and therefore inferior. It was evil.

We don’t celebrate VE day, and rightfully so. We didn’t win the war in Europe. If the Soviet regime had not been a totalitarian state, but instead another liberal democracy … D-Day may never have come about. D-Day is an achievement. It is a moment to remember for the American and the West, the struggle and the sacrifice. We fought hard on D-Day and at Guadalcanal and in the Pacific. But, for myself, I wonder if we would have the will to persevere at a Stalingrad (where nearly 2 million died in a six month long battle). Our country (at least the left) balked today at 3,000 military deaths over more than a four year period.

And yes Nazi Germany was one of the glaring unlearned lessons from the 20th century, Soviet Russia which bore most of the burden of defeating that Nazi threat was the other. And alas, the misconceptions underpinning the reasons which brought those things he notes as “It was evil” into the light of day are shared and still maintained in the hopes and dreams of the left. Hope. Change. The utopian dream than man and society can be perfected coupled with a rejection of the dignity of man was lie at the core of all three visions. That same is the dream on which Nazi Germany was founded as well. It was evil in outcome then … it will likely be so again. Mr Obama’s administration began with the motto “never let a good crises go to waste.” And if you don’t have the means to effect that change … just find a new crises. And if no crises can be found? Hmmm. Three choices. Give up, make a crises, or manufacture an enemy.

(This in part is the thesis that I’ve been exploring in Chantal Delsol’s essay … which oddly enough has passed unremarked.)

In a post from about a month ago, I noted that the Obama administration put out a prediction of what would happen if the stimulus bill was passed and if it wasn’t.  They predicted a smaller bump in the unemployment rate if their stimulus plan passed.  Spend the money, they said, and the pain would be eased. 

Those on the Right, however, said that trying to spend our way out of this wouldn’t work, and suggested that "stimulus" spending in the 1930s put the "Great" in "Great Depression".  Instead, we’d be saddled with government debt for a generation.

In that previous post, I noted that Geoff of the Innocent Bystanders blog had put up a graph showing that unemployment looked like it was about to get worse than even the Obama administration’s worst-case, no-stimulus scenario.  Well, May’s numbers are in, and he’s updated the graph.

Those red dots rising up, month after month, are the actual unemployment figures.  So we get record-setting debt and an unemployment curve worse than predicted for doing nothing.  Government intervention is sounding worse with each passing month.

1. Mr Tiller, a Lutheran, had been excommunicated by the LCMS and was attending an ELCA church. So … how may articles about him attempted to explain the different Lutheran denominations? Is that relevant as a background to the story?
2. More on Mr Tiller’s killing here.
3. Outing as a conservative/liberal issue, in which a particular liberal forgets “outing” is a standard tactic against gay GOP members, which brings one to the logical conclusion that painting this as a left/right matter is a partisan fiction.
4. Some philosophers consider the matter.
5. And the point is made that pseudonymity requires increased not decreased politeness.
6. An inconsistency on the left, noted.
7. A educators prayer.
8. Or … there might be other reasons.
9. On the health care debate, a discussion here and here.
10. We are all democrats now.
11. Not to die in vain.
12. A comparison Mr Alito and Ms Sotomayor.
13. Grist for the legalize prostitution libertarian mill.
14. A Baptist preacher goes to an Orthodox service and finds much to like.

You’ve certainly seen the advertisement before; that which features a certain item, priced ridiculously low. In fact, it’s priced so low that you ask, “How can they sell it at that price and turn a profit?” Well, they can’t. It’s a loss leader, designed solely to entice people into the sales establishment upon which, it is hoped, they will purchase additional items, thereby resulting in an overall profit to the store.

The point to be taken here is that the loss leader tactic is simply a part of an overall marketing strategy – a philosophy, if you will, which fits squarely within the economic system of capitalism, to which growth and profit are generally accepted as the primary goals.

I wonder, how wedded to capitalism is the evangelical church in America?

Recently, there was a concert staged, at our church, specifically designed as an outreach to the youth in the community surrounding the church. Whereas there is typically 25 youth at a Wednesday night meeting, there were 120 youth in attendance at this concert.

Was this a loss leader? A means of enticing people in the doors, and then banking on the “numbers”, the probability that a certain percentage of them would desire to come back?

