The Maryland Crustacean

Adding Insult to Injury

2012-02-04T19:49:00.001-05:00

I had never even heard of the Susan G. Komen foundation, much less ever donated money to it. Yes, I had heard of “Race for the Cure” and I am certainly sympathetic to any organization that wants to fund breast cancer research, but I never knew the specific name of the foundation associated with such an otherwise worthwhile effort.

Though I have given to plenty of worthy causes in my life, this just happens to not be one of them. I just never thought to do so. My bad. But whatever the merits of breast cancer research, the Susan G. Komen Foundation (SGKF) will certainly not ever be getting a dime from me now--not after the events of the last few days.

SGKF recently came to the realization that Planned Parenthood did not meet their criteria for receiving funds or grants,, so they announced that they would not be funding P.P. … for now. You would think I would say “Hooray!” because they had struck a blow against the disgustingly profitable abortion industry.

On the contrary, my first question is “Why was SGKF funding P.P. in the first place?” Is P.P. involved in breast cancer research? (No). Do they even provide mammograms? (No again.) Is P.P. involved in anything whatsoever that would advance the cause of finding a cure for breast cancer? (Thrice no.) On the contrary, the medical research and evidence is quite clear that there is a higher incidence of breast cancer (in addition to other physical and emotional maladies) in women who have had an abortion.

So what was SGKF thinking in the first place?!?!?! I wonder how many people who had enthusiastically participated in Race for the Cure or otherwise given to the cause knew that they were funding the abortion industry?

It’s bad enough that P.P. makes money hand-over-fist by providing abortions, and supplements their coffers by sucking at the teat of the government and of ostensibly charitable organizations; they also scream bloody murder if anyone dares to threaten the flow of largesse from any source. This past Friday, SGKF knuckled under to the bullying tactics of P.P. and their allies on the left and reversed their decision. But given SGKF’s unconscionable support of P.P. in the first place, this reversal was just an anti-climactic addition of insult to injury.

The Iron Lady

2012-01-21T18:33:00.002-05:00

I wasn't really sure I wanted to see Meryl Streep’s rendition of Margaret Thatcher in The Iron Lady. The little I had read about the movie in pre-release reviews made me suspicious that it was going to be another left-wing hatchet job. It was understandably causing a furor in the UK because of the film’s setting and approach, portraying the prime minister’s otherwise remarkable and admirable career as a series of flashbacks in the mind of an ailing, demented Margaret Thatcher. Throughout the movie she is shown having hallucinatory conversations with her long deceased husband Dennis, hardly a respectful and dignified portrait of one of the great world leaders of the twentieth century.

Despite the screenplay’s uncomplimentary setting, it portrayed Margaret Thatcher’s life and career in very positive terms: Her humble beginnings as a grocer’s daughter, being taught at a young age to not follow the crowd, to stand up for your convictions in the face of criticism, to stick to your ideas not because they are popular but because they are right, and to persevere in the face of adversity, fierce and unfair criticism and even violent opposition.

That is the type of spine that was needed in the second half of twentieth century Britain, a nation in moral and economic decline, in the stranglehold of debilitating social welfare policies and corrupt trade unions, self serving politicians resorting to class warfare and demagoguery, claiming to stand up for the poor and the little guy, but really accomplishing nothing other than increasing the intrusive scope of government and dependency. Sound familiar?

The unfolding scenes of the movie caused me to remember and relive the transformative decade of the 1980’s, when great leaders like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan faced fierce opposition and blistering criticism for the stands they took for conservative principles of individual freedom and responsibility. She did what was required to turn around a nation in decay, stating “Yes, the medicine is harsh, but the patient requires it.” Throughout the movie I found myself muttering, “Oh, how we desperately need leaders like that today!”

I am not sure about the screen-writer's intentions in portraying Margaret Roberts Thatcher as frail and ailing, slipping into dementia. It certainly seems disrespectful, particularly given that she is still alive. Whatever the writer’s intentions, I personally choose to view this portrayal as appealing, perhaps not in political terms, but definitely in theological terms. God created us to love and serve Him, giving each of us a calling and mission. In the movie, a young Margaret Roberts says, “One’s life must matter”. Toward the end, an elderly Margaret Thatcher states, “All I wanted was to make a difference.” Indeed, she did, and the world should be grateful. But in the end, no matter what we accomplish, this life is fleeting. We are frail and finite; we decline and, at the time of God’s choosing, we die. Whether we achieve great things like Margaret Thatcher, or lead humble and obscure lives whose impact is limited to family, friends and acquaintances, our calling is to be faithful to Him.

A Christmas Story

2011-12-22T20:30:00.002-05:00

Christmas past…..

And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. [Luke 2:8]

It had been about four hours since the sun had set. The three shepherds were trying to stay warm, and Simeon was lost in his thoughts….

What a miserable existence, spending days and nights in the fields, away from home, watching someone else’s sheep. Shepherding was once considered honorable. After all, King David was a shepherd, as were the patriarchs. But this day and age, shepherds are considered lowlifes, not a vocation to aspire to. Not many fathers would relish giving their daughter away in marriage to someone who spent more time with sheep than with a wife and children.

At least Simeon was lucky in that regard. He and Hannah had been together for more than a decade. They had two sons and a daughter, not including the one they lost. Simeon suppressed a pang of grief that surfaced again, diverting his thoughts instead to being home soon, where he would be able to spend a few days with Hannah and the children before starting the cycle all over again, moving sheep from pasture to pasture.

In the meantime, he was cold and tired, trying to make it through the night, small talking and bantering with his companions Jacob and Zechariah. Though the three of them were barely literate, they all had a basic knowledge of the Scriptures that were read in the synagogue every Sabbath. The rabbis taught them that God had called their fathers to be His chosen people to be a blessing to all nations. They knew about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, how their descendants were delivered from slavery in Egypt and brought into a promised land. They knew the story of David, the Shepherd King who firmly established and extended the Kingdom of Israel, safe from all its enemies, a land flowing with milk and honey, and everyone under their own vine and fig tree. And God promised David that his dynasty would last forever.

It sure didn’t seem that way. At this point, Simeon had neither vine nor fig tree. The land flowing with milk and honey was being run by surrogates of Rome, the latest in a long succession of empires that had overrun the land of Judah. Simeon wondered to himself--though he wouldn’t dare question out loud--if God’s promises were true. It didn’t seem right that the Promised Land should be under the yoke of unclean Gentiles. It also troubled him that some of the religious leaders had a much too cozy relationship with their Roman rulers. Then there were the Israelite tax collectors who were selling out their brothers by working for Rome.

Simeon wasn’t too angry at them. After all, they too needed to make a living. And he was painfully aware that he had his own faults, more than he cared to remember. His conscience bothered him. He had been taught that God was holy and just, but the rabbis assured him that God would forgive sins by accepting an offering. He wasn’t quite sure how or why sacrificing an innocent lamb would take away his sin. Did it really?

Simeon continued to ponder. Though he looked forward to going home in just a few days, truth be told, he felt weighed down, empty and afraid. He worried about whether he could provide for his family. As he thought about the Roman occupation, he also worried about the future, particularly for his children.

Simeon’s thoughts were interrupted by what he could only describe as brightness. He wasn’t sure what it was, but he and his companions suddenly had another and more immediate reason to be afraid:

An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. [Luke 2:10]

Christmas present…..

It’s a winter evening in front of my computer. The house is quiet, and I can relax after a long and somewhat tedious day’s work as a government employee.

I've been doing it for some twenty-seven years now. There have actually been times when I enjoyed my job, particularly back in the days when I was a garden variety translator. Whether the material I was translating was interesting or mundane, routine or ground breaking, I always left work with a sense of accomplishment. Even after I moved into management there were still times I felt like I was making a difference. I was once a bit of a mover and shaker, but those days are gone now. Truth be told, I am bored to tears; my brains are turning to jelly, and I am counting the days until I am eligible to retire in less than three years.

It used to be that “public service” was considered honorable. Now it is viewed as a cushy, overpaid job for people who can’t accomplish much. Though my conscience is clear that I work diligently and competently for my pay, the existing negative perception of government service is all too often justified. I have seen plenty of bloated, top-heavy organizational structures, what I like to describe as “The Department of Redundancy Department.” It galls me that while people in the real world have to make sacrifices and tighten their belts, life in the government proceeds as normal.

I guess I should be grateful. At least I have a job--well paying at that—while about ten percent of us do not. And even the tedium and setbacks of my current employment have an awakening side benefit. Unlike in my heady days of when I thought I was a mover and shaker, I am reminded anew that I cannot and should not find my identity in my employment. There are much more important things in life than the work I do to support my family… such as my family itself! I am truly grateful. I have been married to Susan for more than 32 years, and life with her keeps getting sweeter. We’ve been blessed with three kids and now we have two wonderful grandkids.

Then again, the joys of family remind me of heartaches as well. I miss my mom and dad, as well as many others from their generation (and some in this generation) who are no longer with us. Yes, I am confident that they are with the Lord and I will see them in eternity, but I still long to hear their voice and hug them again.

I also worry about the future for my children and grandkids, particularly for my two special needs children. How will they fare when I am gone? What kind of world will it be? Things do seem to be going to hell in a hand basket. The economy is in the tank, mob behavior is encouraged and celebrated, and ideas that were once universally disparaged as immoral or absurd are now a matter of serious debate. Sure, there is always the hope that things will turn around and sanity will be restored. There were hopeful signs at the ballot box in 2010. Maybe the turnaround will be even more decisive in 2012. But even if we do reverse course politically, I know I can’t put my hope in man or political parties. In the meantime we are speeding pedal-to-metal toward the cliff, and I sometimes wonder if our nation will even survive. The ash heap of history is full of once great civilizations that thought they were immortal but eventually committed collective suicide. Is it now our turn? God help us, I hope not.

I am tempted to get angry at those who have brought us to the brink; liberal demagogues who spout off class-warfare rhetoric as a means of increasing the size and scope of government (and their own personal power); statist busy-bodies who want to run other people’s lives; lazy, under-educated and self-indulgent generations who feel a sense of entitlement. I could go on and on, but then I remember, there but for the grace of God go I. Good grief, I feel guilty enough knowing that I probably could not earn my present salary in the private sector. I would like to think that I work hard and conscientiously, but am I too part of the problem?

Yes, there is that faithful companion called guilt. It used to paralyze me, even though the Gospel informs me that my sins are forgiven. I would often find myself quoting the prayer from Psalm 25: 7:

Do not remember the sins of my youth and my rebellious ways; according to your love remember me, for you, LORD, are good.

Christmas always…..

Yes, it does seem I have a lot in common with Simeon, my historical fiction friend from Christmas past. But whether the issue is boredom and disillusionment with a vocation, heartache and mourning over lost loved ones, anger over waste, fraud and abuse, fear for the future of my family and nation, or even a gnawing sense of guilt; God has an answer for both Simeon’s fears and mine:

But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” [Luke 2:11-12]

Jesus, son of Mary and Son of God has met our greatest need. The messianic descendant of King David was born in relative poverty and in an uncertain time. He was subject to the same types of joys and sorrows that Simeon, you and I face every day. He was “in every respect tempted as we are, yet without sin.” [Hebrews 4:15] He came not as Judge but as Savior. He subjected Himself to the worst this world has to offer, dying on a cross as the innocent Lamb to take away our sins, and rising again. By trusting in Him, there is assurance that our sins are forgiven, and that He will never leave nor forsake us. And His Kingdom will have no end. This is good news indeed!

I wish you and yours all the joys and blessings of Christmas, both now and throughout the year.

Arius, Athanasius and Jehovah's Witnesses

2011-10-29T20:56:00.002-04:00

A couple years ago I wrote about an encounter I had with a Jehovah’s Witness. I wondered then (and still wonder now) how best to carry on a conversation with them. They have some sincerely held beliefs that motivate their proselytizing activity. And they generally are not argumentative or confrontational (at least not with me). I often ask them if they believe the Gospel, that Jesus died on the cross for their sins and rose from the dead, and their answer is usually an unequivocal “yes”.

For those of you who are not clear on the difference between the Jehovah’s Witness’ beliefs and classical Christianity, it has to do with their understanding of who Jesus is. They believe him to be a created being, even the first created being, but nonetheless separate and apart from God Himself, as opposed to the classic Trinitarian belief that God is One Being but somehow Three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Of course, it is hard to fathom and get your arms around the classic Christian belief. Three Persons but One God? I don’t get it! I think it was Augustine who said about the Trinity: “Try to explain it and you will lose your mind. Try and deny it and you will lose your soul.” Indeed the early church wrestled with and finally settled the matter at the Council of Nicaea in 335, prior to Augustine’s birth.

The matter in question was the teaching of Arius of Alexandria, who taught that Jesus was a being separate and apart from God. He was opposed by Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, who contended that Jesus was one in essence with God the Father. The Council declared Arius’ teaching to be heresy and affirmed Athanasius. As the Nicene Creed summarizes:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.

Now you might ask, what is the difference, anyway? Isn’t it just like theologians to argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I remember years ago discussing this with my dad who, though a believer, had little patience for theologians. Though he affirmed classical Christianity and disagreed with Arian theology, he viewed Arius as some kind of free thinker who ran afoul of a powerful, politically connected ecclesiastical council. Actually, the opposite was true.. It was Arius who was the more politically powerful. Even though the council affirmed Athanasius’ teaching, it was Arius who was the more popular, and Athanasius ended up being banished. According to John Piper,

Athanasius was driven out of his church and office five times by the powers of the Roman Empire. Seventeen of his forty-five years as bishop were spent in exile. [Contending for Our All (2006, Wheaton Illinois, Crossway Books), p. 39.]

But I digress. What difference does it really make whether Jesus was a created being or whether Jesus and God are one? Isn’t the fundamental issue that He lived a sinless life, died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead? Paul himself said:

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” (I Corinthians 15:3)”

I could cite several Scriptures that make it clear that Jesus and God are one, and indeed I have gotten into such discussions with Jehovah’s Witnesses, and these discussions have generally proven fruitless. But lately I have been thinking of a different approach, and to give credit where credit is due, I must thank the non-Christians, even atheists, who have often come forward with the following argument:

“So you believe that God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son… to die a horrific death on a cross--although he was innocent--so you could be forgiven of your sins? You call that good news? That is terrible! If anything, I would call that cosmic child abuse!”

You know, if Arius and the Jehovah’s Witnesses are right, if Jesus was in fact a separate being, if God sent such a “son” to suffer and die, I suppose the atheists have a point. That would be cosmic child abuse indeed! However, it was Athanasius and the Council of Nicaea who got it right. God did not send someone else. Rather, He came Himself to bear the penalty for our sins, doing so in the Person of Jesus, the God-Man, and rose again to give us forgiveness of sins and eternal life. As the Nicene creed affirms:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Ephesus Comes to Wall Street

2011-10-16T22:29:00.004-04:00

The assembly was in confusion: Some were shouting one thing, some another. Most of the people did not even know why they were there. (Acts 19:32)

The story is told in the book of Acts of a riot that erupted when the Apostle Paul began preaching the Gospel in the city of Ephesus. Indeed, wherever Paul went he stirred up controversy, and Ephesus was no exception. His Gospel message was apparently persuading many people, even in the midst of fierce opposition, partly because God was confirming his message with miraculous signs, but also because of Paul’s ability to persuade with calm logic and reason:

Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God…. [He also] had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord. (Acts 19:8-10)

Mass conversions to Christianity were obviously viewed as a threat to the status quo, particularly in a land dominated by idol worship. This was especially problematic in the city of Ephesus, which was the guardian of the great temple of Artemis. The temple supported a great deal of local commerce; for example, there were many silversmiths whose trade was to make and sell figurines for the Artemis devotees who came from near and far. A silversmith named Demetrius, recognizing the threat to his livelihood, gathered together his colleagues, stirred them into a frenzy and started a riot. A mob began to gather in a local theatre, shouting in unison at the top of their lungs: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

Initially, Paul was foolhardy enough to want to venture into the theatre and reason with the mob, but his friends persuaded him to think better of it. Eventually, the city clerk went in and quieted the crowd, reasoning with them that if they had a complaint against Paul and his companions, the courts were open and they should press charges. But rioting would not be tolerated.

Why this brief foray into biblical history? I was reminded of it in the last week or two as the “Occupy Wall Street” movement started getting attention. I know I will be denounced by handwringers accusing me of mixing religion and politics, but the parallels are striking:

Like the shouting rioters in Ephesus, much of the OWS crowd does not seem to know why it is there. Theirs is a potpourri of disjointed gripes and agendas: Some want their student loans forgiven. Others want free health care. They are all against “the wealthy” (whoever they are) and believe that corporations should be less “greedy” and fork over their money. (Forgetting that corporations are owned by shareholders, who happen to represent the vast majority of the American people, whose individual savings and retirement accounts include stock in corporations.)
The OWS movement is an unruly mob that has been stirred up by people and interests who, like the Ephesian silversmiths, see a threat to their comfortable status quo. Today’s status quo is represented by a bloated bureaucracy, runaway deficit spending, crony capitalism, unholy alliances between politicians and public sector unions, and class warfare. Because this unhappy set of circumstances suits some people just fine, they view conservatives and the “tea party” as a threat. If it takes a mob to stop them, so be it.
By contrast, the much derided tea-partiers have not been known for rioting. Their gatherings have been orderly and peaceful. Like Paul in the lecture hall of Tyrannus, they gather together, have their say, leave the site cleaner than they found it, and then quietly get back to their jobs and businesses. Most importantly, they have effected change through the ballot box, not by trampling on people’s private property in a menacing manner.
If the rioters had a legitimate grievance against “the wealthy” or “big banks” or “evil corporations” or “the 1%”, they would go to a court of law and prevail. But having no legitimate grievance that would pass muster according to law, the rioters simply clamor loudly that other people should simply fork over their stuff. Because they cannot possibly prevail by means of law in a civil society, only a riot will do.

The most disturbing parallel between the rioters in Ephesus and the OWS crowd is actually a conspicuous non-parallel. Unlike the situation in Ephesus, there is no city clerk at Wall Street or at any of the other OWS gatherings urging calm and reasoned discourse via the institutions of a civil society. In New York, Mayor Bloomberg has so far lacked the courage to clear the OWS mob from the privately owned property it is occupying. Worse still, the President of the United States and the Democratic Party are egging the mob on and identifying with its cause. This is unconscionable and dangerous.

Old Friends: Musings on Living and Dying Well

2011-08-13T19:18:00.005-04:00

Can you imagine us years from today

Sharing a park bench quietly?

How terribly strange to be seventy!

For someone younger than thirty, Paul Simon waxed quite philosophical when he penned these words more than forty years ago. He now gets to experience firsthand the answer to his rhetorical question as he turns seventy this year. Oddly enough, seventy doesn’t seem that old anymore, perhaps due to increased life expectancy. They say that the fifties of today are like the thirties of yesteryear, so perhaps seventy is equivalent to fifty. It is all a matter of perspective, particularly as the baby boomer generation is getting on in years.

I certainly was nowhere near as pensive in my twenties as Paul Simon, but similar themes have occupied my thinking lately. Though I am nowhere near seventy, thoughts about getting old and, yes, even dying, have crossed my mind. It is hard not to think of it as, little by little, my parents’ generation is disappearing, thus removing the false sense of security of having a generation standing between me and the inevitable.

I don’t so much fear death as much as what will transpire between now and then. I desire two things in life: to live well and to die well. In one of his many great sermons, the 19th century preacher Charles Spurgeon expressed a similar sentiment: “The best thing is to live well, but we are greatly gladdened to hear that the brethren die well.”

What does it mean to live and to die well? Does it mean a tranquil, peaceful death, free of suffering, quietly slipping away (perhaps in my sleep) after reaching a ripe old age? My family’s genes generally take people into their eighties. My wife’s family typically makes it into the nineties and sometimes reaches triple digits. It would be nice to make it that far, but that is not what I have in mind.

Perhaps living and dying well would include living out my days in full control of my faculties. Mental deterioration is definitely a concern that comes with aging. My mom spent her last few years suffering from dementia, and sometimes I fear that genes play a part in it. By contrast, my 92- year-old mother in law is in a nursing home due to physical limitations but she pretty much has her mental faculties intact. But when I visit her, I see many elderly and not so elderly people just staring blankly into space, apparently the victims of some form of mental incapacity. I wonder what if anything is going through their minds and then I wonder what my future holds.

Maybe dying well would mean being surrounded by praying family and friends while drawing one’s final breaths. But that implies that death is expected imminently, perhaps while on a bed of suffering, which would not be my preference.

Though a long life of mental acuity free from intense physical suffering are certainly desirable, these are not what I desire the most when it comes to living and dying. My greatest concern is that I would die in the same way that I lived. As a Christian I believe that Jesus, the sinless Son of God, died on the cross the death that I deserved, and rose again to offer me forgiveness and new life. Utterly relieved and grateful for the forgiveness of my sins, I seek to live for Him by His power, even though I know my best efforts will fall woefully short.

So for me, to live and to die well means that, whether young and vigorous or old and frail, whether in full control of my faculties or mentally incapacitated, I will somehow continue to live in Him until the very end, and look forward to seeing Him face to face, as well as being reunited with precious friends and family. If I can live the rest of my days being faithful to the Lord Jesus, it won’t make too much difference how I die, though the pain free option is obviously preferable. Better yet, the Lord’s return would make it all a moot point. Come, Lord Jesus.

* * *

The two video montages below are dedicated to family and friends of generations past and present. and both of them set to music in keeping with this theme. I hope you enjoy them.

Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. (Colossians 2:6-7)

Victorious Valedictorians

2011-06-18T22:14:00.000-04:00

In the month of June we are subjected to graduation ceremonies and the inevitable controversies that crop up regarding the role of religion and prayer therein. Years back, the controversy was more limited to whether a prayer, invocation or benediction by anyone in authority would breach the sacrosanct “wall of separation” between Church and State. During hundreds of thousands of graduations during the first couple centuries of the republic, the thought didn’t even cross anybody’s mind that this would be a problem, but courts in their infinite wisdom have nonetheless placed official prayers off limits.

That was the case for official prayers, with the implication that officially sanctioned prayers constitute an establishment of religion. The next step down the slippery slope is prohibiting anyone from praying or invoking their religion, lest anyone be offended. So now the class valedictorian, who has earned the right to make a graduation speech, is not even allowed to pray or to mention the role that religion has played in his or her life, or so it seems.

When Angela Hilldenbrand of Medina Valley High School in Texas planned to include a prayer within her valedictorian speech, the parents of an “agnostic” brought suit, and initially prevailed. U.S. District Judge Fred Biery had granted an emergency court order banning public prayer at the ceremony, stating that the plaintiffs would suffer “irreparable harm” if the school district did not stop Hilldenbrand from uttering a prayer during her valedictory speech. PUH-LEAZE!

At least in this case, the school district was sympathetic to her. With the help of the Liberty Institute, she appealed the decision and prevailed. Another case involving a Vermont valedictorian took a somewhat different turn. After Kyle Gearwar, the valedictorian at Fair Haven Union High School, submitted his speech to the school principal, he was summoned to the office and told that parts of it were “going to be a problem”. Why? Because the speech included his personal testimony, thanking Jesus for His intervention in his life and bringing him to where he is today. Some of the allegedly offensive remarks included the following:

I have peace and can finally enjoy every moment God has given me, good or bad. I wouldn't be standing before you without the blessings God has given me through my tough situations. He is the reason I am the man I am today, made new through Jesus death on the cross.

Gearwar didn’t take the school to court, but respectfully submitted to their restrictions. He gave his speech sans the details of his Christian testimony, but, like Hildenbrand in Texas, he gave them all a wonderful lesson in civics by including the following verbiage:

My original speech has been cut, redone, and eventually trashed because of my references to the Bible, Jesus, and a better life. Today my letter to you was revised by some lawyers and attorneys who crossed out the concluding half of my speech. They said that the school can not endorse or allow me to speak about religion and how it has changed my life. I have dealt with the minor changes to my story that they have proposed, but in the end I could not throw it out. It saddens me that it had to come to this and I do not wish to read it on these circumstances because I know that Mr. Blanchard, Mr. Doucette and the school are at the mercy of the law if I follow through on this. It saddens me even more that the founding fathers created the first amendment, but today Congress has changed it to exclude those that they do not want to speak and defiled the principles on which this country was built…

Actually, it was not Congress but rather the courts that have turned the first amendment upside down. Nevertheless, kudos to Kyle and Angela both! I am inspired by the courage of both of these young graduates. While still being respectful and submissive to the authorities who were trying to muzzle them, they courageously stood their ground and were faithful to their Savior.

Corny Capitalism

2011-06-18T12:28:00.005-04:00

My commute to work is accompanied by a host of messages from advertisers, whether via radio ads during my drive to the train station, placards inside the commuter train, or a host of colorful signs and messages and even huge floor decals that grace the walkways of Washington’s Union Station.

This month’s billboards have been sponsored by a group called the “Corn Farmers Coalition”. Hmmm. It never occurred to me that busy commuters and travelers running to catch the Acela train or the Metro would be interested in corn. Yet the colorful billboards seem intent on presenting us with some interesting facts. For instance, did you know that 90% of all corn produced is grown on family farms? Well according to the USDA and the Corn Farmers Coalition, that is an important fact you ought to consider, and it is illustrated very nicely by the lovely picture that graces Union Station and the Corn Farmer’s Coalition Website. Isn’t that a nice family with the Dad holding up the big “90”, surrounded by his lovely wife and adorable kids in front of some tall stalks of corn on their idyllic farm?

Or did you know that American corn farmers are the most productive in the world, growing 20% more corn per acre than any other nation? Isn’t that special!?! This too is illustrated by a huge picture that greets me during my morning commute.

Okay, fine. Let’s grant for the sake of argument that all of this is perfectly true. The purpose of advertising is usually to persuade people to buy a product. I don’t think the people going through Union Station have any interest in buying a bushel of corn, or are even considering a career change to farming.

Of course, like a lot of advertising that targets DC audiences, the purpose is not to persuade you to buy corn, but to shape public policy. In this case, the Corn Famer’s Coalition was hoping to cut another good deal so the government would continue subsidizing ethanol production from corn. Except this time it didn't work. According to yesterday's Washington Times:

Signaling that austerity is now the prevailing attitude on Capitol Hill, the Senate delivered a stunning blow to a once-sacrosanct program Thursday when it voted to end billions of dollars that go each year to producers of blended ethanol.

Reversing itself from just two days earlier and despite opposition from the White House, a bipartisan coalition voted 73-27 to halt the 45-cents-per-gallon tax credit, which was expected to total $5.7 billion in 2011.

Oh that the many other industries that inundate us with special interest advertising would suffer the same lack of success. The American Association of Railroads and http://www.freightrailworks.org/ present us with ads innumerable about how many tons of freight they can haul on a gallon of gas, how they keep the highways from being jammed and how much money they pump into the economy and how many jobs they create. Golly gee, that’s wonderful! If freight rail is so effective and efficient, I am sure it can carry on without help from the government. And the same is true for oil companies, banks, retail associations and any other trade association or lobby that is angling for government funding, tax breaks, preferential treatment or handouts.

In a case of very rare agreement with the Obama Administration, I believe that any and all tax breaks and subsidies to oil companies, whatever they are, should cease and desist right away. But the same should hold true for any subsidies, breaks or handouts to General Electric, General Motors, Chrysler, “green industries” or any other industry that is receiving help or preferential treatment from the government.

As a conservative, free market capitalist, I fully support the right of each and every one of these industries to thrive and even make a handsome profit, but they should do so in a free and open market on a level playing field. When the government pits one person or entity against another, subsidizing or giving special breaks to some sectors to the detriment of others, we no longer have a free market, but rather crony capitalism. Or should I say “corny” capitalism?

A High School CIvics Lesson

2011-05-30T17:13:00.002-04:00

Yesterday I made mention of Paul Ryan’s Budget proposal, which easily passed in the House, albeit along party lines. Last week the Senate finally got around to rejecting the Ryan proposal--again mostly along party lines-- but not before unanimously rejecting the Obama Administration’s proposal. At least they finally got around to voting on it, but the bottom line is that the Senate has not passed any budget at all. Ryan himself summed it up best in the aftermath of the Senate vote on May 25:

I thank Senate Majority Leader Reid for drawing attention to the bipartisan, unanimous repudiation of President Obama’s budget. I thank Senate Budget Committee Chairman Conrad for drawing attention to the fact that it’s been 756 days since Senate Democrats passed a budget. I am disappointed, however, in their irresponsible abdication of leadership. Earlier this year, Republicans advanced a serious budget that saves Medicare, strengthens our safety net, and lifts our crushing burden of debt by getting government spending under control. Our plan of action puts the budget on the path to balance and puts the economy on the path to prosperity. President Obama’s reckless budget and Senate Democrats’ inaction, on the other hand, commit our nation to a debt-fueled economic crisis. Senator Reid and Senator Conrad are playing politics with the health security of America’s seniors and the economic security of American families.

In the meantime, Vice President Biden is allegedly meeting behind closed doors with Democratic and Republican leaders, trying to negotiate an alternative that is agreeable to both sides. But there is something fundamental that people are forgetting, which perhaps can be cleared up by a simple high school civics lesson about how a bill is supposed to become law. The first clause of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution reads as follows:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

The Constitution is silent on how to reconcile differences between House and Senate bills before they reach the president, but there are long established procedural rules by which both houses appoint members of a Conference Committee to work out differences between the bills. But such a conference committee is only formed once both houses pass their own respective versions of the bill.

Thus far, only the House has passed a budget. The Senate hasn’t passed diddly squat. But this hasn’t kept Senate Democrats from publicly and privately playing the “Let’s make a deal” card and acting like they are doing their job. Predictably, they are taking every opportunity to demagogue the issue over the public airwaves. Senator Chuck Schumer is even pretending to give Republicans some friendly advice by suggesting that they abandon the Ryan plan in order to not suffer significant losses in the next election.

Isn’t it kind of Mr. Schumer to offer such helpful advice! I have some better advice for the House: Instead of allowing the Senate leadership to play rope-a-dope with you (as they did with the 2011 budget), instead of allowing them to demagogue you to death while dragging out negotiations and pretending to be serious, you should immediately call off the charade. Stop the negotiations now and insist that the Senate first go on record by passing a budget of its own (if it can). Then we can talk. That is, the differences can be worked out in an actual conference committee, as has been done throughout the history of the republic--just like they taught us in high school civics.

Medicare Part D

2011-05-29T21:52:00.002-04:00

No I am not talking about the Medicare Prescription Benefit program, otherwise known as "Medicare Part D". In this case, D is for "demagoguery" and I have been on that theme lately due in no small part to the number of sickening and shameless examples that abound. It never ceases to amaze me how people fall for it.

The most recent example that comes to mind has to do with Medicare and the budget plan set forth by Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. The current set of talking points from the Demagogic National Committee warns us that the Ryan plan will “end Medicare as we know it” --- to which I say, “Hooray!”

Here is how Medicare works. For your entire working life, you are forced to pay 1.45% of your salary toward Medicare (in addition to the 6.2% or so you pay for Social Security, another program in desperate need of overhaul). Your employer kicks in matching amounts. In exchange for your contributions (and assuming you live long enough), you are entitled to Medicare benefits after you retire at 65. What exactly are these benefits? Basically, the government pays your medical bills, or so they claim. They pay a pittance to the medical providers, often less than what it costs them to provide the service, so the providers must either make up for it by charging more to the rest of us, or some simply opt not to accept Medicare patients (in which case you are out of luck). Despite the fact that Medicare pays so little, it is on the road to fiscal insolvency because of the inefficiencies, waste fraud and abuse inherent to a single payer, government run system (just like the one some people want to foist onto the rest of us).

Along comes Paul Ryan and proposes a comprehensive budget plan that takes on sacrosanct albeit inefficient entitlement programs (including Medicare), and the demagogues predictably come out of the woodwork with images of Republicans wanting to push granny over the cliff. Perhaps it would help to know exactly what Mr. Ryan has proposed doing with Medicare:

For those who are 55 and older and otherwise close to retirement, the Ryan plan changes absolutely nothing. Fair is fair. If people have been paying into Medicare all of their lives, they are entitled to what was promised to them. However, if I were in their shoes, I would wish I could opt for what Mr. Ryan is proposing for the rest of us.
For those less than 55, the plan proposes phasing out Medicare in favor of subsidizing senior citizens buying a private insurance plan of their choice. The plan would be means tested in the sense that those who are totally reliant on a modest retirement income would have most if not all of their premiums paid by the government, while those who are more well off would receive less of a government subsidy.

Funny, but it seems to me that the Ryan plan for Medicare is very similar to the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) program, which I happen to enjoy as a federal employee. FEHB offers up a host of government approved insurance companies who compete for the business of 2 million federal workers, who in turn get to choose from among various insurance plans based on their particular needs and preferences. As a federal employee, I pay for one fourth of the premiums while the government pays for three fourths. As an additional incentive for me to remain as a career federal employee until I am eligible to retire, this nice little arrangement will continue into retirement. (On a side note, I have about three years to go and, though I desperately wish I could go on and do something else, the insurance incentive is probably the main thing that is causing me to persevere.)

The other “funny” thing is that this arrangement only lasts until I turn 65, at which point (under current law) I am forced to go on Medicare instead. I would much rather keep what I have, which is very similar to what is being proposed in the Ryan plan. Anyone in their right mind would prefer this over Medicare in its current form, which is on its way to insolvency anyway unless it is restructured.

As usual, the demagogues are intellectually and morally bankrupt on this issue. If they were really interested in the welfare of the elderly, they would embrace the Ryan plan, which not only puts in place the structural reforms necessary to keep Medicare solvent, but also gives seniors the freedom to make their own choices. But that would take away power from paternalistic politicians, and we can’t have that now, can we?

Disliking Demagoguery

2011-05-20T22:06:00.002-04:00

dem•a•gogue noun \ˈde-mə-ˌgäg\ a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
dem•a•gogu•er•y (d m -gô g -r , ) noun\ The practices or rhetoric of a demagogue.

In my last post I wrote about the demagoguery employed in the debate over the “Debit Card Rule”, but plenty of other examples abound. Politicians love to use class warfare or other means to demonize entire categories or groups of people in order to stir the populace into a frenzy. Their goal is to make the latter clamor for passage of new laws, which ultimately grant more power to politicians.

The classes of villains that politicians conjure up to scare the masses are predictable. They usually include the so-called “rich” (vaguely defined as anyone who makes significantly more money than you do) or any noun preceded by the modifier “big” as in “big business”, “big corporations”, “big banks” “big insurance companies” or “big oil”. (Another curious characteristic of demagogues is their limited vocabulary.)

“Big corporations” are an easy target for disingenuous demagogues who thrive on people’s ignorance of what constitutes a corporation. Politicians thrive on conjuring up the image of a corporation that is wholly owned by an evil tycoon, a J.R. Ewing type. They trot out the image of a fat cat, overpaid Chief Executive Officer, as if he were the sole proprietor of a huge conglomerate that makes money hand over fist at the expense of the environment and by exploiting the little guy.

But what is, in fact, a corporation? Most “big” corporations are publically traded companies. That is, ownership of the company is broadly spread to thousands of stockholders by virtue of the shares they own. Who are these shareholders? I am sure some of them are of the sort that is another favorite target of demagogues, the Warren Buffet types, the Wall Street mega investors. But I am equally certain that the majority of the shares are owned by ordinary people like you and me, who own company stock either directly or as part of the mutual funds within their IRAs and 401-Ks. Their stocks are found in the pension funds of federal and state government workers, even teachers’ unions—all of which makes me wonder why everyone gets so upset when corporations make a handsome profit. Isn’t that what they are supposed to do?

Something else individual shareholders like us might be aware of—that is, if the demagogues haven’t lulled us into not noticing—is that we pay taxes on the profits of the corporations of which we are part owners. The dividends we receive from our mutual funds and individual stock is our share of the profit, and we are appropriately taxed for it. That wouldn’t be so bad, but our company as a whole pays another hefty “corporate tax” on top of that. Thanks to the demagogues, the USA has the second highest corporate tax rates in the world. And then the demagogues complain that the corporations have the audacity to pull up their stakes and move elsewhere.

As for the corporations that stay and have to pay taxes through the nose and otherwise deal with onerous regulation, how do you think they cope with it? Do they just cry in their beer and resign themselves to making less money because of their heavy tax burden? Of course not! The taxes are just another cost of doing business, so it is passed on in the cost of goods and services they provide. So who pays the corporate income taxes? As usual, we do. But the demagogues will ease the pain by trying to make us feel good that they are sticking it to those rich fat cats and standing up for the little guy.

When will we ever learn?

Debit Card Demagoguery

2011-05-14T15:29:00.001-04:00

Lately I have been inundated with lots of pro and con advocacy ads about a certain “debit card rule”. To be honest, I am woefully ignorant about the details and I have not done any research on the subject, but I think I have been able to glean the following:

Back in December, Congress passed some rule limiting the amount that banks were allowed to charge merchants for transactions involving debit cards;
Currently, Congress is considering delaying, modifying or stopping implementation of this rule out of concern (among other reasons) that these limitations will hurt smaller banks;
Large retailers are crying foul and have started an advertising campaign talking about how “big banks” are getting another “bailout”;
On the other side, banks are screaming that the so called “debit card rule” is a “gift” to “big retailers”.

So who is right? To find out, let us first consider a little background and history.

Not so very long ago in a saner albeit not as convenient era of our economy, most if not all of our financial transactions were conducted in cash. Credit cards, to the extent that they were accepted by merchants, were limited to the creditworthy. Most merchants preferred to deal in cash. If they did accept credit cards, it was not just a simple matter of swiping the card through the slot. Do you remember the time when they would have to pull out those cumbersome contraptions that imprint the merchant’s financial identification and information from your credit card onto a triplicate carbon copy sales slip? They also had to check in a tiny booklet printed in six point font to make sure that your credit card was not on some black list. And given the inconvenience and extra costs to the merchant associated with a credit card transaction (including a kickback to the issuing bank), most merchants did not accept a credit card if the transaction was less than a minimum amount, usually $10.

We have come a long way since then, thanks to the miracles of the internet and electronic financial transactions. Credit cards are universally accepted by all types of merchants large and small: retail stores, gas stations, fast food restaurants, etc. Even vending machines accept credit cards. It has largely now become a matter of convenience, to the point where it is now possible to function in society without carrying cash in one’s pocket. It is a nice little arrangement because everybody wins:

Consumers win because they don't have to carry cash or make multiple trips to the bank to replenish it. They have the convenience of having all their transactions automatically recorded, and can pay for all of them at once when the credit card statement arrives (assuming they are responsible consumers who live within their means);
Merchants win for many of the same reasons. In addition, the added convenience of credit cards and electronic transactions almost certainly boosts sales, adding to their bottom line, even if they have to pay a small percentage to the issuing bank.

Debit cards, while equally convenient, work a little differently. Instead of extending credit until the balance is paid via a monthly statement, debit card transactions directly deduct the sales amount from the consumer’s bank account. Debit cards are good for consumers who are not creditworthy enough for a credit card, or for those who want to impose some self discipline in order to live within their means.

Based on my limited understanding from the pro and con advocacy ads, the issuing bank gets a kickback from debit cards as well as from credit cards. I am not sure whether it is based on a percentage, or a set “swipe fee” for each transaction, or what. I can only conclude that the retailers think banks are charging too much, and their point of view won the day back in December, and now they are crying foul because Congress is reconsidering the matter.

I, for one, am not taking anyone’s side on the issue. Rather, I am asking the question: Why is it the federal government’s business to be involved in voluntary transactions between private entities, namely consumers, merchants and banks?

If a bank charges too much for debit or credit card transactions, the merchant has one of three options: (1) not accept those cards and deal only in cash, (2) absorb the cost in light of the extra business that is stimulated by the convenience of credit or debit cards, or (3) pass the cost on to the consumer, in whole or in part.

If the merchant chooses to pass the costs on to the consumer, the latter has the option to (1) accept the cost in light of the convenience of using a debit or credit card, (2) accept the inconvenience of dealing in cash if that means the price is lower or (3) choose another merchant with lower prices.

The banks have invested the capital and the infrastructure to make these transactions possible. They provide a service that facilitates commerce, making it convenient and easy for everyone involved. They obviously need to charge a fee to not only recover their investment, but also to (gasp!) make a profit. If their rate structure is too onerous and adversely affects either the merchant or consumer, these will likely vote with their feet and choose to deal in cash, which will reduce the banks’ profits and likely cause them to reconsider their ways. (It would likely result in many more trips to ATMs Which reminds me, by the way, how years ago the federal government wanted to regulate how much banks could charge for ATM transactions, again not considering the fact that (a) banks have a right to charge fees for the service and convenience they provide and (b) use of an ATM is completely voluntary and therefore subject to competition, which keeps the price down without government intervention.)

Free and voluntary commerce among banks, retailers and consumers, conducted in an informed environment with free and open competition on a level playing field, works quite nicely to keep prices down. There is no need to make rules pitting one party against the other. They can sort it among themselves. It is none of the federal government’s business!

A Murderer and a Blasphemer

2011-05-02T23:20:00.003-04:00

I was very tired Sunday evening and went to bed early. I must have needed it because I fell asleep right away, even over the distant sound of the television my wife was watching in the next room. At around 11:00 pm. I was suddenly awakened by my wife’s excited voice:

“Osama bin Laden is dead. The Navy Seals captured him in Pakistan”

“Okay, cool. Will he still be dead in the morning?”

Yes, I admit. It was flippant. But I was sleepy.

With a good night’s sleep behind me and a clearer head, my attitude is a little more serious. However, it is altogether different from the reaction of the general public. You will not catch me jumping for jubilation, dancing in the street and chanting, “USA! USA!”or rejoicing that the sword of retribution has finally fallen.

Don’t get me wrong. I am thrilled that bin Laden has been brought to justice. My heartfelt gratitude and congratulations go to everyone involved in making this operation a success: from the president and his advisors to our intelligence personnel and armed forces, and especially the heroic Navy Seals who skillfully and bravely executed their mission perfectly.

But my feelings about bin Laden do not in any way resemble jubilation that he got what was coming to him. If I wanted to feel vengeful, I would have not wished him the death delivered to him by the Navy Seals. Rather, I would have wished him the death of King Jehoram, a wicked Old Testament King:

In the course of time, at the end of the second year, his bowels came out because of the disease, and he died in great pain … He passed away, to no one’s regret. (2 Chronicles 21:19-20)

Though bin Laden’s actions deserved death, I am not rejoicing over his death. I am actually sad, even though it was right and just that he die. Now death is the least of bin Laden’s problems. Assuming he actually believed the twisted Islamic theology he espoused while alive, in death he will not be enjoying the rivers of wine and the 72 virgins he was expecting, but rather the unspeakable horrors of falling into the hands of God’s justice.