Such a tactic is hardly limited to a youth concert in 2009. I’ve grown up in the church and can look back and see the tactic deftly applied throughout my life. It is, in fact, our modus operandi.

Yet, despite the church adopting capitalistic strategies, and despite the false success of mega-churches, we now see an America which is turning its back on Christianity. Our society is becoming decidedly secular and, in particular, anti-Christian, in its base form.

While we may have succeeded in entertaining the masses, how much of the Gospel has truly been delivered? In a recent Bible Study, my pastor made note of the fact that many scholars think that the church in Corinth, that which Paul was writing to, was made up of about 40 people.

40 people.

If an evangelical capitalist had written the letters to the Corinthians, I daresay he would have given them a detailed explanation of marketing tactics designed specifically to result in church growth. Yet Paul makes no mention of church growth methodologies. He simply tells the Corinthians how to live as Christians.

What a concept.

1. Ten men a half century ago.
2. Some reading suggestions in the fantasy genre.
3. Another take on Mr Obama’s speech and memory of another Cairo speech.
4. Continued fractions.
5. Some econometrics look good.
6. Do as I say, not alas as I do is a recurring trope.
7. So … in picking the date for the speech, was Tienanmen or Midway to be connected in any way.
8. In which a load of old bull figures prominently.
9. Some Sotomayor background.
10. So Long. Farewell. An esteemed blogger bows out.
11. A wedding.
12. Why don’t they just have a run off election?
13. Race, resentment as replacements for normal freshman fears.
14. On natural law.

Some remarks on the President’s address.

• “For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt’s advancement.” Hmmm. That seems a stretch.
• “I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment.” This is indeed a persistent fallacy. In the last five or ten years, I think the maxim that “Every commonly held belief about historical events and motivations is exactly wrong” is a turning out to be a fine rule. From WWI trench warfare to this one, all these notions … all wrong. That “light of learning” was carried by Byzantium and a lot of it came west at the sack of Constantinople by the crusaders and the carting off of the libraries, marble, gold and so on to Venice. If you think that’s wrong, ask yourself where, when, and how the intellectual exchange of documents and teaching between the crusaders and the West occurred? (hint: it didn’t in any meaningful way … and what little did was came via Byzantium)
• “And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” How about to highlighting the negative realities?

If we compare the responses of this speech from two esteemed bloggers from both sides of political spectrum there is, on offer, an interesting comparison (besides the nearly identical title). The pseudonymous “hilzoy” offers that this “broke the mold” and offered praise and criticism to both “sides” and that each side might take away from the lesson learned from the criticism. Richard Fernandez on the other hand, similarly comments that there is in fact praise and criticism that both sides might note … but that the effect will be the reverse. That each “side” will key on the criticism of the other and like Eris with her golden apple this will only serve to inflame each other, with each ignoring the faint mentions of their own and inflame their own image of the other’s flaws? Given human nature … which will be the more likely response. I’d offer that the ‘hilzoy’, in part because of the shared assumptions, might closely match the intention of the President and his speechwriters … but that the effect will be the more pessimistic realistic appraisal of Mr Fernandez.

But … like his remarks on the hijab a similar response might be made about the tepidity of his allusion. In a similar vein, examine this response.  Reflect for a moment on the discord vs self-examination as posed our two bloggers and examine those remarks in that light. Would you characterize these responses as self-critical or the reverse? Bringing together or apart?

Solzhenitsyn coming to the West gave four significant of addresses and spoke from a position of utter political weakness, he was after all no President and weilded no power. His words were rejected but were right in many ways and pulled no punches. Mr Obama on the other hand came to Cairo and told honeyed lies filled with calculated misdirection all intended to move people closer. His words, being fiction, have a better chance of not being rejected outright … but their effect it seems has a not unlikely chance of moving people in the direction he did not intend.

1. A quote from Habermas on Christianity.
2. Pentecostal petal drop.
3. The quick pitch.
4. Dresden and Tienanmen.
5. A letter from Beirut for the President.
6. The transcript of the Cairo speech.
7. Indiana muscles in on the Administrations illegal car company moves.
8. Well, it’s because its not the Christian response … and not a cognitive dissonance problem.
9. Ford tech.
10. Good signs.
11. Hmmm.
12. Net savvy administration indeed.
13. Devilish book.