Do you think it is a good thing that bin Laden is now receiving divine justice? After all, he was a mass murderer and worse than that, he was blaspheming God by murdering in His name. Be careful here. I know of another murderer and blasphemer who ended up with a completely different fate:

Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. (I Timothy 1:13)

Saul of Tarsus was a violent persecutor of Christians and was responsible for many of their deaths at the dawn of the church. What’s more, he was doing it all in the name of God. Does the comparison with bin Laden offend you? It would not have offended Saul, who called himself the "chief of sinners". I see only three differences between the two men:

Bin Laden had the advantages of modern technology that enabled him to kill more effectively and on a mass scale.
Saul had an encounter with the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus, causing him to repent of his sins and dedicate his life to Jesus.
Though only God knows for sure, all indications are that bin Laden died in his sins. His last action while alive, using one of his many wives as a human shield, does not give much hope that he even took a second to consider his ways and ask for God’s mercy.

Do you think that Saul of Tarsus was more deserving of God’s grace than Osama bin Laden? If your answer is yes, then you don’t understand God’s grace, because the words “deserving” and “grace” are mutually exclusive. Neither Saul of Tarsus nor Osama bin Laden nor you or I are deserving of God’s grace. God extends grace freely to whom He chooses, not based on whether we deserve it, but based on His own will and purpose. He extended His grace to Saul of Tarsus and (I am persuaded) to me as well, but apparently not to Osama bin Laden. And that is why Osama bin Laden’s death makes me sad. On the other hand, I am unspeakably grateful to God for His mercy on me.

My Turn to Whine

2011-04-08T09:26:00.002-04:00

No, I am not whining because I am an about to be furloughed federal employee. If the government shuts down, I will survive. So will the rest of the country. My beef today is about something that is much more petty and parochial, though on second thought, it might be a microcosm of the larger debate that is going on with regard to the size, scope and level of accountability of government. It has to do with a quasi-governmental organization: The Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, affectionately known as “Metro”.

As a federal employee, I commute into DC every day, taking the Maryland Commuter (“MARC”) train into Washington’s Union Station and then hopping on the Metro to my final destination. I have heard people whine about Metro for years: It is too crowded, they are too strict in not allowing food or drink on the rail cars, there are too many breakdowns, etc. etc. Though there is some legitimacy to these complaints, I have always maintained that the Washington Metro system is one of the best if not the best in the nation. The modern rail cars and the stations are clean and comfortable; the service is relatively predictable and reliable, and the metro stations are well lit and safe. If anyone wants to whine about the Washington Metro, they should first check out the dingy and dangerous New York subway system, or Chicago’s slow and rickety L trains.

But now, even my love affair with the Metro has started to strain. It all started when several months ago, an escalator malfunction caused it to stop suddenly and cause some substantial injury to a metro rider. In a classic case of government over-reaction, Metro was made to embark on a multi-month project to overhaul the escalators. The repairs have been anything but minor, and escalators have been out of commission for months, causing long human traffic jams as up-bound and down-bound passengers must squeeze single file onto the same narrow escalator.

I can be patient with such an inconvenience for a day or two, maybe even a week. But it has been several months now. I am willing to bet that this could have been taken care of much faster and cheaper by a wholesale replacement of the old escalators with new ones. What is the holdup?

As previously mentioned, the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority is a quasi-governmental organization. As such, they have a virtual monopoly. If they were a private organization or at least had some competition, I can guarantee they would not be causing major and prolonged inconveniences or disruptions to their passengers, lest the latter start voting with their feet and seeking alternatives elsewhere. Alas, like many “services” provided by governmental or quasi-governmental organizations, Metro is the only game in town. So together with thousands upon thousands of daily commuters, I have no choice but to line up amidst the crowds waiting to squeeze onto one non-working escalator, and read the signs about how Metro is working to better serve me.

Why not settle the matter now?

2011-03-21T20:54:00.003-04:00

You would think that the Obama Administration would like to settle the constitutionality of it’s sweeping healthcare “reform” act sooner rather than later. After all, it was struck down twice by two federal judges, one in Florida and one in Virginia. Given all the effort that went into ramrodding it through Congress over the people’s wishes, don’t you think they would want to put some effort into assuring those efforts come to full and unfettered fruition by ascertaining that the law passes constitutional muster?

Certainly those against the act, particularly the states that will have to invest untold resources to enact it, want the matter settled soon, and they have filed motions to that effect. But for some reason, the Administration is not interested in speeding things up. According to a Washington Post article, in response to Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s motion to go directly to the Supreme Court,

The Justice Department has indicated publicly that while it supported speeding appellate court review, it believed immediate Supreme Court action was unnecessary given that the individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014. Now, they have formalized that opinion in a legal brief filed with the court late Monday.

Neither is the Administration interested in speeding up the process in the Florida case, where the judge ruled in favor of 26 states challenging the law, indicating that the individual insurance mandate was unconstitutional . Judge Roger Vinson went even further, stating that the individual mandate is an essential and non-severable part of the law, and therefore the entire statute is unconstitutional. When the Administration basically ignored his ruling and did not even file an appeal, an exasperated Judge Vinson issued another ruling giving them seven days to file an appeal to the 11th circuit.

So why is the Administration putting on the brakes? Could it be that they know full well that they will lose on the merits of the case, and they would rather that the federal and state governments continue in their expensive implementation efforts in hopes of passing a point of no return, a point where voiding the law would be impractical and expensive, so even an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling can put them in a position to demagogue the Congress into merely tweaking the law to pass constitutional muster instead of throwing it onto a well deserved scrap heap?

Sometimes They Listen

2011-03-11T22:34:00.000-05:00

After 97 posts on “The Maryland Crustacean”, I am finally writing something about the State of Maryland. Well, sort of. Last night I sent emails to at least 16 members of the Maryland House of Delegates. Each individually addressed message was short and sweet:

I am writing to respectfully urge you to vote NO on any bill attempting to legalize marriage for same sex couples. Such a bill would make a mockery of the institution of marriage and would further erode the social and moral fabric of our state and nation.

To be honest, I was not optimistic that any write-in or call-in campaign would have any effect on Maryland politicians. Though I love this beautiful state where I have lived all my life, it is hopelessly liberal in its politics. We have one of the nation’s highest tax rates, and Democrats hold a three-to-one edge in registered voters, who mindlessly elect liberal Democrats, who in turn show their gratitude by raising taxes even higher and passing legislation that is diametrically opposed to the moral values of their constituents. This is especially true in Baltimore City and in my home county of Prince George’s, where larger left leaning populations more than offset the more conservative rural counties.

Given the political demographics of my state and the buildup of momentum in support of the deceptively named “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act,”, I was resigned to the probability that Maryland would be the next domino to fall in the descent toward “gay marriage” So imagine my surprise when I received an email reply from one of my county’s delegates thanking me for my support and informing me that the bill was returned to the Judiciary Committee in a tacit acknowledgement that there were not enough votes for the bill to pass. I was particularly pleased to learn that many of the delegates listened to the outcry from African American churches. As reported by Reuters,

Gay rights supporters anticipated success this year in a handful of states -- Maryland, New York and Rhode Island -- due largely to newly elected lawmakers expected to tip the balance in favor of making gay marriage legal. Maryland legislators on Friday, however, dashed those hopes. In a spirited debate, many African American delegates said they felt pressured to act according to the wishes of their constituency, including black churches opposed to using the word "marriage" to describe same-sex relationships

So I am celebrating this evening because, at least in this one instance, democracy worked. Sometimes they do listen to the people. But my celebration is sobered by the thought that what almost passed in the State of Maryland is even a matter of serious debate. There are plenty of reasons for this, but I will focus on one. It does not have so much to do with homosexuality and civil rights, but rather with marriage itself.

In a previous post entitled Libertarianism and Legislating Morality I questioned why government was involved in the marriage business at all. It is, after all, a religious sacrament. I imagine that, absent government involvement, those who are not religiously inclined enough to tie the knot in church would just decide to live together. Many in fact do.

So how did the government get involved? Other than the unfortunate blurring of church and state throughout history, I imagine that a sensible government would have a compelling interest in preserving marriage as a building block to a stable society. It would also want to establish certain protections for women and children from being abandoned by perfidious husbands or fathers who no longer had any use for them. This was very much the case before it became so easy to get a divorce, when marriage was actually expected to be a lifelong commitment. Now it is just a contractual arrangement that confers certain legal rights and tax advantages, easily dissolvable should one or both parties decide to call it quits. No wonder gays want in on the act. (They might otherwise think twice if it were truly “till death do us part”.)

So hooray for Maryland (at least for now) for not falling to politically correct forces clamoring for “gay marriage”. On the other hand, I don’t think this issue is going away. Maybe the better solution is to get government out of the marriage business.

Why do they hate you?

2011-02-12T10:51:00.002-05:00

I generally enjoy listening to Bill O’Reilly, but with regard to his interview last week with President Obama, I find myself in strange agreement with O’Reilly’s detractors.

On balance, it was about as good an interview as you can expect for a live exchange in a limited time frame and in front of an audience with a limited attention span. One of the criticisms was that O’Reilly seemed rude and disrespectful by repeatedly interrupting the President. The following day on The O’Reilly Factor, he defended himself by noting that it was indeed a live interview limited to a short time span, and his interruptions were designed to keep the President on track and not let him “run out the clock”.

Fair enough, but his interruptions did seem repeated, noticeable and somewhat annoying. But the one part of the interview where O’Reilly really fared poorly was in the following exchange:

O'REILLY: I asked this to President Bush when I talked to him a few weeks ago. Does it disturb you that so many people hate you? No. I mean, it's a serious question.

OBAMA: You know, the truth is, that the people -- and I'm sure previous presidents would say the same thing, whether it was Bush or Clinton or Reagan or anybody. The people who dislike you don't know you.

O'REILLY: They hate you.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black, opined that O’Reilly was being disrespectful.

While we may disagree with people and we think they are wrong, we shouldn't think they are bad and we shouldn't ever use the word hate in context of people unless you're talking about Hitler or somebody like that,

In his defense the next evening on The Factor, O’Reilly correctly pointed out (as he had done in his preface to the question) that he had asked President Bush the same question weeks prior, and no one (least of all Ms. Pelosi) thought he was being disrespectful back then.

I myself winced when O’Reilly emphatically repeated “They hate you!”, but not because I think he was being disrespectful. Rather, he was unwittingly doing a slanderous disservice to those who legitimately disagree with the President’s policies and vision for the country.

There are very few if any policy areas where I am in agreement with the president. Whether we are talking about social issues, the economy, the size and scope of government, energy, national security or America’s role on the world stage, I believe the President is wrong and misguided. His policy prescriptions will ultimately prove harmful to the nation. But on a personal level, he seems to be a nice enough guy. Even if he were personally obnoxious, I might find him annoying, but I certainly don’t hate the man.

To say that the President’s detractors “hate” him would give credence to the insane and shrill accusations of several weeks ago, when the left and the media were blaming the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords on conservative “hate speech”. What the left calls hate speech is nothing more than a matter-of-fact and serious disagreement on fundamental issues. I challenge anyone who thinks that the right has been incendiary or hateful in its speech to do some internet research and catalogue a side-by-side comparison of what has been said by and about politicians and pundits on the left vs. the right, which side has been guilty of name calling, invective and shallow potshots vs. which side has generally stuck to substantive disagreements over policy. In this age of Google it should be pretty easy to do.

No, I don’t hate the President. I simply disagree.

Life and Liberty

2011-01-23T15:53:00.001-05:00

I mentioned in my post the other day that even a libertarian can believe that abortion should be outlawed. Why? Life begins at conception, as any intellectually honest medical scientist will concede. Once we have established the individuality and humanity of the unborn, they are vested with the same right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as the rest of us.

I was thinking about the issue in church this morning when I was reminded that today is “Sanctity of Human Life Sunday”. The italics in the last sentence are intentional, because it bothers me that I had to be reminded.

Even before President Reagan proclaimed January 22, 1984 as the first “National Sanctity of Human Life Day“, I was consistently involved in the pro-life movement. I faithfully participated in the annual March for Life; I supported pro-life crisis pregnancy centers; and, in my more radical days, I even picketed abortion clinics.

My convictions on the subject have not changed in the least, but my fervor and level of interest have definitely declined (except for continuing to support the good work of crisis pregnancy centers) and I wonder why.

Part of it might be a good thing. Particularly given the sensitivities involved in something as intimate and personal as a crisis pregnancy, it is most unfortunate that abortion has been so politicized. I remember when I participated in the March for Life how I felt uncomfortable with the sundry placards, shouts and chants that made portions of it seem like a combination pep rally and freak show. Don’t get me wrong. Most everyone there was very well meaning, and on balance, the March did and continues to do much good, if nothing else by continuing to prick the conscience of a hardened nation.

But shouting and slogans don’t exactly win friends and influence people, especially people facing crisis pregnancies, as well as people dealing with the inevitable guilt and shame of having had an abortion or having encouraged or paid for one. That is one reason I continue to enthusiastically support the efforts of crisis pregnancy centers. The Bowie-Crofton Pregnancy Clinic in my community and many others like it freely provide compassionate, professional and confidential services and counseling to women facing crisis pregnancies. May God continue to bless their work and give them much success in reaching women and families in crisis pregnancies, educating people and saving lives.

The extent to which any decrease in fervor on my part has been accompanied by an increase in mercy and compassion is a good thing. Yet I am nonetheless concerned that my consciousness of the issue has waned. In addition to financially supporting the good work of others, may I pray for their efforts, and humbly take advantage of any opportunity to educate and persuade others on the sanctity of human life.

Libertarianism and Legislating Morality

2011-01-20T21:21:00.004-05:00

In my last post I mentioned how I am increasingly sympathetic to the libertarian point of view, although I am not quite there yet. One of the reasons I am still a little uncomfortable and unconvinced has to do with moral law. Despite the old and stupid adage that says “You can’t legislate morality” (What else are you going to legislate and why would you otherwise legislate anything?), all law has a basis in morality. Even the basic libertarian concession to the proper role of government,--to allow for the “least intrusive government consistent with the maximum freedom of each individual as long as he doesn't interfere with other individuals pursuing their own freedom”--is itself based in moral law. Does anyone remember the “Golden Rule”: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”?

As a Christian during most of my adult life, I have identified to a great extent with what has been derisively called the “religious right”. But I can also sympathize with the revulsion some might feel toward this movement. Though I agree with the moral concerns of “values voters” and their right to express them in the political arena, the zeal with which the message is conveyed often drowns out the mercy and compassion that are also supposed to be part of their message. I fully agree with them, for example, that abortion and homosexuality are egregious sins. But then again, so are heterosexual adultery and fornication, groundless divorce and other forms of spousal abandonment, cheating on your income tax and other forms of theft, all forms of deceit ranging from simple lies to full scale perjury, harsh words spoken in anger, and (last, but certainly not least) hypocrisy, pride or self-righteous attitudes toward those who practice any of the above. All these and countless other unlisted evils are equally effective at evoking divine displeasure.

Take another look at the litany of sins listed in the previous paragraph. You might agree that government has an obvious role in prohibiting some of them (theft, cheating on your income tax, perjury) while others belong to the realm of the church and individual relationships. Most would agree that the government has no role in controlling hypocrisy, pride, self-righteousness, etc: they are simply and generally frowned upon as a matter of common decency.

But what about some of the other items listed, which might fall in between? I can make an argument even from a libertarian point of view that abortion should be outlawed simply because I am convinced--not only by moral law but also by medical science--that abortion involves the taking of a human life. But what about some of the so-called “victimless crimes?” In particular, I am wondering what is the proper role of government in the sexual realm:

In the last post, I brought up the example of prostitution. Does the government have a right to prohibit “person A” from paying for the sexual favors of “person B” if it is indeed a truly voluntary transaction, between consenting adults? What if payment is in something other than cash, like a nice dinner and evening out? Is the former considered prostitution and the latter not? Again, don’t get me wrong. Even the thought of it is morally reprehensible, but do libertarians have a point in saying that the government should have no role in this matter? Why or why not?
It wasn’t long ago that most states in the union actually had laws proscribing homosexual behavior. Of course such laws were largely unenforceable, and most law enforcement authorities had neither the stomach nor the interest of even trying. I guess libertarians (as well as practicing homosexuals) are happy that these laws are no longer on the books, but they at least made a statement as to what constituted acceptable and unacceptable behavior in the sexual realm. Is that a proper role for government? Why or why not?
I often wonder what libertarians think about the government’s role in the institution of marriage. The sacredness of marriage was and is reflected by its celebration as a religious sacrament. I am guessing that the history of government’s role in the institution is probably two fold: (a) it goes back to times and societies when the line between church and state was blurred, for better or for worse (usually worse); (b) governments and societies have recognized their compelling interest in promoting and preserving marriage as a means of fostering healthy family units as part of a well ordered society. It also protected women and children from abandonment. The state’s compelling interest in preserving marriage and the family used to be reflected in how difficult it once was to obtain a divorce. Before the advent of “no-fault” divorce laws, there had to be a compelling reason to justify a divorce. If the sanctity of marriage vows was not sufficient to keep struggling couples from parting ways, the extra layers of social opprobrium and legal impediments against an easy divorce often preserved the union. Now those safety nets are largely non-existent, and marriage from a governmental point of view has been reduced to nothing more than a contract, similar to a limited partnership or an S-corporation, which is easily dissolved upon request of one or both parties. Given this sad state of affairs, why should government be involved in “licensing” marriages at all? (On a side note and referring back to item 2, if the government were no longer involved in the marriage business, it would largely pull out the rug from the absurd argument that homosexuals should have the right to marry. If the government law were indeed neutral or indifferent as to whether or not people were “married”, I suspect there would be precious few homosexuals lining up at the courthouse door for a civil union.)

Anyway, I have not yet come to a conclusion as to what I think is the proper role of government in these areas. At this point I am thinking out loud. I would welcome your thoughts and opinions.

Tilting Toward Libertarianism

2011-01-18T20:00:00.003-05:00

As a teenager and as a young adult, I pegged myself on the left side of the political spectrum. I called myself a liberal, which is of course a misnomer. Those who call themselves liberal today typically look to the government as the promoter and guarantor of the general welfare. In their view, the government is somehow to achieve this noble end through regulation, control and even ownership of economic activity; by redistributing wealth; or by incentivizing desired human behavior through regulation or the tax code. I prefer to label this ideology for what it is: statism.

My own ideology has since evolved to what is commonly labeled “conservative”. I prefer to call myself a “classical liberal”, if for no other purpose than to confuse, irritate or otherwise arouse the curiosity of those on the left. But “classical liberal” is indeed a more accurate term than “conservative”, because it describes the philosophy of America’s founding fathers. Our founders rebelled against government tyranny and cherished individual freedom. I subscribe to that maxim which is attributed to Thomas Jefferson and/or Thomas Paine: "The government is best which governs least."

Paine took the maxim a step further: "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." I am not willing to go that far, which is why I have generally shied away from calling myself a libertarian. Indeed, if I accepted Paine’s application, I would have to go as far as Henry David Thoreau, who in his Essay on Civil Disobedience added:

Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.

Tempting as it might be, I cannot call government a necessary evil, first and foremost because I am a Christian. The Scriptures make it clear that, even while governments can be corrupt, they are to be respected and submitted to as long as they are following their divinely ordained role of suppressing evil (See Romans 13:1-7). Furthermore, I am a government employee, for crying out loud! Surely, I see many legitimate roles for government, even if I abhor the idea of a cradle-to-grave nanny state. But I must confess to having increasing difficulty knowing exactly where to draw the line. For some issues, it is easy; others, not so much.

For example, my “liberal” friends often present me with the shallow argument of “How can you be a Christian and not believe in helping the poor? Doesn’t Jesus tell you to sell your possessions and give to the poor? Didn’t the believers in the first church hold all their possessions in common, as recorded in Acts 4:32-35?" That argument is so easy to refute it is laughable, especially when it is coming from a liberal who otherwise has little use for religion in general or Christianity in particular. First of all, I do believe in helping the poor. Christian charity and helping “the least of these” is commendable, especially when it is not done under compulsion, for “God loves a cheerful giver”. On the other hand, liberals, socialists and other sundry leftists, who otherwise correctly insist on the separation of church and state, have no qualms about using the power of the state to help the poor by confiscating other people’s money. Christian charity ceases to be charity when it is imposed by the state. If my liberal friends are interested in helping their fellow man, they can reach into their own pockets, as I will endeavor to voluntarily reach into mine.

A libertarian would applaud my argument, but he might also accuse me of inconsistency because I do not apply it to other commonly accepted areas of government intervention. For example, I have no problem with government controlling or proscribing morally repugnant behavior. A case in point: most states have laws against prostitution, which arguably can be viewed as a voluntary transaction between consenting adults. What business does the government have intervening as long as the transaction is indeed mutually voluntary and no one is being hurt or exploited. Yes, it is morally repugnant from a Christian point of view, but why should the government impose Christian morality in this case any more than in the previous example of trying to help the poor?

If indeed less government is better government, where does one draw the line? I had been thinking a lot about this question when I ran across an interview of the late Milton Friedman, which was recently republished by the Hoover Institution: TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism.

In this very informative and worthwhile interview, Friedman first clarified the issue by drawing a distinction between two strands of libertarianism:

The more extreme version of libertarianism has one central principle- it is immoral to initiate force on anyone else. … So the coercive power of the state is immoral in and of itself...and all you need to know that something of the state is immoral is whether it involves the initiation of force. That's one brand, now there's another brand which is one I would be favorable to, which you could call consequentialist libertarianism. [It] wants the smallest, least intrusive government consistent with the maximum freedom of each individual, as long as he doesn't interfere with other individuals pursuing their own freedom.

The former, more extreme version of libertarianism is in line with Paine and Thoreau: government force of any kind is at best a necessary evil. But even the more benign “consequentialist” version of libertarianism preferred by Friedman leaves me in the same conundrum. In this interview, Friedman explained his libertarian objections to some historical and generally accepted examples of government intervention, such as child labor laws, the regulation of food and drugs, environmental laws, civil rights laws, etc. He argued that in some cases, the commendable ends achieved by some of these laws would have happened more quickly if the government had not intervened. In the case of civil rights laws, he argued that the problem of racial inequality (particularly in the south) was in fact the result of government law. :

[T]hat was a case of too much government. The government provided for a separation. It was the government that enforced separate areas for blacks and whites; it was the government that enforced the law that the blacks had to sit at the back of buses. Those were all government laws!...In the absence of government laws, you would've had a gradual development, it would've taken place somewhere and not everywhere and you would've...look what happened in the north where there weren't those government laws. There may have been, undoubtedly don't misunderstand me, there is prejudice, there's no question, and undoubtedly it has bad affects on various people but in the absence of the laws in the south it would've broken down much faster and much earlier. If you could cite any case for libertarianism, that's it.

Though Friedman’s arguments can be compelling, I am not quite convinced. Though I find myself increasingly sympathetic toward libertarians, I still see plenty of legitimate roles for government to which libertarians would object. I will still call myself a classical liberal or – if you insist – a conservative.

In the meantime, I highly recommend that you give the Friedman interview a thoughtful listen, no matter where you are on the political spectrum. I would be interested in knowing your thoughts.

Already and Not Yet

2010-12-25T23:48:00.006-05:00

It has been quite a while since my last post. I am not sure whether it has been due to writer’s block, a temporary loss of interest or inspiration, or a spate of laziness or lethargy. I figured I would try to break the inertia at Christmas by doing what I did last year, and post an adaptation of my annual Christmas letter. I try to write one each year with the dual purpose of recounting family news from the previous year and even coming up with something inspirational in keeping with the holiday.

I also suffer from writer’s block occasionally when trying to draft the Christmas letter. This puts me into a panic when Christmas is less than two weeks away and the muses still have not shown up. Part of my writer’s block this year may have been due to a fear of boring the reader by repetition. It does indeed seem that each year is a mixed bag of good news and bad news, joys and sorrows, births and deaths. 2010 was no exception.

The ups and downs of life notwithstanding, what seems to stand out the most is the calm and contentedness of daily life. I am livnig comfortably with a steady job, something that ten percent or more of our population cannot say in this current economy. Two of my three children are grown and out of the house, and I have two beautiful grandchildren. An adult autistic son is living in a group home, and though I occasoinally think of what might have been were it not for his condition, and I still pray for a miraculous healing, I am also aware that God may glorify himself through him in other ways short of healing him. The same is true for our fifteen year old daughter who still lives with us. Autism notwithstanding, she is rather happy and contented, which usually means that my wife and I are happy and contented too! With the new found calm and relative predictability of our home, we have much more time to enjoy each other’s company. Sometimes we act like newlyweds! Desipite occasional trials ranging from minor annoyance to more substanial adversity, I sometimes feel like I have a little piece of heaven on earth.

This is indeed a very contented stage of life, perhaps typical of a fifty-something. Life is good. I think of Paul’s words to the Philippians:

I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. (Philippians 4:11-12)

I can relate to Paul, not because I can hold a candle to the level of hardship and adversity that he went through, but because there is indeed an underlying contentment even when things are not going well. This is what I was thinking of as Christmas approached this year and I was trying to figure out what to write.

At Christmas we celebrate the arrival of the Kingdom of God in the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. In his well known prophecy, Isaiah announced in advance that God’s kingdom would arrive in just this way:

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

Of course, with the birth of Jesus,, His Kingdom had only arrived in part. He still had to announce the Gospel of the Kingdom and to complete his mission of dying on the cross for our sins and rising from the dead, but even with all this accomplished, theologians tell us that the Kingdom of God is “already here, but not yet”. What is that all about? Talk about a contradiction in terms!

The Scriptures make many references to the Kingdom of God having arrived in part, giving us a foretaste of things to come. The Apostle Paul teaches us that God has “set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.” (2 Corinthians 1:22)

Elsewhere, the Apostle John reassures us::

Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. (I_John 3:2)

These are all indications that we have a taste of the kingdom of God, but the thing that we long for and know will eventually come is not yet here. Through faith in the Lord and what He has done for us, we can trust that our sins are forgiven. We even see the activity of God’s Spirit in our lives, so we can say with the Psalmist,

Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the one who takes refuge in him. (Psalm 34:8)

And the Lord gives us blessings in abundance, particularly the love we experience among our family, friends and neighbors. So the Kingdom of God is here… and yet… there is much in this world indicating that it is not here yet. Amidst the joy and blessing, we also see pain, sickness and death. There remains much sadness and malice in this world. And if we are honest with ourselves, we realize that there is some malice in our own hearts too.

At Christmas we celebrate the arrival of God’s Kingdom in the birth of the baby Jesus. We remember our blessings and we wait with hope for the day His Kingdom will arrive in all its fullness. As the Apostle John said in Revelation:

And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’[a] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away (Revelation_21:13)

He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. (Revelation 22:20)

Here's to a blessed Christmas season and a joyful 2011, and may the Kingdom of God reign in our hearts!

We Hold These Truths…

2010-09-30T21:38:00.012-04:00

President Obama’s recent faux pas did not get much coverage in the media (At least as far as I know.) Actually, it didn’t even get too much coverage on right wing talk radio or Fox News either. In case you have not heard it, he left out some pivotal words in his speech before the Hispanic Caucus, when he attempted to quote from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed […] with certain inalienable rights: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Now I am not here to make hay about the President’s omission of the key words “by their Creator”. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that it was just an innocent mental blip, or perhaps it was the speechwriter’s fault and the President was just following the teleprompter. I will not even attempt to draw any conclusions about his motives or what the omission might reveal.

What I find most revealing is that so few people noticed, and I don’t think it is because the President has apologists in the media who continue to cover for him. I think the omission is more reflective of a zeitgeist which takes the idea of human rights for granted but no longer thinks through why we have such rights and why they are “inalienable”.

Let’s take a closer look at the Declaration.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…

Jefferson called this truth “self-evident” in the sense that it was beyond dispute, that no reasonable person could disagree. But actually, if we take that phrase in isolation, these truths are not self-evident. Anyone with even the slightest powers of observation will tell you that we are not equal. Just look at people’s physical build or strength or intellect or talent: equality is not the first thing that comes to mind. So what were Jefferson and company talking about? Were they referring to human worth in general or human dignity? Perhaps, but exactly what is human dignity? Dignity according to whom? Why do humans have more dignity than animals? Or do they?

Well, let’s read the rest of the sentence:

… that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights: that among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Here, the founding fathers give at least one sense in which all men are equal, that they all have “certain inalienable rights”. The term “human rights” has probably been in vogue since the seventies, but the concept has been around for much longer. Most people seem to agree that human rights are a good thing, but exactly what are they, and how is it that they are “inalienable”?

The Declaration says that human rights include the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” The question is, what are these “rights” based on? Who or what confers them if not our “Creator”? This is the question I usually ask atheists, whether in person or in the blogosphere, but I have never gotten a satisfactory answer. In previous posts, the debate has centered around the basis for morality, and the atheists usually come back with some nonsense about how mutually agreeable moral behavior has evolved over time because it is what helps the species survive.

I call it nonsense, but let’s grant that premise for the sake of argument. What about human rights? If, like morality, human rights are part of a mutually agreed upon code of behavior, how can these rights be inalienable? What if everybody does not agree? For example, what gives us the right to tell other nations that their human rights record is dismal? Why should we be so outraged when human rights are not respected?

If the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not conferred to us by our Creator, then by whom or by what is it conferred? By majority rule? If so, then these rights are not inalienable at all. What if the majority decides by mutual agreement that it is okay to oppress or kill off members of a minority or ethnic group they don’t like? What happens if the majority, or at least the government--whether duly elected or not--decides it is okay to kill off the elderly, the infirm or the unborn? Hasn't this already happened to a certain extent? What will keep it from happening further, and why shouldn't it as long as the majority agrees? What if the majority agrees that it is okay or expedient to enslave or slaughter whole classes of people because they believe it is in their best interests?

The right to life is apparently not inalienable, nor is the right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness. If the government or majority rule is what gives us these rights, then the government or majority rule can take them away. Only the Creator can endow us with inalienable rights, and this truth is self-evident indeed.

Love and Death in Sicily

2010-09-23T23:07:00.001-04:00

Both of my parents were born in a small village called Torre Faro (“lighthouse”), which is situated on the very northeast corner of Sicily, right across from the Italian mainland, where the Tyrrhenian and Ionian Seas converge into the Strait of Messina. Like many of the town’s long time residents, both sides of my family hail from a long line of fishermen.

The strait’s transparent blue waters, affording visibility down to the very bottom even a hundred feet below the surface, lend themselves well to spear fishing, particularly for sword fish. Though swordfish are not quite as plentiful as they used to be, the Strait of Messina has a long tradition of spearing for swordfish which dates back a couple of millennia, as far back as when the Greeks had colonized Sicily. Boats specifically built for this purpose have kept basically the same design, changing only in size and method of propulsion, as diesel motors have now replaced the half dozen oarsmen who used to propel the boats in centuries past. Otherwise, the basic design includes a tall mast with a crow’s nest, from which a watchman spots the swordfish and guides the boat accordingly; and a long gangway protruding from the bow, from which harpoons are hurled at the hapless swordfish.

When the watchman in the crow’s nest spots a female swordfish and the harpooner manages to spear her, they immediately look for an opportunity to harpoon her male companion as well. The thinking is that the heartbroken male will loyally follow his mate, preferring to go to his death rather than abandon her. Though stories of back-to-back catches of a female swordfish and her mate are quite common, I am not sure if there is any truth to the traditional explanation of this phenomenon, or if it is simply a matter of folklore.

But this type of folklore is vintage Sicily, whose music and literature abound with themes of love and death. The application of these themes to swordfish was popularized in an old folksong by Domenico Modugno called Lu Pisci Spada (“The Swordfish”). On the one hand, the poetic lyrics were intended as a silly parody of the Sicilian obsession with love and death, an intentionally melodramatic ballad of the untimely death of two ill fated underwater lovers. And yet the tender and beautiful Sicilian poetry coupled with the realism of the watchman’s cry from the crow’s nest can almost make you forget that it is a parody; it might even bring a tear to your eye.

I hope you enjoy the attached video montage with music and translated lyrics from Modugno’s classic Sicilian ode to love and death under the Sicilian waters…

The Wind Blows on the Road to Damascus and the Road to the Zoo

2010-09-10T17:37:00.007-04:00

I was very pleased to get some feedback to one of my previous posts, Reasonable Faith, from a commenter named Steve. His comments were honest, thoughtful and thought provoking. You may read Steve's comments in their entirety by clicking on the hyperlink, but here is a snippet.

That you opened this blog entry with a discussion of Paul fits very well with a long standing notion that I have had about what it might take to convert me to Christianity…. [An] experience akin to what Saul/Paul had on the road to Damascus might be sufficient to provide the impetus to convert me and cause me to begin to evangelize. If I had a personal encounter with Jesus as Saul/Paul did, I might change my name from Steve to Pteve and go out to tell the world of what I had experienced. It would appear that Saul/Paul did not come to Christianity by the use of thought and reason, but rather by a spiritually overwhelming and even physically altering (loss of eyesight) experience that was entirely unsolicited but evidently radically transformative. Am I less deserving than Saul/Paul? Who knows? But I can say in all honesty that after many hours of prayer, meditation, and "opening" myself to the presence of God that absolutely nothing of His presence has been made known to me. After many hours of reading and contemplating the Bible, I have not had one iota of insight afforded me that might begin to compel me to believe in Jehovah or Jesus.

How is it that people come to faith? How is it that some do and some don’t? It does not seem that there are particular demographics that are necessarily more prone to faith. Educated or uneducated, rich or poor, sophisticated or unsophisticated, each group has within its ranks people who accept and embrace the Gospel, and people who don’t. Why?

In the case of Saul of Tarsus, he was obviously a very learned man, but also a zealous man who had faith in the God of his fathers. Yet his knowledge was limited to a paradigm that did not have room for a flesh and blood Messiah who claimed to be God. To him, this was utter blasphemy. Worse still, it was scandalous and preposterous to him that the long awaited Messiah would be subject to a shameful death on a cross. On the contrary, he knew that “anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse.” (Deuteronomy 21:23) But with all his learning, there were some fundamental things that Paul did not know, and his zealous faith was misguided. He apparently required a major course correction and paradigm shift that could only be achieved by his dramatic experience on the road to Damascus.

But this is not necessarily the case. One does not have to look too hard to find testimonies of hardened criminals, zealous atheists, strung out drug addicts, proud and self sufficient people who are full of themselves, etc. etc. --- whatever fits your stereotype of people who would require a lightning bolt conversion--who will tell you that they came to their senses in the quiet of their room, when the light suddenly turned on and they realized their sinful condition and need for a Savior, and they repented and believed.

I think of my favorite ex-atheist, C.S. Lewis. Like Paul, he was a very learned man, an Oxford professor, well versed in literatures and ancient mythologies. For most of his adult life, he viewed the Scriptures as just another myth or fable. To be sure, there were those who persistently tried to convince him otherwise, including his brother, as well as his friend J.R.R. Tolkein. Yet while their arguments no doubt had some influence on him, he had to undergo his own conversion experience, not on the road to Damascus, but in his case, on the way to the zoo. He described his experience in his autobiography, Surprised by Joy:

I know very well when, but hardly how, the final step was taken. I was driven to Whipsnade one sunny morning. When we set out I did not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and when we reached the zoo I did. Yet I had not exactly spent the journey in thought. Nor in great emotion.... It was more like when a man, after long sleep, still lying motionless in bed, becomes aware that he is now awake. [quote obtained from http://www.christianodyssey.com/history/lewis.htm]

My own experience is altogether different. I was raised as a nominal Catholic. I had my first communion when I was six or seven, went to CCD classes, and somehow managed to convince the priest to allow me to go through confirmation, despite the fact that I missed most of the classes. As a teenager I rejected Catholicism not because I was rejecting the claims of Jesus, but because I considered myself anti-clerical. I went around telling people (presumptuously) that I was a Christian, meaning that I did not consider myself a Catholic. I just believed in Jesus, or so I thought. Truth be told, my beliefs (whatever they were) did not have any discernable effect on my life.

I don’t think I came to genuine faith until my junior year in college, and even now I am not sure if it happened precisely then. I had somehow managed to weather the typical halfway-through-college identity crisis in which I dropped most of my courses and almost lost my footing. That tumultuous semester was already over, and I was back to carrying 19 credits and doing well in my classes. Life was good again.

One Friday evening, my roommate and I were rewarding our hard work and disciplined studies throughout the week by relaxing with a modest amount of alcoholic beverage. I had just finished pouring a glass of Scotch and ginger ale when there was a knock on the door, and someone whom I considered a “Bible thumper” showed up to ruin my evening.

I stepped out into the hall to politely listen to what he had to say. I am not even sure I remember the thread of conversation, but I do remember finding myself intellectually cornered. The conversation was something to the effect of, “If ‘A’ is true and ‘B’ is true, it is inevitable that you must do ‘C’,” with “C” being that I should submit my life to Jesus. I remember praying a prayer and, to be honest, I was probably squirming throughout. Maybe I was just repeating some words so this guy would leave me alone and go away. After he left, I went back to my room and enjoyed my glass of Scotch and soda.

If my testimony had ended right there, people would rightfully question its genuineness and sincerity. However, the next day while I went for a walk, I thought about the previous evening. The thought that kept going through my head was, “I guess if I have prayed to receive Jesus, life isn’t going to be the same anymore.”

And indeed it wasn’t. In the following months and years and ever since, the reality of Jesus has shaped my life, my decisions, and my raison d’etre. It has also been a bit of a roller coaster ride. There have been times when I have doubted my salvation (especially given some of the bone headed and sinful things that I have done even as a Christian) but have then been reassured by the fact that I always find myself being drawn back to Jesus. There have been times when I have been keenly aware of the presence and activity of God in my life, and there have been other periods of time when He seems noticeably absent or distant, in another universe. Yet through it all, He has preserved me and kept His hand on me, in great ways and small.

So my conversion is not altogether dramatic, but I am nonetheless convinced it is real. I am still not sure exactly how and when it happened, but am convinced that it did. The only common thread between my conversion and that of Saul of Tarsus, C.S. Lewis, and others is the activity of God. When Jesus explained to Nicodemus about being “born again,” He said,

The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit. (John 3:8)

Conversions might be accompanied by intellectual reason and they might not. They might involve emotion and they might not. They might even involve lightning bolts. Or they might occur in the quiet of a room, where people realize for the first time what they kind of knew all along, that Jesus, the perfect and sinless Son of God, suffered and died the death we deserve, to pay for our sins, and rose from the dead.

"Everybody Must Get Stoned!"

2010-09-06T21:54:00.004-04:00

As mentioned previously, I have been spending a good bit of time trading comments with atheists at an otherwise Christian blog called “If I became an atheist”. In the latest round of debate, I attempted to challenge the atheist basis for morality if we are nothing but cosmic accidents that will eventually die and turn to fertilizer. This eventually got sidetracked (I am not sure how) into challenges about the consistency of the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Specifically, the Old Testament appears to command practices which seem barbaric from the standpoint of our 21st century moral sensibilities. Even more problematic, many Old Testament commands seem to be downright repudiated in the New Testament. As one commenter named Gandolf put it, the law of Moses included provisions for stoning people to death. Is that still valid? And if not, did God change His mind?

That is a fair question, and here is my response to Gandolf:

***********************************

I must first pose a counter-question: Do you seriously believe that we “moderns” are morally superior to other societies and bygone eras? Do you honestly believe that the 20th century, with its record breaking body count, and the 21st century, which is on the verge of nuclear annihilation; are somehow morally superior to previous centuries? Even if you came up with a laundry list of reasons and examples of why you believe modern societies are morally superior to other ages, societies and cultures, on what basis are you making that judgment?

For example, we condemn stoning as a barbaric way of instituting the death penalty. The Romans came up with the even more barbaric practice of crucifixion. Then someone came up with asphyxiation by hanging, to be followed by progressively more “compassionate” alternatives such as electrocution or lethal injection. Finally, there are those who question the morality of the death penalty at all. But what makes one view morally superior to the other? Says who?

I use the example of stoning and the death penalty because you raised the issue, but in a broader sense, I think it is a bit presumptuous to assume that our concept of morality as developed in the society and circumstance in which we live is somehow superior to that of ancient Israel or of Roman occupied Palestine or the post-Constantine Roman empire or Medieval Europe or Victorian England or nineteenth century America. You can, no doubt, point to some “unenlightened” and “barbaric” practices of those societies, but I would venture to guess that if they could have looked forward in time, they would have had just cause to point some fingers and wring their hands at us. And again, on what basis can fingers be pointed in either direction? Going back to my original premise, if we are just biochemical material that will die and turn to fertilizer, on what basis can we say that our morality is superior?

We both agree that stoning is barbaric. Why do you think so? Is it because it is “cruel and unusual punishment”? What makes it cruel and unusual? Sure, it results in a slow and agonizing, painful death, but so do a lot of other forms of punishment and deterrence that societies have devised throughout the ages. On what objective basis is one more enlightened and compassionate than the other?” Again, don’t hear what I am not saying. I am not defending stoning. I am just asking you to think this through.

My sense is that the reason you consider stoning as cruel and barbaric is… well, just because it is, as if this were somehow self-evident. The problem is that it is not self-evident, just like any of the other moral pronouncements that you or I would make are not self-evident. And people who believe that stoning is just fine might tell us that, though it is admittedly distasteful, it is the right thing to do. Why? Well, in their mind, just because it is. Or they might even trumpet out some good arguments about its obvious deterrent value as part of an overall system of criminal justice.

*****************************

Now to your question: “When did God change His mind about stoning?” I don’t expect my answers to satisfy you or change your mind, but I will do my best.

I am not sure God changed His mind about anything because, as you correctly pointed out, perhaps in a paraphrase of Scripture, God is the same yesterday today and forever. I admittedly gag over passages in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy that call for the death penalty by stoning, in part, for the same reasons you do. It looks like cruel and unusual punishment. But beyond that, it is because I believe the New Testament Scriptures which say, for example, that “[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” (Colossians 1:15) And when I read passages in the Old Testament where God seems to be advocating death by stoning, or genocidal war, or any other thing in the Old Testament that we might find objectionable, I gag not because it offends my 21st century moral sensibilities, but because it seems to be at odds with the teachings of Jesus, who said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” and “Love your enemies.”

Yet at the same time, Jesus did not repudiate the Old Testament. While He very often challenged His contemporaries’ interpretation of the Scriptures, He seemed to endorse the Scriptures themselves both explicitly and implicitly, saying among other things:

"The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Matthew 5:17)

That is likely the primary reason why I and other Christians at least see the value of the Old Testament Scriptures, even if some do not believe in their divine inspiration and infallibility along with the New Testament: It is simply because Jesus said so. If Jesus is who He says He is, and I have stated elsewhere why I am convinced that He is, then I must take seriously everything He says, including His testimony about the Old Testament. There are two ways of dealing with this, depending on whether or not you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I will present both, not necessarily endorsing one or the other, though I generally lean toward the inerrancy camp.

Christians who do not believe in the inerrancy of the Old Testament nonetheless believe that God was working through Israel as part of redemptive history. They would say that, though there is much truth in the Old Testament and worthwhile history, there is much that is culturally based and/or simply inaccurate. They will point to Scriptures where Jesus seems to say that parts of the Mosaic law were not what God intended, but rather to accommodate the reality of the Israelites’ sinful, human condition. For example, when the Pharisees challenged His opposition to divorce, citing Deuteronomy 24:1, Jesus replied: "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matthew 19:8-9) It could be inferred, then, that there is a human and cultural element to the Mosaic law. The problem is that the same laws are often prefaced by “The Lord commanded Moses…” So are these God’s words or Moses’?

This is part of the “accommodationist” theory, which asserts that Jesus accommodated the Jewish belief in the divine inspiration and inerrancy of their Scriptures, even though He knew better. This theory is fraught with problems, however, because there is much of the Old Testament that is valid and of great value. Jesus said that these Scriptures pointed to Him, that He is the fulfillment of the Law. So how do you divide what is true and good from what is not, and based on what? Again, says who? In any event, it is possible to be a Christian and not necessarily believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures (though it puts you on a bit of a slippery slope), in which case you can dismiss the objectionable passages as a product of the socio-historical context.

Then there is the inerrancy camp, which I subscribe to though it has its own hurdles. First let me explain what inerrancy is not. It does not mean the absolute perfection of the Scriptures. Most Christian statements of faith say that they believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures “as originally given”, which allows for minor textual errors in copying and transmission over time. Neither does it mean that everything is literally true, because there is plenty that is clearly meant to be allegorical and symbolic. This is not quite as slippery a slope as the accommodationist crowd, because it still asserts that the Scriptures are “divinely inspired” as stated in 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” But the question still remains as to why much of the Old Testament does not apply in the New Testament age. Does it mean that God changed His mind? In a word, “No.”

For example, much of the ceremonial law, the sanitary rituals and dietary laws that most Christians skim or sleep through when they try to plow through a “read-thru-the-Bible-in-a-year” plan, were not meant to be permanent but rather instructive for a specific stage in redemptive history. They were meant to point out the holiness and “otherness” of God, that He cannot be approached casually by depraved and sinful human beings.

These laws ceased to be necessary in the New Testament age, because they were fulfilled in Jesus. When He died on the cross for sinful man, the veil of the temple, which separated the “Holy of Holies” from sinful man, was torn in two. Similarly, the elaborate system of animal sacrifices and accompanying symbolic ceremonies were meant to underscore man’s utter sinfulness and God’s complete holiness. The idea was to sacrifice an “innocent” animal to atone for the guilt of sinful man. These sacrifices are no longer necessary now that Jesus has accomplished the ultimate sacrifice on the cross, to which the Old Testament sacrifices and ceremonies (particularly the Passover meal) had always pointed.

What about the apparent commands to stone people to death? From my perusal of the Scriptures, it seems that, like modern day death penalties, its primary purpose was deterrence. “Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.” That might explain why there are probably only a handful of instances in Old Testament history that it was actually carried out. (Leaving aside the illegitimate lynchings, such as when wicked Queen Jezebel framed Naboth the Jezreelite and had him stoned death in order to take possession of his vineyard, or when a mob of zealous Jews slandered and stoned Stephen, the first Christian martyr. These were obviously gross miscarriages of justice.)

But in general, I would place the commands to stone in the same category as the ceremonial laws, which were meant to be more instructive than anything else. What the Old Testament pointed to in its laws and what the New Testament affirmed, is man’s utter depravity and the fact that, apart from God’s love, mercy and grace, we all deserve death and condemnation, worse than stoning, but similar to what Jesus experienced on the cross on our behalf.

To inappropriately quote Bob Dylan, “Everybody must get stoned!” It is what we all deserve apart from God’s grace. That is why Jesus said: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” effectively abolishing the practice while still affirming the underlying reason behind the original command in the Old Testament.

Reasonable Faith

2010-09-05T22:38:00.004-04:00

In my previous post, I mentioned my adventures of sparring with atheists at other blogs. Like most Christians, I am typically accused of having a blind and unsubstantiated faith, suppressing reason, and not really “knowing” for sure, but rather “believing”. Below is an edited compilation of my responses:

****************************************

I am not insane, most excellent Festus. What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. (The apostle Paul, during his defense before Festus and King Agrippa; Acts 26:25-26).

I guess I am in good company if I am accused of not being completely rational in my beliefs. The apostle Paul, formerly know as Saul of Tarsus, a learned man of letters, zealous Pharisee and persecutor of Christians, was famously converted and dedicated the rest of his life to preaching the faith he once tried to snuff out. When these activities got him into trouble wth the authorities and he made his defense before kings and governors, he was accused, among other things, of being out of his mind. His famous response quoted above is instructive.

Toward the end of his life, imprisoned and awaiting execution, the apostle Paul said, “I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.” He used the word “believe” but it is also understandable that he used it together with “know”. He was, after all, an eye witness, a former enemy and persecutor of the faith before the risen Jesus literally knocked him off his horse and changed the course of his life.

****************************************

Belief for or against Christianity (or for or against God in general) is in the strictest sense just that: belief. There is nothing wrong with that, because the word or concept is biblical. The Greek word most often used in the Gospels is “πιστευειν” which means “believe” or “trust”, the idea being that you are convinced enough of it that you put your trust in it, even to the point of staking your life on it. Is that the same as “knowing”? Not quite, but pretty darned close.

As far as knowing or believing, every one of us has to weigh the evidence both for and against and make a decision. I for one have looked at the pros and cons and am convinced of the truth of Christianity. Perhaps you have weighed the evidence and have come to the opposite conclusion. I can assure you that I have arrived at my conclusion with my eyes open and have not suppressed “reason”. After all, the New Testament itself calls Christianity a “reasonable faith” and not without…. (Oh, well!) reason!

First and foremost, it is entirely reasonable to come to the conclusion that there is a God. I don’t have the time or space to get into the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the anthropic principle, etc. You have probably heard it all before anyway and perhaps have already dismissed it. Others, people more intelligent than me, find these arguments compelling as do I. So it is entirely reasonable to at least be a deist, and the only difference between a theist and deist is that the former believes that God is involved in the affairs of His creation. Why wouldn’t He be? Especially after one considers some very compelling accounts of His direct involvement; i.e., the Gospels, which are at least worthy of some critical examination and consideration.

There are at least four different recorded accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. They all were written in a definite place, time, and geo-political situation, concerning events that occurred in Palestine about two-thousand years ago under the Roman government, a time and circumstance about which we have copious amounts of information. These accounts were supplemented by a number of widely circulated letters-written to and about real people, real places and real events-hardly the stuff of mythology. They also shared one fundamental premise: the death and resurrection of Jesus.

After having seen their friend, teacher and hero die a horrific death on a Roman cross, historical figures like Peter and John would have much rather gone back into obscurity and lived their remaining days as humble and quiet fishermen. In fact, that was their original intention after the crucifixion. But something happened that caused a major paradigm shift in their world. What was it? Similarly, another historical figure named Saul of Tarsus was devoting all of his energies to persecuting and killing Christians, until he underwent his own paradigm shift. They and countless others were not thinking about legends and myths as they faced their own deaths by crucifixion, decapitation, burning at the stake or mauling by lions. They knew one and only one thing: They had known and seen the historical Jesus-who had been brutally murdered on a cross for all to see--alive and well again. Nothing else really mattered. In fact, the apostle Paul boldly asserted that everything hinged on whether or not the resurrection happened; and if it didn’t happen, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” (I Corinthians 15:32)

Many people have since attempted to debunk the accounts written in the Gospels, attempting to explain away the written accounts of Jesus’ resurrection. Some just dismiss it out of hand, saying it is scientifically impossible. (Well, duh! I guess that’s what makes it miraculous.) Others have concocted ridiculous theories-such as the swoon theory, the stolen body theory, etc-all of which fall apart under the slightest scrutiny. Others have simply made up alternate stories out of whole cloth.

Still others have dismissed the Gospel accounts as legendary stories that evolved over time, yet this theory does not hold water either, for a number of reasons:

The writings are much too close to the events in question. Consider for example, just one line of reasoning based on internal evidence, the same you would apply to other historical documents. The book of Acts appears to be intended as a chronicle of the beginnings of the church after Jesus’ death and resurrection. It was written by Luke, who during certain portions of the book (chapters 20 and 21) writes in the first person, indicating that he was one of Paul’s traveling companions and therefore an eye witness of some of what he was writing. But the book actually ends with Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome. There is no mention of Paul’s second imprisonment, much less his death. Neither is there mention of the siege of Jerusalem of A.D. 70. Wouldn’t you think such important events would be worthy of mentioning, unless of course they had not happened yet? So it is plausible to conclude that the book of Acts was completed sometime in the 60’s at the latest. And looking again at internal evidence, Luke refers in Acts Chapter 1 to his “former book” about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. This is an obvious reference to the Gospel of Luke, which itself in its introductory sentences claims to have been written after several other Gospel accounts. So the events were being chronicled at a time when most of the eye witnesses, as well as their very powerful detractors, were still alive and able to corroborate or refute the writings. Legends and fables evolve over centuries, not within a decade or two of the events, when most of the main characters and witnesses are still alive.
Their specific allusions to times, dates, places and people, as well as extra-biblical sources that attest to many of the same events, throws the New Testament writings completely out of the legend and myth genre.
If the New Testament writers had wanted to foist a lie on an unsuspecting world, they would have removed a number of counter-productive elements from their writings. For example, the four Gospels contained differing perspectives on the same story, resulting in what at first glance might seem to be contradictions. Why not remove them? Furthermore, why would they include Jesus' anguished prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane, where it seems he is trying to get out of going to the cross? Even though what he was desiring to avoid was not so much suffering and death but rather the totally alien condition of losing fellowship with His Father as He took on the sins of the world, the inclusion of these prayers in the Gospels does not make Jesus look like a mythical superhero. Furthermore, it is counterproductive to portray the disciples for the doubting, egotistical, fearful and betraying dolts that they are portrayed to be in the Gospels. Neither does it help their cause to have the first witnesses to the resurrection to be women, who were of such low social standing at the time that their testimony was not admissible in court. Yet all of these details were included in the Gospels, though it would have helped their cause greatly if they modified or deleted them. But they were included for one and only one reason: because they were true.

Many who have carefully examined all the available written accounts with the same scrutiny one would apply to other historical documents, applying logic and reasoning in the same way that a juror would be asked to examine the evidence before him, have reached the reasonable verdict that the accounts as written must be true.

It seems to me that the major mistake in reasoning made by skeptics is their a priori dismissal of the New Testament writings because they make allusions to miraculous events; therefore they must be legendary, or must have been inaccurately recorded, lost in transmission, morphed over time, etc. But when you consider things like time proximity to the events recorded, the number of consistent manuscripts, accurate allusions to known facts and events, etc. the New Testament writings are unsurpassed in their reliability as compared to other literary and historical writings. They just have that pesky problem of claiming miraculous events. But what else would you expect to happen when God intervenes in history?

Falling Away

2010-09-05T00:08:00.001-04:00

It has been a while since I have posted anything. Actually, I have been spending quite a bit of time commenting on other blogs authored by fellow believers. I particularly enjoy a blog entitled, “If I became an atheist”. The blog’s author, who goes by the name “feeno” has a mild mannered and non-threatening way of engaging and challenging atheists, and he seems to draw them like a magnet. One post in particular started quite a heated discussion, exceeding 100 comments. I must confess to being just a little envious at the amount of attention and commentary he draws, but then again, given the vitriolic nature of the commentary, maybe it is just as well that they not come my way. Anyone is welcome to comment here as long as the discussion is civil and polite. Otherwise, I would have to exercise my author’s prerogative and dispatch their comments to that great recycle bin in cyberspace.

It seems that the most acerbic and forceful comments come from atheists who are former believers. I have often wondered why and have suspected that they more than anyone else feel compelled to convince others and perhaps themselves of the correctness of their position, maybe for fear that they are mistaken. When I suggested this to an atheist commenter who goes by the name of “bob”, he responded somewhat indignantly that I would presume to guess at his motivations without asking. Fair enough, so I asked.

Bob said that he had been a Christian for about 25 years or about half his lifetime, and at some point fell away. He went on to explain:

It didn't work for me and I didn't witness it working for any of my fellow believers. In short, me and my fellow believers did not display any attributes that I felt were significantly different (better) than the non believers I occasionally came across. So, my faith gradually evaporated due to the complete lack of God showing up in my life and in the lives of all the Christians I knew.

Stories like bob’s have a very sobering effect on me. First of all, taking his reasoning at face value, it scares me to think that self professing Christians would not display any discernible attributes that would indicate that their faith is actually making a difference in their lives. His testimony may well be a legitimate indictment of Christianity as practiced at least amidst his circle of friends and acquaintances. It makes me examine myself and ask again, “Do people have reason to believe that I am a Christian other than my saying so?”

On the other hand, I can’t take bob’s story at face value, if for no other reason than its brevity. There is simply too much that I don’t know. But what I can take at face value is the fact that some people who at least profess to be Christians may lose their faith and fall away, and this is what I find most sobering.

Based on my understanding of Scripture, I believe in the doctrine known as “perseverance of the saints”. In short, it means that those who put their faith in Jesus can be assured that He will keep them in the faith by the power of His Spirit. There are many Scriptures that give believers assurance and confidence that they will never fall away, because after all, their salvation was not so much their decision but God’s:

John 15:16 -- You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last.
John 10:28 -- I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.
Philippians 1:6 -- being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
I Corinthians 1:8-9 -- He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.

These verses provide assurance for self doubting souls like me, who are all too aware of the sin that still remains in their heart despite their best efforts. Yet these verses should not provide any false assurance to those with a superficial profession of faith, who might have knowledge of Jesus and the Gospel but perhaps have not put their faith in Him; or those who are just going along for the ride, or who are attracted to the Gospel by its perceived benefits but who have not counted the cost of being a Christian; or to those who are cultural Christians and are familiar with the Gospel but have never actually embraced it, perhaps believing that salvation is either a birthright or something that can be earned.

For the latter group, the Bible has plenty of sobering warnings, such as:

2 Corinthians 13:5 -- Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?
Matthew 24:13 -- but he who stands firm to the end will be saved (implying that you might not stand firm.)

Most sobering of all is Hebrews 6:4-6, (along with similar verses in Hebrews 10:26-31 and 2 Peter 2:20-21):

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

This is one reason why I suspect that many “former Christians” are among the most vocal and vociferous atheists. They probably know their Bibles well enough to understand the serious and eternal consequences of turning their backs on Jesus, and because they believe that there is no going back again, they seek to convince and assure themselves that they have made a correct decision.

Yet I don’t think they understand their Bibles quite well enough, because nowhere does it say that they cannot return. The seeming contradiction between assurance that God will keep us in the faith on the one hand, and warnings against falling away on the other hand, is not a contradiction at all. When we see a professing Christian fall away, it means one of two things:

1. Either they had never come to genuine faith in the first place; or

2. They are genuine Christians who, for whatever reason, have turned their backs for a season. But God’s calling and election are sure and will not be frustrated. His Holy Spirit will give them no peace until they return.

In either case, the solution is the same. Repent and embrace the Gospel. Recognize that in and of yourself you are a hopeless sinner with nothing to recommend you to God, but Jesus the perfect God-man lived a sinless life that you could never live and died the death that you deserve to die. Entrust your life to Him and have faith that he will work in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure, and He will keep you until the end, never leaving or forsaking you.

[All Scripture references are from the New International Version]

Way to go, Blago!

2010-08-17T19:55:00.014-04:00

I am not at all a fan of the foul mouthed former governor of Illinois, but I must confess to feeling a certain amount of empathy for Rod Blagojevich. After all the fanfare and a twenty four count indictment at the conclusion of an investigation that had ended rather abruptly and prematurely, Patrick Fitzgerald managed to get a guilty verdict on one and only one count of “lying to the FBI”.

Perhaps Blago’s attorney said it best: “"This guy Fitzgerald is a master at indicting people for noncriminal activity,"

It is ironic that the only count on which Fitzgerald managed to win a guilty verdict is very similar to the only conviction won on the last case that made him (in)famous. After months of investigation, millions of taxpayer dollars and jailing reporters for refusing to reveal their sources--when he already knew full well who had leaked the identity of not-so-covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, Fitzgerald managed to win a conviction against the Vice President’s Chief of Staff for apparently contradicting himself in the midst of hours and days of interrogation. “Scooter” Libby did jail time before President Bush commuted his sentence to time served, one of the very few “pardons” he issued just prior to leaving office.

As suggested in my previous tongue-in-cheek post, perhaps Fitzgerald would have done better in the Blago case if he had pursued it with the same ferocity as he did in the Plame-gate political witch hunt. Perhaps if he had not abruptly ended the investigation just when things were starting to get interesting, things would have turned out differently.

In the mean time, Fitzgerald is planning to re-try and Blago is planning to appeal the one conviction. Stay tuned.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/14th-day-for-blagojevich-jury.html

St. Nicholas and the Cordoba Mosque

2010-08-16T20:17:00.000-04:00

One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry when Mayor Bloomberg, President Obama and their ilk appeal to freedom of worship as their rationale for supporting the construction of an imposing 13 story mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan.

Has the left finally seen the light--gotten religion, so to speak--and started to actually defend the right of people to worship as they please, even to the point of bending over backwards to remove bureaucratic hurdles such as zoning laws, environmental impact studies, etc. in order to facilitate the construction of their places of worship?

Tell that to the folks at St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which was once located across the street from Ground Zero and destroyed under the collapse of the south tower. It was the only church destroyed in the disaster. It seems that negotiations with the Port Authority for rebuilding their church had become hopelessly mired and finally have broken down altogether.

To be fair, perhaps there are many competing and complicating issues that are delaying approvals for the reconstruction of St. Nicholas, just as there are endless delays, cost overruns and other competing interests impeding progress on numerous other construction projects near Ground Zero, including the 9/11 memorial, a World Trade Center Transportation Hub, and numerous other office buildings.

But then again, plans for the imposing, 13 story Cordoba mosque proposed by a radical "Imam" -- who believes that the U.S. should become Sharia compliant and that the U.S. bears some responsibility for the 9/11 attacks -- seem to be moving forward without impediment from the Port Authority.

Do you remember when shortly after 9/11 we all stood tall with defiant resiliency, determined to rebuild everything, perhaps even reconstructing twin towers even higher than the original World Trade Centers, as a means in part to rebuild our morale and also to send an in-your-face message to the terrorists who attacked us? Now we don't even seem to have any interest in investigating whether those same terrorists are bankrolling the proposed Cordoba mosque as an "in-your-face" to us.

This is beyond surreal.

Bibliography:

Human Events, 08/09/2010

New York Times, 07/03/2010

St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church Website

What will happen to Blago?

2010-08-14T20:24:00.000-04:00

It occurred to me today that that the jury has been taking quite a while deliberating the fate of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, who was indicted in late 2008 by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald for allegedly trying to sell the Senate seat of then President elect Obama. Because I sometimes go for a day or two without catching the news, I figured that surely I must have missed the verdict.

Not so. Today I googled “Blagojevich”, and the most recent news I could find was from August 12, indicating that jurors deliberating on the case have advised the judge that they could only agree on two of the twenty-four counts of the indictment. As far as I know, they are still deliberating.

The suspense got me to thinking of a post I had written on the subject shortly after the indictment (where I used to blog at “Down With Absolutes!”, a site that is no longer available). The post took the form of a somewhat tongue-in-cheek congratulatory note to Roland Burris, whom Blagojevich defiantly appointed for the Senate seat he had already been indicted for trying to sell. Given the imminent verdict or lack thereof, I thought the post might again become relevant, so I have reposted it here:

Congratulations, Mr. Burris. I understand that the conscientious Democratic leaders of the U.S. Senate have decided it is okay after all to admit you to their august body. I really don’t know much about you. I can give you the benefit of the doubt despite the fact that you were appointed by a governor who is under indictment. I have no right to associate you with the alleged actions of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, and that is even assuming that Blagojevich is eventually found guilty. I must keep in mind that:

1. “Alleged” is the operative word. Yes, there were some recorded phone conversations that were pretty damning, containing a lot of talk about asking for remuneration and other favors in exchange for a Senate appointment. But talk is cheap. Bottom line: was the dirty deed ever done? I think not.

2. Under indictment or not; guilty as sin or not: Mr. Blagojevich is still the Governor of Illinois, and it is therefore his right—indeed his duty—to name a successor for the good Senator Mr. Obama. The people of Illinois have every right to full representation in the world’s greatest deliberative body.

Back when your benefactor was first indicted, some were insinuating that conservatives like me would no longer have a basis for suspecting the motives of the indictor, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. After all, he doggedly went after both Democrats and Republicans in his pursuit of justice. Fair enough, but his actions do leave me somewhat puzzled, and here’s why.

In the first case that made him famous, Mr. Fitzgerald was tasked with finding out who was the dirty fiend that leaked the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame. Of course, it was never at all clear that this was an actual crime or misdemeanor (much less one worthy of the time and effort of a US Attorney), because it was never clear that Ms. Plame’s status was covert. According to published reports, she had no qualms about telling her neighbors where she was employed. Nonetheless, Mr. Fitzgerald pursued all leads like a bloodhound. Within 24 hours, Mr. Fitzgerald obtained a groundbreaking admission from Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. He had inadvertently leaked the name to columnist Robert Novak and apologized profusely. Now an amateur like me would say, “Okay. All in a days work. Case closed. The people’s business is done.” But not Mr. Fitzgerald! Though it still was not clear that an actual crime had been committed, he doggedly pursued all leads in search of co-conspirators. Who knows if they might lead to the highest levels of government, even to the President of the United States? He even used his powers to jail reporters for contempt of court if they refused to reveal their sources. He interviewed and re-interviewed White House staff times innumerable until he got the Vice President’s Chief of Staff to contradict himself. Perjury! Obstruction of justice! Now there is an indictable offense that is worthy of months of investigation and millions of taxpayer dollars. Justice has been served!

The reason I am confused is Mr. Fitzgerald’s decidedly different approach in the present case. But then again, I am an amateur and he is a trained professional. It seems that Mr. Blagojevich had been under investigation for some time, being up to his eyeballs in that seedy world of Chicago machine politics, with famous names like Richard Daley, Tony Resko and the like. One thing led to another in the investigation, and late last year, the investigators hit pay dirt with the conversations about selling the Senate seat. I would have expected Mr. Fitzgerald to doggedly follow every lead. Who knows if they might lead to the highest levels of the Chicago machine or even to high officials in the federal government? Of course, it would be ludicrous and uncharitable to suggest for even a moment that the President elect would have any knowledge or involvement in this unfortunate business. Though he had conversations with the New York governor about a possible successor to Senator Clinton, it is simply a non sequitur to suggest that the President elect would have any involvement with regard to his own replacement. Furthermore, Mr. Fitzgerald thought it more prudent to go ahead and indict Mr. Blagojevich before he had a chance to taint the sacrosanct U.S. Senate by actually going through with selling the Senate seat and tarnishing the image of the great state of Illinois.

The only problem is that Mr. Blagojevich went ahead and appointed someone anyway. I am not sure I follow the logic, but again, I am an amateur and Mr. Fitzgerald is a trained professional.

Good luck, Senator Burris. I am so sorry that the honor you have received has been tainted by this cloud of controversy. I sincerely wish you the best in your service to the people of Illinois.

Apologia Italiana

2010-08-13T14:03:00.002-04:00

I mentioned in a recent post that most of my cousins in Italy are generally on the far left of the political spectrum. Many of them also happen to be self proclaimed atheists (No necessary connection, by the way). Unfortunately, it seems to be quite common among Italians of my generation—the forty to fifty-somethings. When I mentioned to a friend back home that most believers in Italy are found among the older and the younger generations, he very adroitly pointed out that atheism has difficulty thriving for more than a generation or two. Life happens, and belief in God mysteriously revives by the next generation.

I recently had a wonderful opportunity to brush up on my rusty Italian and at the same time engage two of my Italian cousins (whom I will call “P” and “M”) on the subject of atheism vs. theism. It all started when cousin P. posted a link on Facebook with a quote from Margherita Hack, an Italian astrophysicist and popular science writer.

We atheists believe we should act according to conscience based on moral principle, and not because we expect some reward in paradise.

Predictably, a few more cousins chimed in their agreement by clicking the “Like” button. I couldn’t resist chiming in myself with a provocative question:

What moral principle is she talking about? "Survival of the fittest", perhaps?

Cousin M. was the first to reply: “I think in terms of respect for the weak.”

Me: "Where did you get this idea of respect for the weak? If we are all here by pure accident and are nothing but biochemical matter which will one day die and turn to dung, then there is no logical basis or reason for respecting the weak. For that matter, there is no logical basis for any moral principle. The only principle that has any basis in logic is (perhaps) survival. Morality makes no sense."

Cousin M: "Oh well. I prefer to think in terms of not doing anything bad to anyone, and to try not to suffer any harm myself but I otherwise accept whatever life gives me, because I know I will eventually turn to crap and fertilize the ground."

Me: "Not do anything bad? 'Bad' according to whom? In the realm of biochemistry, there is no such thing as good or evil.

At this point, cousin P’s brother chimed in and asked, “What have you unleashed?”

Cousin P. did not answer the humorously rhetorical question but he asked me: “You aren’t saying that God has a copyright on morality, are you?” At the same time, Cousin M also responded to me with the first of several red herrings designed to either divert or shut down the discussion: “I am really happy for your faith, but atheists also have a right to not believe. Have patience.”

Me: "Of course, everyone has the right to believe or not believe, and who am I to deprive you of that sacred right? I am just having a friendly discussion and trying to follow the line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. But I should also ask, if you indeed insist on this right, where do rights come from? Just as is the case with morality, rights have no basis in the realm of biochemistry."

I also took the time to answer Cousin P’s query: “I don’t think there is a divine 'copyright' in the literal sense; after all, with so many centuries that have passed, by now it has expired and in the public domain! But I do believe that there is a moral sense imprinted on human nature, part of the Imago Dei. Even though it is corrupted, everyone has a conscience that informs them if something is right or wrong. Atheists might say that conscience is culturally derived and has evolved throughout history, but I repeat: There is no biochemical basis or explanation for morality.”

“At least Friedrich Nietzsche, the notorious atheist of the nineteenth century, had the intellectual honesty and courage to confront the true implications of atheism. Knowing full well that if there is no God there is no logical basis for morality, the only thing that remains is the Darwinian dynamic of 'survival of the fittest'. From that starting point, Nietzsche developed a philosophy which, unfortunately, became a precursor to Nazism. (If I am mistaken, please say so. I won’t pretend that I am some expert on Nietzsche and his philosophy, of which I know relatively little.) “

“By contrast, superficial atheists like Margherita Hack will insist that God does not exist and at the same time they appeal to a morality based on remnants of the Judeo-Christian ethic (that is, the parts of it that they like). But this ethic makes no sense if we are nothing but a cosmic accident.”

Cousin M. responded with several more red herrings and a veiled ad hominem attack, trying to get out of corner into which she had painted herself:

Unfortunately, I am not a philosopher and don’t know about any of them, not having studied the classics. I admire Dr. Margherita Hack because she is one of the greatest scientists we have. I don’t base my thinking just on reading the Bible because the translations are controversial and you Christians cannot even agree among yourselves. Here is the difference between believers and non believers. We atheists couldn’t care less what you believe but for you it is fundamentally a matter of proselytizing. I am not being critical but just trying to explain my thinking.

Me: Interesting thoughts, cousin. I hope you don’t find me obnoxious if I feel compelled to respond. (And I am also thinking of poor cousin P as I am crowding his wall with these discussions. But truth be told, he started it!) In any event, let me respond to the various questions and issues you raised;

1. "I admire Dr. Margherita Hack because she is one of the greatest scientists we have."

Perhaps so. To tell you the truth, I had never heard of her before, but that doesn’t mean much. I know there are a lot of atheist scientists like Hack, but there are also a lot of scientists who are at least deists if not theists. It was evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, also an atheist, who was honest enough to say, “Either half of my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism.” The problem is that true science is limited to that which can be observed, measured or replicated; therefore, the God question cannot be resolved on solely scientific grounds. But it should also be said that Einstein, arguably the world’s best known scientist, was at minimum a deist, and he came to this conclusion quite reluctantly when he determined with his general theory of relativity that the universe is not eternal, but began some 14 billion years ago with the so called “big bang”, before which there was NOTHING: no matter, no space, no time. The idea sounds suspiciously similar to what theologians call creatio ex-nihilo: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” It was Einstein who said, “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details.” He was also quoted as saying: “In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views.”

2. “I don’t base my thinking just on reading the Bible because the translations are controversial and you Christians cannot even agree among yourselves.” In the art of debate, this is what is known as a red herring, a rhetorical device designed to distract and change the subject. I am not talking about the Bible or Christianity at this precise moment. The discussion was about whether or not there is a logical basis for morality or conscience if the world is indeed nothing but physical matter, if indeed we humans are nothing but biochemical material, part of a giant cosmic accident. If you can explain to me from where this morality otherwise derives, then we can talk.

3. “Here is the difference between believers and non believers. We atheists couldn’t care less what you believe but for you it is fundamentally a matter of proselytizing“. I will take your word for it, cousin, even if I cannot think of a single time we have talked about “religion” when it wasn’t you who brought up the subject. Not necessarily talking about you, but I can tell you from my navigating the blogosphere that I find atheists all over the place who feel a great need to preach their “gospel” of atheism, and I wonder why. If they are truly correct and we are nothing but a cosmic accident that will eventually die and turn into manure, then why this quasi-religious fervor with which they attack the religious faiths? VIVE LA DIFFERENCE! Right? I am almost convinced that certain atheists feel a compelling need to not only convince others but to also convince themselves, perhaps because they fear they are mistaken. Sorry, cousin, if I am sounding polemic. I just wanted to clearly explain my thinking.

Cousin M's only response was flippant: "We atheists dish it out and you believers have to take it. Ha ha!"
I am still awaiting a substantive response.

A Well Deserved Rebuke

2010-08-12T14:34:00.002-04:00

Let a righteous man strike me—it is a kindness; let him rebuke me—it is oil on my head. (Psalm 141:5)

I started blogging a couple of years ago, seeing it as a fun and creative outlet to express myself in matters of interest to me, including but not limited to Christian apologetics, conservative political commentary and anything related to Italy. Because my subject matter was going to include the two great taboos of polite conversation—religion and politics--I was well aware that many of my posts would be controversial. But I was determined that my writing would nevertheless be grace-filled and redemptive. Though I occasionally enjoy being provocative and am not above poking fun, the last thing I want to do is offend people.

I try to live by the Scripture verse I have posted on this blog as well as my Facebook profile:

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, (I Peter 3:15)

All too often, though, I fall flat on my face. Today, for example, I ran across an editorial (at cnbc.com, of all places) lamenting our national debt and comparing what it calls the United States’ “Mickey Mouse Economy” to that of Russia in 1998. This is indeed a serious and terrifying state of affairs about which I have written elsewhere. I had written about my disappointment in the Bush Administration’s abandonment of fiscal conservatism, allowing runaway spending to accumulate debts as high as $400+ billion dollars in its final year, and how the Obama Administration has more than tripled that, forecasting deficits of more than one trillion dollars a year as far as the eye can see.

Though this is a serious and frightening state of affairs that could have some dire consequences for all of us, I was in a bit of a flippant mood today and made a poor attempt at humor by posting the article on Facebook along with some commentary. Picking up on the “Mickey Mouse” theme, I made an attempt at rewriting the lyrics of the Mickey Mouse Fan Club March Song, using the spelling of our President’s name instead of Mickey’s. (I have since deleted it and won’t repeat it here. Trust me. it was not worth reading.)

I didn’t think it would provoke any reaction, but an hour or two later I got the following comment from my beloved niece:

So I'm not trying to argue ... and if you throw a bunch of political figures at me it wouldn't mean anything because I could care less about politics and really don't know that much about it honestly ... but I do know respect. Have you ever thought of just going with the flow and supporting the president because you're American and he is our president? At least have respect for him ... I didn't like Bush but I still had respect because he was our president that we as Americans put there. Not putting down your opinion, you know I love you Uncle Leo :-), and you know I respect how you feel. Just saying have some faith and respect. It could always be worse.

Ouch! You would think I would remember that I Peter 3:15 is not limited to apologetics or defending the faith, that I should also show gentleness and respect when discussing politics, indeed any aspect of life. Thank you, Joanna, for setting your uncle straight.

Hooray for Henry!

2010-08-02T21:04:00.003-04:00

I remember back in the eighties when Henry Hudson was the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. I admired him back then, and found more reason to admire him today.

His decision to allow the Commonwealth of Virginia’s lawsuit against the Obama Administration’s new healthcare reform law to proceed is just a small initial step by all accounts, including his own. But while taking pains to not pronounce on the merits of the case itself and simply stating that it raises enough legitimate questions to proceed, Mr. Hudson made a key statement which I believe lies at the crux of not only this case, but many others where the federal government has ventured into areas of questionable constitutional authority.

The congressional enactment under review -- the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision -- literally forges new ground and extends (the U.S. Constitution's) Commerce Clause powers beyond its current high watermark.

I will forgive Hudson’s commonly inappropriate use of the word “literally” (I don’t think the healthcare reform law comes anywhere close to forging any kind of ground in the literal sense, unless of course it contains provisions for additional “shovel ready projects”.). But I do appreciate his metaphor referring to the “high watermark” of the Commerce Clause, the historic abuse of which has drowned individual and economic freedom and threatens to send the rest of us downstream if the waters get any higher.

I wrote about the Commerce Clause last October in a post entitled The Unconstitutional Congress. Article I Section 8 lists what are supposed to be explicit and limited powers of Congress, which include the power :

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

The reason the founders inserted the commerce clause in Article I, Section 8 was to ensure uniformity and to keep state governments from interfering with interstate commerce. Yet Congress has used this as a loophole to regulate any and all economic activity that may or may not cross state lines. This nonsense started primarily during and in the aftermath of the Great Depression, when Franklin Roosevelt used an economic crisis as an excuse to introduce unprecedented government regulation, which had the effect of turning an annoying recession into a deep depression (Does all of this sound frighteningly familiar?) After losing a few constitutional challenges in the Supreme Court, Roosevelt bullied the court into submission by threatening to pack it with additional justices to his own liking.

The most infamous Supreme Court decision which opened the floodgates to the abuses of the interstate commerce clause was Wickard v. Filburn (1942). When a chicken farmer named Roscoe Filburn, had the audacity to grow more wheat than was allowed by federally imposed limits, he was ordered to pay a fine and destroy the excess amount of his wheat crop. Mr. Filburn took the government to court by claiming, quite sensibly, that the law was unconstitutional because he was using all of his wheat to feed his own chickens and was not selling any of it, and it certainly was not crossing state lines. Therefore the law went beyond the powers stated or implied by the interstate commerce clause.

I will let Wikipedia concisely summarize the bizarre logic used by the Supreme Court in their decision in favor of the government:

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause (which permits the United States Congress to "regulate Commerce . . . among the several States") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government.

It will take some equally twisted logic for the SCOTUS to affirm the federal government’s authority to force people to buy health insurance, in clear violatoin of individual and state rights. Unfortunately, I would not put it past them. We shall see. In the meantime, hooray for Henry Hudson for having the sense to realize that the new healthcare reform law may well be taking an already loony interpretation of the commerce clause to an even higher level of absurdity.

Almost Enough to Turn Me into a Socialist

2010-08-02T14:12:00.006-04:00

Fear not, for the title of this post is somewhat misleading. I write this in reaction to a recent unpleasant economic transaction with a private entity, leaving me with the kind of "I've-just-been-taken-to-the-cleaners" feeling that makes liberals want to scream for government control.

I was at the Cincinnati airport on my way home from a business trip, and the flight to Baltimore was delayed due to some nasty thunderstorms. We no sooner boarded the plane an hour after the originally scheduled departure time than the pilot got on the intercom and advised us that we might as well get off the plane because he had just received word that we would be held at least another hour before being cleared for takeoff.

I figured I had best call home to tell my wife I would not be back in time for dinner after all, but unfortunately the battery on my cell phone was dead. Once off the plane and onto the airport concourse, I spotted an increasingly rare sight: public telephones! I have often wondered how soon public phones would become a relic of the past, but thankfully I found one in my time of need.

I immediately noted an advertisement sticker on the phone that said, "Out of change?" Though I probably would have been able to scrounge up the change for a call home, I do enjoy the convenience of credit cards, which this offer was advertising. I also noted a nominal per minute charge and an alternative $1.00 for three minutes. I ended up talking to my wife for about six minutes, so I expected to see a two or three dollar charge show up on my credit card.

A few days later, the charge came in from NCIC Communications of Longview, Texas for a whopping $26.72! I immediately called their "Customer Service" Department, where the kind lady told me that the $1 for three minute rate applies to their members.

"So for non-members, you charge $26.72 for a six minute call, or $4.45 per minute? There was nothing that warned me of such exorbitant rates."

"I can give you a onetime courtesy adjustment of $9.35, which would bring the total to $17.37," she replied, apparently with a straight face.

"But that is still almost three dollars a minute for a domestic call! Are you serious?"

After taking a minute to apparently confer with her supervisor, she returned to the phone and advised: "We can reduce the amount to $13.36, which is half the original amount!"

"Oh, how generous!" I thought. "I'm sorry, ma'am, but your rate structure and business practices are quite frankly deceptive and fraudulent. I will be disputing this charge with my credit card company."

Apparently, the company's business model is to charge obscenely exorbitant rates to unsuspecting people whom they hope will either not notice or not bother disputing. For those that do dispute, they offer to settle for reduced amounts which are still, quite frankly, obscenely exorbitant.

This is the type of unseemly business practice that occasionally rears its ugly head in the private sector, causing those of the liberal bent to cry out for government control. Though I can understand the sentiment, I would just as soon keep the government out of this. For all I know, there are already government regulations in place that proscribe this sort of behavior, but I otherwise prefer a system of caveat emptor, where people daily engage in voluntary transactions. In the meantime, I have filed a dispute with my credit card company. If indeed my situation is not unique, as I suspect, there are numerous other disputes out there, and NCIC's cute business practices will eventually fail.

As for me, you can be sure I will not be using my credit card for a phone transaction again. I am simply exercising my freedom of choice, which I cherish more than I do government protection, particularly because the latter has a tendency to limit the former.

Dueling Love Songs from the Amalfi Coast

2010-07-09T23:09:00.005-04:00

During my all too brief trip to Italy this summer, I was able to spend a day on the Amalfi coast and enjoy its breathtaking scenery. Sorrento is probably the best known town on the Amalfi Coast (also known as the Sorrentine Peninsula), having been immortalized by the Neapolitan classic love song, Torna a Surriento. The song is well known internationally, has been translated into English (Come Back to Sorrento) and at one point even inspired a hilarious parody by Allan Sherman.

On one level, Torna a Surriento is just a sappy love song, the pathetic lament of a rejected lover saying, “Oh please don’t leave me, for I cannot live without you.“ What helps this otherwise overdone genre of music to rise to a classic—in addition to the song's captivating melody—is its allusion to the breathtaking beauty of Sorrento itself. The song paints a poetic picture extolling the beauties of the town and then says, “It’s bad enough that you are leaving me, but how can you possibly leave behind the beauties of Sorrento?”

On the opposite side of the peninsula is the town of Positano, which rivals Sorrento's stunning panorama. Like Sorrento, Positano also boasts of a love song written in its honor. Though not quite as well known, Venetenne a Positano (Come to Positano) is a more upbeat song with a slightly different twist. While the rejected lover of Sorrento feels he cannot possibly go on living without his lady love, the man from Positano has some different priorities. Though his song sings the praises of Positano’s captivating and magical beauty and the chorus also asks his lady love to join him in Positano, his request is merely an invitation, not a desperate plea. In effect, he is saying, “Positano is a beautiful place and it would be great if you would join me here, but whatever you do, I’m staying here!”

Because I love both of these songs as well as the towns that inspired them, I prepared the attached videos, which include images of Sorrento and Positano, as well as audio and some very loosely translated lyrics of the classic songs inspired by the two towns. The first video is an updated recording of Torna a Surrientu performed by Andrea Bocelli. The second video features Venetenne a Positano in its original version by Sergio Bruni. I hope you enjoy them both.

Torna a Surrientu

Vienetenne a Positano

Politics in Italy

2010-06-20T16:20:00.004-04:00

I arrived in Italy with the assumption that most everyone I would run into would be to the left side of the political spectrum, particularly among my relatives. It would stand to reason that they would be pro-Obama and pro-public sector, having basically fallen for anti-business and anti-capitalist demagoguery.

I did indeed find that to varying degrees, but not as vehemently as I expected. On our second day in Italy, we were in a small convenience store in Lucca. The owner noticed me conversing in English with my wife Susan and then asking for items in Italian.

“Siete Americani?” he inquired.

“Yes, we just arrived from America yesterday for a short vacation.”

“How are things in America? Is the economic crisis very bad.”

“Yes, I am afraid it is. It might even be worse than here. I certainly haven’t seen 10% unemployment before. The private sector is moribund. The only part of the economy that is booming is the public sector, particularly the federal government, because it can borrow and print money as much as it likes, at least until the house of cards collapses.

“Isn’t Obama helping?”

“Obama is part of the problem,” I replied.

“You don’t like him?”

“He never impressed me, and I certainly did not vote for him. He can dazzle everyone with inspiring speeches, but the man has never done anything noteworthy other than run for office, and his lack of experience is showing badly. Furthermore, and more importantly, I am diametrically opposed to him philosophically. He sees the government, particularly a large and intrusive central government, as the solution to our problems. I believe the solution lies in people exercising their individual liberty and responsibility without government intrusion. So do most Americans, an increasing majority of whom deeply regret having voted Obama into office.”

But wasn’t the recent passage of a healthcare bill something positive?”

“It sounds really nice to say that everyone ought to have access to healthcare. You all have “la mutua” here in Italy, which means your healthcare is theoretically free, but you have to wait forever for some pretty basic care sometimes. My aunt here waited over a year for a simple knee replacement surgery. And by the way, she is going to have to have it done again. It did not go well. Furthermore, as the owner of a small business, I am sure you know that nothing is really free. Somebody has to pay for it in one way or another. The question is what is the most effective and efficient way to get quality healthcare to the most people. Again, individual liberty and responsibility are the way to go.”

I was pleasantly surprised at the attentiveness and non-combativeness of my interlocutor. He seemed genuinely interested and seemed to hang on my every word.

As we walked out of the store, an attractive young lady stopped us. “I couldn’t help overhearing that you are from America. I spent some time working there a few years ago and am thinking of applying to go back, perhaps to even start a business. Do you think Obama will make immigration any easier?”

“I’m sure he would like to and will do everything in his power to pass his agenda between now and November. But unless something drastic happens between now and then, his party will lose a lot of power. People are fed up with what he is trying to do to the country.”

“America is such a land of dreams and opportunity. I would really like to go back.”

“I suggest you wait a little and see what happens,” I replied. “America has long been a land of opportunity, and some day it may be again, but not now. You might be better off staying here.”

She seemed disillusioned but thankful for my advice.

Most Italians don’t understand how a large government and heavy taxation stifle the economy, because in their mind only the nasty rich people are supposed to pay taxes. They are mostly oblivious to their own tax bill. For example, the amount of money I paid for the items purchased in the convenience store was exactly what was on the price tag, but that price included multiple layers of value added tax which keep getting built into the price of goods and services until they are purchased by the end consumer, who has no idea how much of a cut the government is getting from every single transaction. All he knows is that the prices are terribly high, but instead of railing against the government, he complains about those nasty merchants and entrepreneurs who are robbing him blind. It’s the same thing that happens in the USA with fuel. The price of a gallon of gas already includes hidden local, state and federal taxes, and most people don’t know that the government makes more money off of a gallon of gas without lifting a finger than do the oil companies, who do all the heavy lifting of exploring, drilling, transporting, refining and distributing. But instead of railing against big government, we complain about big oil.

A couple days later we were in Genova and had the joy of attending a family reunion. I got to see some cousins for the first time in seven years or so. I knew most of them to be lefter than left, and I much preferred to catch up and reminisce about old times than talk politics, but they were the ones who brought up the subject:

“So what do you think of Obama?” asked my cousin Roberto, a former card carrying member of the Partito Comunista Italiano.

“Not much,” I replied. “He can dazzle you with fine speeches, but he is an ideologue with zero experience, and it shows. More importantly, he is pursuing precisely the wrong solutions for our country. He believes in a strong central government. I believe in individual liberty and free enterprise. If I don’t like the behavior of a private company, I can always take my business elsewhere. But if I don’t like what the government is doing, to whom do I turn? Government monopolies are the worst kind.”

“Spoken like a true right winger!” he replied. I was pleasantly surprised that his retort was not at all hostile or sarcastic. Perhaps his experiences as a struggling small business owner had caused him to moderate his views.

Peppi, another cousin who is also an independent businessman and highly successful to boot, also chimed in. “Don’t you think you needed a change after eight years of Bush?”

“Oh, another case of Bush Derangement Syndrome,” I thought. Most of my relatives in Italy also suffer from Berlusconi Derangement Syndrome, so I knew not to bring him up.

“Tell me, Peppi. Exactly what did Bush do that caused this mess?”

“As for the economic crisis, nothing.” He was well aware of the intricacies of the Community Reinvestment Act, which fomented years of bad loans to non-credit worthy individuals. He admitted that the house of cards happened to finally fall during the Bush Administration, but that the disastrous policies that led to the collapse occurred mostly under “il vostro presidente sassofonista” (Bill Clinton, who put the Community Reinvestment Act on steroids.) “However,” he added, Bush's war on terrorism and foreign policy were hugely unpopular.”

“Okay, fine.” I replied. “ We can have differing opinions about Bush’s foreign policy. I happened to think it was correct, so let’s agree to disagree, and that is only a small piece of the puzzle. Obama kept talking about ‘hope and change’ but was never specific about where he wanted to take the country. Now people know what he meant and they are not happy about it”

“Yes we can!” Peppi quipped sarcastically in English with a smile. He got my point.

The Tender Mercies of the TSA

2010-06-17T15:54:00.002-04:00

“If you are traveling with children, please secure your own oxygen mask first before assisting your children with theirs.”

These are part of the rote but necessary safety instructions given by airline attendants at the beginning of all commercial flights. Everyone who travels by air more than once a year knows the entire safety routine by heart, which is why the attendants at Southwest Airlines can get away with spicing it up with comic relief variants, such as one that I heard recently on a flight from Cleveland to Baltimore:

“If you are traveling with children, what were you thinking?!?!””

I got quite a charge out of that one perhaps because of its special applicability to my wife and me. We not only travel with children, but very often with our autistic children, a surefire guarantee to turn any vacation into an adventure.

We travel to Italy often. Other than the fact that we love the place, we have lots of family there with whom we want to keep in touch as much as possible. The first time we went as a family in 1994, our then eight year old Luke did not let his autism keep him from having a great time; consequently we all had a wonderful time. We attempted a repeat performance in 2003, this time with two autistic children. That did not go quite as well. In any event, by now it has become old hat to us, but never without an adventure.

For the third year in a row, Susan and I are traveling to Italy with Angela (our youngest) in tow, and this time our adventure started even before we boarded the plane. We didn’t expect any incidents at airport security, as Angela is already well experienced with the tender mercies of the TSA. She even knows to take her shoes off while standing in line to go through the metal detector. She was sandwiched in line in between Susan and me, and I had already gone through first and was well on my way to retrieve our shoes, belts and carry-on luggage when I heard buzzers and bells going off behind me. Of course Angela was not wearing anything metal or anything else that would set off an alarm. She just decided to drag her hands against the walls of the screening device as she was going through. Though startled by the alarms and flashing lights, she was willing to try again when instructed to do so, only to set it off again as she did the exact same thing as before.

She refused to go through a third time and was starting to get agitated, which caused us a little problem. You see, autism or not, special needs or not, rules are rules, and the TSA was insisting that they were going to be followed to the letter. Not that they were nasty about it. They were very patient and understanding and were doing everything they could to accommodate both Angela and her mother (who displayed an even greater amount of patience, in stark contrast to me as I was grumbling under my breath on the other side of security). They were willing to give her plenty of time to calm down until she was willing to try again, but the bottom line was that “try again” she must. She was not going to make it through security until she had been properly screened.

After about twenty minutes of unsuccessfully coaxing her through the metal detector, TSA finally decided to take her aside and try to detect metal with a wand. She did not care for that either. A supervisor came along and asked if she could frisk her manually. It was not a very thorough frisk, as Angela can be quite a wiggle worm, but the supervisor finally declared that she was satisfied that Angela was not a terrorist or even an unwitting accomplice.

So what is wrong with this picture? I generally understand the need to scrutinize everyone equally. “Profiling” is supposedly a bad thing. But is it really necessary to treat the following groups of people with the same level of scrutiny?

1. Invalid grandmothers in wheelchairs;

2. Families traveling with children

3. Non-verbal autistic teenagers of any race

4. Middle Eastern males traveling with one-way tickets and no luggage?

Does it not occur to the TSA and the political rule makers that the latter demographic has been responsible for 100% of the terrorist attacks against Americans?

To be truthful, I am not sure I have a fully formed opinion on the subject. It does occur to me that some terrorists have been so sick minded--if it is even possible to determine degrees of depravity among people who have already decided it is okay to blow up innocent men, women and children in the name of God-- as to place a suicide bomber vest on a mentally handicapped female. But surely there has to be a level of common sense that says, “Look, these people traveling to Italy with their handicapped daughter are not intending to blow up an airplane. They just don’t fit the profile. “

Oops, I just used a politically incorrect word.

WWJD with Chain Emails?

2010-05-24T21:27:00.004-04:00

I occasionally get unsolicited emails from friends, relatives and coworkers who share my values when it comes to religion and politics. I appreciate and read them all, but I very rarely pass them on to anyone else. This is particularly the case with chain emails. I am sure you have received some yourself. You know, the kind that encourage you to pass it on to ten friends for a variety of good reasons, such as: making someone’s day with kind and uplifting thoughts, saving someone’s soul. keeping our country from going to hell in a handbasket or… [fill in the blank].

I recently got one such email which I enjoyed very much. The bulk of the email contained pictures of some life-size metal sculptures depicting the crucifixion of Christ. Built on a donated tract of land in Groom, Texas, about 70 miles from Amarillo, the statues are an impressive and inspiring labor of love which I hope to go and see some day. I found the same pictures and message on several blogs, such as the following (in case you would like to check it out yourself):

http://myforwards.com/item.php?id=154

The pictures are followed by some Christ exalting verbiage which reminds me a little of the One Solitary Life poem you see on Christmas cards.

IN CHEMISTRY, HE TURNED WATER TO WINE.

IN BIOLOGY, HE WAS BORN WITHOUT THE NORMAL CONCEPTION

IN PHYSICS, HE DISPROVED THE LAW OF GRAVITY WHEN HE ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN;

IN ECONOMICS, HE DISPROVED THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURN BY FEEDING 5000 MEN WITH TWO FISHES AND; 5 LOAVES OF BREAD;

IN MEDICINE, HE CURED THE SICK AND THE BLIND WITHOUT ADMINISTERING A SINGLE DOSE OF DRUGS,

IN HISTORY, HE IS THE BEGINNING AND THE END

IN GOVERNMENT, HE SAID THAT HE SHALL BE CALLED WONDERFUL COUNSELOR, PRINCE OF PEACE;

IN RELIGION, HE SAID NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH HIM;

SO. WHO IS HE? HE IS JESUS!

JOIN ME AND LET'S CELEBRATE HIM; HE IS WORTHY.

Now I happen to agree with every word of the above. The only thing I would have added would be a more explicit Gospel message in keeping with the pictures that accompanied the message, namely that Jesus, the Son of God, lived a perfect sinless life but died a horrific death He did not deserve, suffering the wrath of God that sinners like you and me otherwise deserve, and rising from the dead to give us a way to forgiveness and eternal life. But everything otherwise quoted above is all true and good stuff to which I say “yes” and “amen”.

But I could have done without the guilt trip that followed these words and which ended the message in typical chain mail style:

If you believe in God and in Jesus Christ His Son, send this to all on your buddy list. If not just ignore it. If you ignore it, just remember that Jesus said “If you deny me before man, I will deny you before my Father.”

I am certainly not ashamed of the message or I otherwise would not be sharing it now. But why won’t I send it in an email? Perhaps the presentation just isn’t my style? Perhaps because I dislike chain mail messages in general and figure that most other people dislike them also, giving them a handy excuse to ignore the Gospel message contained therein?

For these reasons, I am pretty comfortable with deciding not to continue the email chain, but at the same time, I do need to be careful to examine some heart issues and other motives. I was reminded of this during a message preached last Sunday by Curt Allen, one of the pastors of my church. The message was entitled When Opposition Meets the Message and focused on the story in Acts chapter 4 where Peter and John refused to back down from preaching the Gospel message, facing down the authorities head on while knowing full well that it would likely cost them their lives.

Among Allen’s many excellent points, he raised an issue that many Christians wonder about: We see the courage of Peter and John and the other apostles. We read about the martyrs throughout history and even hear about modern day martyrs who have chosen death or imprisonment instead of denying their faith in Christ. And then we soberly wonder about our faith and we ask ourselves, “Would I have that same courage?”

Most Christians in the western world do not face such life and death choices—at least not yet. So the question for us is not whether we will have the courage to face such intense opposition, but whether we have the courage now to face some of the pathetically mild opposition we deal with in 21st century America, such as people laughing or smirking at us or otherwise hurting our feelings because we have taken our stand for Christ. Does this cause us to shrink back from sharing the Gospel?

These questions caused me to think twice about my motivations in not passing on the chain email. WWJD? WWYD?

The Fungibility of Government Funding

2010-04-26T20:20:00.004-04:00

A while back I wrote a blog entitled “There’s a Ford in my Future”. Among other things, the post extolled the Ford Motor Company’s proud history of not succumbing to government intimidation back during the Roosevelt Administration, and more recently not accepting government bailout money during the Obama Administration. By contrast, I also lamented the foolhardiness and questionable legality of the Obama Administration’s bailout of Chrysler and GM.

As I was listening to the radio a week or so ago, I was beginning to think for a very brief moment that I had been mistaken. The syndicated ABC radio news broadcaster announced excitedly that GM was able to pay off its government loan in full. The taxpayers were getting their money back, even ahead of schedule!.

“Could I have been wrong?” I thought. “Was this an instance where an otherwise foolhardy and irresponsible waste of taxpayer dollars actually paid off?”

These questions were racing through my mind for a very brief moment indeed when they were interrupted by the concluding segment of the news segment: “GM is still losing money”.

“Whew!” I thought with a sigh of relief and laughter. These people aren’t even good liars. You would think that if the pro-government media really wanted their propaganda to stick they would have left out that minor detail, lest some people with at least a third grade arithmetic aptitude might start to ask, “How can they begin to pay back a loan if they are still losing money?”

Don’t try this at home kids, but the way you pay off a loan in this economy is with another loan! Read the details for yourself at Hotair.com, which states in part:

The backers of the bailouts to General Motors cried with triumph this week when the automaker announced that they had repaid their bailout loans ahead of schedule. That mounted to proof of the wisdom of government intervention, the argument went, and wondered aloud hy bailout critics didn’t acknowledge their errors. Perhaps it’s because the government essentially got paid off with even more government money:

In effect, GM used federal money it had received from TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) funds, which the government had used to purchase major shares of GM stock in order to prop up (and also control) the teetering automaker. (The fraudulently triumphant news reports had hinted at this when they said that GM hoped next to start buying back government owned stock. They didn’t explain how they planned to do this if they were still losing money.) In any event, this is just an accounting shell game of using one government loan to pay off another government loan. Money is indeed fungible.

Tax Day Musings: Let’s Abolish the IRS

2010-04-15T21:43:00.001-04:00

I will grant you that the title of this post might seem a little over-the-top, unrealistic rhetoric that will turn off the serious reader. But I am actually serious, and if you bear with me, you will see why. But first let me digress with a couple of introductory side points:

Back in February I wrote a post entitled The Non-census of It All, which lamented, among other things, the whole approach to the census. Surely you have seen or heard the census bureau’s advertising campaigns stating, “Without a complete, accurate census, your community may not receive its fair share [of federal funding].” This is not the way things were supposed to work. Indeed, as I had pointed out:

Our founding fathers never envisioned—indeed they crafted the Constitution to specifically avoid—a behemoth federal government that did most of the taxing and spending. Rather, the majority of taxation and government influence was to be at the local level, where elected leaders are more easily held accountable. We have since turned the wisdom of our founding fathers on its head to the point where state and local governments are mere appendages of the federal government.

More recently I learned something else disturbing about our current fiscal and tax policy. The Heritage Foundation and others have pointed out that we have reached that dangerous point where more than half of the U.S. population pays no federal income tax. The reason this is dangerous is that, with demagogues in government always harping about those greedy rich people needing to pay their fair share, and with the majority of the population paying no federal taxes but receiving some kind of government benefits, this majority will soon realize that it can vote itself more and more benefits--and there is nothing that the tax-paying, productive sectors of society can do about it, except maybe leave the country. It is a recipe for tyranny and eventual economic collapse.

Perhaps I digress too much, but keep these ideas in mind as I set forth my radical proposal. What if we went back to the wisdom of the founding fathers and vested more power in the states? What if we had the states doing the taxing and spending based on the needs of their own populations, but also sending a portion of their tax revenue to the federal government to fund those services which states cannot efficiently provide for themselves and which are therefore better suited to the federal government?

Let’s look at some hard data to see if we can make this work. According to Wikipedia, federal spending in fiscal year 2009 totaled about $3.1 trillion. For the sake of argument, let us for a moment believe the lie that $944 billion of this amount devoted to Social Security benefits is really not part of the federal budget, but is actually held within the proverbial lock box consisting of all the payroll taxes paid by you and your employer. Therefore, the actual federal budget for FY 2009 was arguably closer to $2.1 trillion.

Now let’s look at the U.S. population in 2009, which--again according to Wikipedia--was 307,006,550. Let’s call it 300 million for rounding purposes. That means that in 2009, the federal government spent $7000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. Staggering, isn’t it?

Again for the sake of argument, let us once again suspend disbelief and assume that all this spending is actually necessary at the federal level. Why don’t we at least eliminate the redundancy of the IRS and have each of the states (who have their own taxing authority and bureaucracies) simply collect enough taxes to meet their own needs PLUS send the federal government $7000 for every man, woman and child within their borders? According to U.S. Census Bureau data, my home state of Maryland had a population of 5,699,478 in 2009, which means Annapolis would have been required to pay $39,896,346,000 (almost $40 billion) to the federal government.

“Now hold on just one minute!, “ you protest. “Maryland itself has an annual state budget of about $32 billion, so are you suggesting that Maryland should collect enough taxes from its citizens to fund their own $32 billion budget and to also pay for the federal tab of $40 billion? That’s a total of $72 billion, which comes to $12,632 for every man, woman and child in the state!”

Precisely! This is how much your government costs you: $7000 a head for the feds, and another $5632 per head if you live in Maryland. It puts into perspective, doesn’t it?

“Oh,” but you protest, “Surely I don’t pay that amount. Most of that bill is paid by all those nasty corporations and rich people!” Don’t kid yourself. You are paying for it in one way or another, if not directly to the government, then surely in the higher cost of goods and services, which those nasty corporations pass on to you in order to cover their tax bill.

So what are the advantages of having the states collect all the taxes and then send their share to the federal government? In addition to the previously mentioned benefit of eliminating the IRS redundancy, here are a few:

You only have to deal with one taxing authority and only one form (hooray!)
The state taxing authority can choose whatever means it deems most sensible for collecting taxes, be it sales taxes, value-added taxes, property taxes, individual income taxes (whether flat or progressive), corporate income taxes, etc.
The state taxing authority is more directly accountable to the voting population than a federal taxing authority, and is therefore less likely to engage in shenanigans, shameless demagoguery, or fiscal policy that is detrimental to the economic interests of the individuals and corporations within its borders. If they do, these same individuals can more easily remedy the situation by:

Calling their elected officials to account and voting their butts out of office, or
Voting with their feet by moving to a state that is friendlier to its economic interests (Something not as easily done when the federal government taxes and spends us into oblivion). This only has to happen a few times before elected officials get the message, either by losing their jobs, or by having to figure out whom else to tax when the higher income earners and/or corporations start leaving the state in droves.

And finally, if states get more into the habit of looking after the interests of their own population, we can perhaps reconsider the size and scope of the federal budget. Remember, we had suspended disbelief for the sake of argument and assumed that the entire $2.1 trillion budget—not counting Social Security—was actually necessary. It isn’t. To cite just one example, the Department of Education spent $45.4 billion in 2009. Where did most of that money go (other than to pay the salaries of its many employees)? It went back to the states to fund education at the state level, with plenty of strings attached, of course. Why not let the states handle their own education budgets and structures (indeed, like they used to), which they can probably do more efficiently and without interference from the feds?

If we go through the budget line-item by line item, we might actually find a number of things that are more efficiently handled by state governments, leaving the federal government to handle things like national defense, enforcement of federal law, international relations and foreign policy and the few other things that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution as the legitimate purview of the federal government. What a concept!

Happy tax day!

How much do you trust Congress?

2010-04-10T21:00:00.000-04:00

I receive a regular email update from Ric Edeleman of Edelman Financial Services. The following Q&A from his last update is quite telling:

Q&A: Roth IRA Conversion

Question: Regarding Roth IRA conversions, what is there to prevent the government 10, 20 or 30 years from now taking these Roth IRAs and changing rules and making them taxable, either all or in part, or making them subject to the AMT?

Ric: There is nothing preventing Congress from doing that. That is one of our objections to the Roth IRA and specifically to the Roth IRA Conversion. Congress says Roth IRA withdrawals are tax-free, but we get a new Congress every two years.

Planning to retire in 20 years? That’s 10 Congresses from now. If the government needs more revenue, a future Congress might decide to tax the money held in Roth accounts. You can even argue that this is why Congress allows Roth conversions in the first place: The conversion does not necessarily lower your taxes, but it does accelerate your payment of them. By getting you to convert, Congress gets the tax revenue now.

Clever, huh?

Do you trust Congress to honor its promises? The more you do, the more confident you can be about putting money in the Roth IRA. Personally, I am not terribly confident.

Indeed. I am not sure I have ever been able to put much faith in Congress keeping their word; but given their shenanigans as of late, my level of trust for them has descended even further, if that were possible. Something to think about as the blessed day of April 15 approaches.

Alla Luce del Sole

2010-04-02T23:13:00.023-04:00

I don’t know much about Josh Groban, but I certainly enjoy his music. The man definitely has talent.

I guess he can best be described as an American Andrea Bocelli, lending a classical style and a tenor voice to a broad variety of musical genres. Some are just sappy love songs, the typical boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, please don’t-leave-me type of songs, but even these have a certain grace, dignity and class thanks to Groban’s commanding voice and classical accompaniment. The fact that many of his songs are sung in flawless Italian or Spanish further broadens their appeal.

While I am not sure of his religious background, a number of his songs seem decidedly Christian, such as his rendition of Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring or You Raise Me Up (Though the latter doesn’t explicitly mention Jesus.) Others , such as Remember When It Rained (one of my favorites) are even less overtly Christian, but they have all the markings of a believer’s prayer.

Another favorite of mine is Groban’s rendition of Alla Luce del Sole ("By the light of the sun", written by Guido Morra amd Maurizio Fabrizio). This too is a prayer, but one that is not all sweetness and light. It reminds me of Psalm 13, the prayer of a genuine believer who, for whatever reason, is going through a season of life where God seems distant or is not listening. There is anguish in his heart and he is tempted to fear that God has abandoned him, but beneath the sorrow there is a firm and quiet confidence that God is indeed there and cares for Him, and that the darkness will pass.

Though the Christian life is in many ways characterized by “an inexpressible and glorious joy” , Christians will also go through “Psalm 13” seasons of life, some more than others. But God is faithful to bring them through. Alla Luce del Sole is a modern day Psalm 13. If you haven't heard this beautul song before, check out the YouTube video below, followed by the lyrics along with my loose translation.

Qui c'è il buio fuori di me
     There is darkness all around me here
ed anche un po’ dentro di me...
     And there is even some darkness within
che assurdità questa città senza persone!
    How absurd is this desolate city!

Io non so spiegar neanche come
     I can’t even explain how
ma non è questa la mia dimensione,
     But I am out of my element
e la mia mente non è mai in pace,
     And my mind is never at peace
è sempre altrove.
     It is always wandering

Tu dove sei? La tua voce dov'è?
     Where are You? Where is Your voice?
Senza di te, senza il tuo aiuto
     Without You, without Your help
che sarà di me?
     What will become of me?

Tutto sembrerà migliore
     All will seem better
alla luce che verrà dal sole!
     By the light that will come from the sun.
Questa notte passerà
     This night shall pass
il buio che c'è si dissolverà!
     And this present darkness will fade away

Si vedranno le colline,
     The hills will become visible
io continuerò a cercare te.
     And I will keep on seeking You.

Via da questa malinconia
     Far from this melancholy
invidia o rabbia che sia.
     Whether its envy or rage
Qui nel mio cuore
    Here in my heart
non voglio più queste parole.
     I don’t want these words any longer

Tu dove sei? Il tuo sorriso dov'è?
     Where are You? Where is Your smile?
Senza di te, senza il tuo amore
     Without You, without Your love
che sarà di me?
     What will become of me?

Tutto sembrerà migliore
     All will seem better
alla luce che verrà dal sole!
     By the light that will come from the sun.
Questa notte passerà,
     This night shall pass
il buio che c'è si dissolverà!
     And this present darkness will fade away

E alla luce di quel sole
     And by the light of that sun
Io continuerò a cercare te.
     I will keep on seeking You.

Tutto sembrerà migliore,
     All will seem better
alla luce, al sole.
    by the light, under the sun
Il silenzio morirà,
    The silence will die away
la gente che c'è si confonderà.
     And this people here will be confounded
E alla luce di quel sole
     And by the light of that sun
Io continuerò a cercare te
     I will keep on seeking You.

Of First Importance

2010-03-25T22:15:00.005-04:00

The “About” section of this blog explains three things that are important to me and which also, to a great extent, drive the content of my posts:

Italy and anything pertaining to the Italian language and culture
Conservative politics and commentary
Christian theology and apologetics.

With all the rage going on lately with the health care debate and many of the other outrageous things that have been going on in our country, I perhaps have been devoting way too much space to matters political. But whether I am talking about politics, Italy, theology, family and friends or other musings, I view these as all secondary. There is something else that is of first importance: the Gospel.

I recently stumbled onto a blog that is aptly titled Of First Importance . It’s format is usually a daily quote, sort of an inspirational “thought for the day”. But this is not your typical kumbaya, “Chicken Soup for the Soul” type of inspiration. Each day brings a very pithy, meaningful message not from some pop psychologist or modern day inspirational speaker, but from giants of the faith of ages past and present. The messages simply remind us of the Gospel and encourage us to live each day in the good of the Gospel, and all of its far reaching implications in our lives.

The phrase “of first importance” actually comes from a verse of Scripture. In his first letter to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul was writing to a group of Christians who had spent way too much time majoring on minors and had forgotten the essence of the Gospel. They had forgotten the main event that defined who they were: that Jesus Christ had died for their sins and rose again:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” [I Corinthians 15:3-4)

If we can lay hold of this glorious truth--or rather let this glorious truth take hold of us, then everything else that we deem so important will fall into its rightful place.

Has it really been 39 years?

2010-03-20T17:27:00.008-04:00

Certain dates tend to stay etched in my mind. Not to sound morbid, but this is often the case with anniversaries of deaths. Not that they are constantly on my mind. Rather, like a macro lying dormant on a hard disk, they self execute with the arrival of the date.

March 20 is one of those days. Though I look forward to it as the first day of spring, it also marks the day my grandfather, Nonno Pietro, passed away. It was my first experience at losing a loved one. It has been 39 years and I was only a child at the time, but I can still remember the day clear as a bell. My dad was at nonno's bedside in Italy when he died. (On and off over an 18 month period, one or both of my parents spent weeks and months at a time in Italy, having dropped everything to show undying devotion to their parents during their final days--something else I will never forget.)

The news during those months was progressively getting worse as Nonno Pietro was losing his battle with cancer. But I was refusing to believe it, because I always remembered him as full of youthful energy. As a child I was astounded how a man in his seventies could have so much stamina and strength. He probably would have bested me in a foot race.

I also remember his smile; the way he humored my grandmother, Nonna Nella, who despite her side-splitting sense of humor, could also be difficult at times. But he took it all in stride. He also had a photographic memory, which served him well at playing cards, one of his few passions that bordered on a vice.

I still remember when my grandparents were living with us when I was a pre-schooler. I did not yet know how to read, but I had a concept that letters combined to form words. I made my first attempt at putting words together by randomly arranging some letters on a scrabble board and asking, “Nonno, could you please read what I just wrote?” On cue, he read my literary masterpiece out loud without missing a beat: “Once upon a time there was a prince, and one day he went to take a walk in the country….” He actually had me believing that I had written something coherent.

These memories are few and scattered, yet for some reason Nonno Pietro had quite an impact on me. He was respected, looked up to and loved. To my father and his siblings, to my brothers and cousins, he was larger than life. He was also our nonno, and we still miss him.

Dear Congressman

2010-03-19T20:26:00.005-04:00

It is a little late, but I intend to somehow email the letter below to every so called "moderate" House Democrat within the next 24 hours.

Dear Congressman:
I am not a constituent in your district, but I might as well be. I know you are experiencing a great deal of pressure from all sides. Probably the most intense pressure is coming from the President of the United States, the Speaker of the House and the Majority Whip. With formidable carrots and sticks, they are doing everything in their power to persuade you to vote for a so-called heathcare reform bill. I have a suggestion. Instead of listening to them, listen to your conscience and listen to the voice of the people in your district.
I can say this because I am confident that the overwhelming majority of the American people, including those in your district, are dead set against this so called health-care reform bill. It is expensive, counter-productive, and will saddle this and upcoming generations with mountains of debt on top of the unsustainable debt we are already accumulating. It will have a devastating impact on our economy, deeply curtail the freedoms we enjoy as Americans, and will not even accomplish its advertised goal of providing greater access to healthcare.
In addition, the people are sickened by the back-room deals and open bribery that is being used to pass this bill over and against the clear will of the American people. Americans are also wary of the questionable constitutionality of bypassing the clear requirements of Article I, Section 7, which requires that differences between House and Senate bills be reconciled in Conference, after which both houses are to vote on the reconciled bill with recorded “yea” or “nay” votes. You can be sure that if this bill passes, it will be challenged in court on several fronts.
No matter what happens in the coming days, I must respectfully but frankly state the following: If you vote in favor of this bill, you can count on me and others across the nation to do everything in our power to help the people of your district to vote you out of office.
Respectfully,
<<>>
http://www.mdcrustacean.blogspot.com/
P.S. My representative in Congress, the Majority Whip Mr. Steny Hoyer, is one of the primary perpetrators of this terrible bill and is obviously not persuadable on this issue. He thinks that because of his long history representing one of the more liberal districts of an already liberal state, that his career is safe. Perhaps he should consider recent election results in states like New Jersey and Massachusetts. So should you.

The Noncensus of it all!

2010-02-26T20:32:00.005-05:00

There was yet another brouhaha earlier this week concerning illegal aliens. The Washington Examiner reported on February 21 that certain counties surrounding Washington, DC were pulling out all the stops to make sure that illegal aliens were counted in the census. Fanning out to ethnic church events and other community settings where they would likely reach an audience of illegal aliens, county officials were urging them to stand up and be counted, at the same time assuring them that their information will not be shared with federal immigration officials. So why are county officials doing this?

Failing to count illegal immigrants, local officials say, will reduce federal funding around $1,000 a year for each ignored person. And counties are looking for ways to offset costs that arise from providing health care and school services to thousands of residents who don't contribute taxes.

Some might be surprised at my take on the immigration issue. Though I am politically conservative, this is one area where I part company with the right. As noted in a previous post:

While I can agree with the need to secure our borders, it is in our interest to make it easier for people to legally come to the US and pursue the American dream, as long as we know who they are and that they do not intend us any harm. And though I don’t believe in a blanket amnesty, it would be both practical and compassionate to allow otherwise law abiding illegal immigrants (many of whom have been here for years and raised families) the opportunity to come forward, pay a fine and other applicable fees, and become legal documented workers. In so doing, they would start fully paying their fair share of taxes and no longer be a burden on our schools, hospitals and the public sector in general.

Indeed, I can understand the local counties’ point of view. The illegal immigrants are a drain on the county because they use the roads, schools and hospitals just like everyone else, but they are not part of the tax base. In these hard economic times, the counties need every dime they can get. But the solution to the problem is not to make sure all illegal immigrants are counted in the census in order to capture more funds from the federal trough. Instead, all counties and states—and indeed the federal government—need to make sure that all income earning residents are paying their share of taxes.

But the main point of this post does not concern illegal immigrants. Rather, there is a fundamental flaw in our system of taxation and revenue sharing. Our founding fathers never envisioned—indeed they crafted the Constitution to specifically avoid—a behemoth federal government that did most of the taxing and spending. Rather, the majority of taxation and government influence was to be at the local level, where elected leaders are more easily held accountable. We have since turned the wisdom of our founding fathers on its head to the point where state and local governments are mere appendages of the federal government. This has produced a myriad of ills, too many to recount here. The ridiculousness of local officials wanting to count illegal aliens in the census is merely the latest symptom of the problem.

Where is the line of demarcation between the local, state and federal governments? Why should the counties be depending on the federal trough?

Are We Out of the Woods Yet?

2010-02-19T20:24:00.003-05:00

I am probably among the few who has not seen or listened to the Tiger Woods’ apology. I have little or no interest and really felt no need to hear it. In truth, I know relatively few of the details of his transgressions. From the little snippets I have heard on news radio over the last few months while driving home from work, I take it he was unfaithful to his wife and family.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s not that situations like this don’t sadden me deeply. Marriage is sacred. And I grieve over those who are deeply hurt when one or more partners break their vow. Even when in the midst of the wreckage of the relationship both partners bravely attempt to forgive, mend and restore, it has to be terribly painful.

This is one reason I had little interest in the public apology. To whom in the public does he need to apologize? Yes, I suppose he should issue an apology to those whom he let down because they had looked to him as a role model. But this is more of a sad commentary on our society, where we elevate and lionize people who can run fast, score goals, break records or get a silly 1” diameter ball to fall into a hole with the fewest strokes possible. As impressive as these feats are, are they really the makings of a role model?

Though I studiously avoided reading or listening to recordings of “the apology” I did hear a lot of chatter today from pundits discussing whether or not Woods’ apology was earnest and whether it was enough for him to re-emerge as a major PGA golfer. Again, that is totally irrelevant. Even if he was totally insincere, I am sure that lying philanderers can still play a mean game of golf.

What I am more interested in is whether Tiger was earnest in his apology to his wife and family, whom he has hurt very deeply. And even this is none of my business. I have no standing to judge the sincerity of Tiger Woods’ confession, because there but for the grace of God go I. But for his sake I hope he was and is sincere; I wish him and his family the very best.

Beyond his family, there is Someone whom Tiger Woods has offended even more deeply, and not just by this most recent and sensational shortcoming. When King David was confronted with an even more sensational sin--having committed adultery with Bathsheeba and quietly arranged the death of her husband , Uriah the Hittite (who happened to be one of his most loyal soldiers)-- he had a lot of confessing and apologizing to do at the human level. But He also knew that he had deeply offended God. In his prayer of repentance, David cried out to God:

Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you are proved right when you speak
and justified when you judge.[i]

As much as it is good and right to confess and make amends to those whom we have sinned against, ultimately all sin is against God, and we are ultimately accountable to Him. And lest we think this does not apply to us because our transgressions might not seem as spectacular as those of Tiger Woods, sacred Scripture tells us otherwise: “There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”[ii] Until we acknowledge our desperate need for God’s forgiveness, we will never be out of the woods.

[i] Psalms 51:4, New International Version (NIV)
[ii] Romans 3:22b-23, NIV

What is your drug of choice?

2010-02-16T22:09:00.008-05:00

I am currently reading a book by Alister McGrath called The Twilight of Atheism. It is a somewhat heavy but worthwhile read that traces the philosophical underpinnings and history of atheism, including its meteoric rise in the 19th and 20th century and—as the title of the book suggests—the beginnig of its decline. I will not attempt to synopsize or otherwise do justice to the book in a single post (To be honest, I am not finished reading it!), but rather focus on two of the fallacies pointed out by McGrath:

The assumed tension or enmity between science and faith;
The notion that belief in God or theism is the natural result of man’s fear of death and desire for immortality

Scientific discovery through the ages has advanced precisely because of theistic thinking, as scientists have investigated on the assumption that an ordered world and consistent universe flow from a First Cause and Ultimate Controller of the laws of natures. It was not until Darwin’s Origin of the Species suggested the possibility of a natural evolution of man without a divine agent that there arose a perceived tension between science and faith. But this tension was not necessary. Darwinism merely suggested a theory of natural history that differs from literal interpretations of the Genesis creation accounts, but that is nothing new. Theologians as early as Augustine were careful to point out centuries before Darwin that Genesis need not be taken literally.

Science--if it is true to itself and therefore limits itself to that which can be observed, measured or replicated--cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God. Scientists can observe evidence for and against and draw a conclusion, but either conclusion will necessarily involve a leap of faith, and those who call themselves scientists are about equally divided in their conclusions. As the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould noted, “Either half of my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism.”

Taking advantage of the false tension between science and faith, the atheist may attempt to explain the origins of theistic belief. He may put forward a plausible case of how pre-historic man was terrified by the untamed world around him and particularly by his own mortality; and therefore invented the concept of a god and an afterlife in order to cope. The more politically oriented atheist would describe this phenomenon in political and socio-economic terms as well, seeing the afterlife as a false comfort for the poor and oppressed, a lie foisted upon them by the ruling classes. Wasn’t it Marx who called religion the opiate of the masses?

Yet there are two sides to that argument. It can be equally argued that there are things that are more terrifying than oppression and death. The unknowns of an afterlife can be pretty frightening, particularly if an afterlife means accountability to a Creator. And even if we don’t think too much about the afterlife, there is something in us that chafes at the idea of a Creator running our lives.
Alduous Huxley in Ends and Means was honest enough to admit:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption….The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he should personally not do as he wants to do…. For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation….

McGrath also quotes Polish Nobel Laureate Czeslaw Milosz, who having lived under both Nazism and Stalinism, experienced the oppression of rulers who felt unaccountable to God. In "The Discreet Charm of Nihilism", Milosz wrote:

Religion, opium for the people! To those suffering pain, humiliation, illness and serfdom, it promised a reward in afterlife. And now we are witnessing a transformation. A true opium of the people is a belief in nothingness after death--the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders, we are not going to be judged.

If they are honest, many atheists will admit that they prefer that God not exist. Actually, the general sentiment is not limited to atheists. Whether we are theists or atheists, there is something in humanity that wishes to live life on its own terms. Even if out of personal preference or for utilitarian reasons we subscribe to a moral lifestyle, we still would rather not have God holding us accountable.

How do we deal with this? The theist has two choices: (1) come to terms with God and who He is; or (2) invent a god in his own image, a less troublesome god that is more to his own liking. The atheist, on the other hand, takes the second option a step further and does whatever it takes to convince himself that God does not exist and therefore cannot have any claim or authority over his life.

In essence, we have two competing world views that have both been described as opiates, a means of escaping or coping with an unpleasant reality. Which is your drug of choice? Which of these world views comes closer to representing ultimate Reality?

Snow

2010-02-12T22:46:00.003-05:00

“Forget red and blue - color America white. There was snow on the ground in 49 states Friday -- all 50 states if you count the snow on top of the mountains in Hawaii.”

So stated an AP story quoted on the WTOP News Website on February 12, 2010. You would think I would use this as a springboard to take another potshot at the politically motivated global warming hysteria. Believe me, it is tempting, but that is not my purpose here.

I will focus instead on the effects of the record snowfall in Washington, DC, expressed not only in terms of the back to back storms that dumped more than three feet of snow on the national capital area, but also in terms of closings and delays. While it is not uncommon that a significant snowfall should shut down local school systems—for obvious safety reasons--it is extremely rare for inclement weather to shut down the federal government, even for a day. Instead, federal employees who cannot make it into work are usually offered the option of taking unscheduled leave.

Not this time. The government shut down four hours early on Friday, February 5th in anticipation of the big storm causing a messy evening rush hour, and it remained closed Monday through Thursday the following week. It reopened on Friday the 12th, but with allowances for a two hour delayed arrival as well as an unscheduled leave option.

I will preface what I am about to say by making it clear that the Office of Personnel Management made a wise decision. The conditions were really that bad, and it would have been insane to force approximately 300,000 federal workers[i] to risk life and limb by venturing into the city.

Yet I am feeling a tinge of guilt because I spent the entire week hunkered down in my home. Other than venturing out to shovel the walk and the driveway, I didn’t do much all week. Because I normally work an Alternate Work Schedule of 9 hour days allowing me to take every other Friday off, I was not even obligated to go to the office on Friday the 12th. I intended to go anyway to start to take a crack at tackling my burgeoning inbox, but the continued problems with commuter train delays and disruptions caused me to decide against it.

I felt guilty enough because I could have spent my time more productively even while I was stuck at home. But it also troubles me that, even as bad as the storm was, it did not stop many people from working. First and foremost, it did not stop the unsung heroes on whom we depend so heavily in both inclement and mild weather: law enforcement personnel, firefighters and ambulance drivers, road crews (especially snow plough operators!), hospital and medical personnel, electric and other utility crews, and even retailers (grocery, hardware, fuel etc.) and their suppliers on whom we depend for access to daily provisions. The list goes on, and my hat is off to all of them.

But I also think of other merchants, particularly small businesses that chose to stay open as much as they possibly could. My brother is co-owner of a small auto-repair business in Northern Virginia. Snow or no snow, he had customers’ cars in his shop that needed repair, and there was plenty of other work to be done. So after he dug out of his own driveway, he hopped into his four wheel drive and dug out his place of business. My son-in-law also went to work just about every day this week. He works for his dad’s small software business as a database administrator. Snow or no snow, the company must continue to service its customers around the country, so the two of them hopped into the four wheel drive and made it to the office. Allowing for others to take unscheduled leave, they managed to put together enough of a skeleton crew to continue operations.

In both instances, these small businesses had a motivation that is not readily apparent to the public sector. They must work in order to provide goods and services and sell them at a profit. They must balance their books and make payroll. And they must do so effectively and efficiently so as to earn and keep the trust and continued business of their customers. And in so doing, they also employ others, allowing them to make a living and pay taxes, which are used in part to pay the salaries of government personnel like me.

With all sincerity, I say "thank you". You too are my heroes.

[i] According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Federal Government is the Nation's largest employer, with about 2.0 million civilian employees, , excluding the Postal Service. About 85 percent of Federal employees work outside the Washington, DC metropolitan area.

Out of the Bush League

2010-02-10T15:19:00.011-05:00

A little over a year ago, just a day or two before Inauguration Day, I unapologetically wrote a post entitled The Bush Legacy and an Ungrateful Nation. Even while pointing out my areas of disagreement and disappointment with the 43rd president, I maintained that he got a bum rap and that history would eventually vindicate him.

I found it amazing that within the course of six or seven years a president’s approval rating can drop from the stratospheric 90’s down to dismal 20’s. It’s not like he underwent a dramatic shift in policy (except, as I pointed out, his disappointing performance in fiscal policy, in which he allowed deficit spending to soar to levels that … seem pathetically mild compared to now.) But he otherwise stuck to his guns tenaciously (or stubbornly, depending on your point of view), despite the shifting and fickle political winds.

Anyway, no point in repeating here what I wrote a year ago. I was inspired to raise the issue again by news reports of a peculiar billboard sighting on I-35 in Wyoming, Minnesota. The picture here is courtesy of National Review Online.

It’s interesting that nobody knew initially who funded the billboard, leading some wishful thinkers on the left to wonder whether it was funded by someone of their ilk in hopes of reminding people how terrible things were under Bush. I would welcome the comparison. So how about it?

Are you happy with the $1.5 trillion budget deficit in 2010 and projected $1+ trillion deficits for years to come, as opposed to otherwise unacceptable annual deficits in the $200+ billion dollar range (Or the $482 billion dollar range in Bush’s last budget of 2009)?
Are you happy with government spending in the range of 45% of gross domestic product in the Obama years, as opposed to the otherwise unacceptable 35% rate during the Bush years?

Are you happy that terrorists who are again coming perilously close to successfully attacking our country are being given Miranda rights instead of being taken to Guantanamo for questioning and a military tribunal? Are you thrilled that Khalid Sheik Mohammed is going to get all the constitutional rights of a civil trial? Or maybe you are beginning to miss the alleged “torture”, “harsh interrogation methods” and “illegal detention” of enemy combatants during Bush’s war on terror (which by the way, repeatedly thwarted plans for additional attacks against the U.S.)

Do you miss the supposed divisiveness and polarizing effect of the Bush administration, despite his bending over backwards in dialoguing with the opposing party, often to his detriment? Or do you still prefer the way President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Reid, House Speaker Pelosi, Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod try to ramrod their agenda behind closed doors?

I could go on and on (I have barely scratched the surface), but let me sum it up in a simple question: How is that “hope and change” thing working out for you?

Talkin' 'bout my generation!

2010-02-08T14:26:00.003-05:00

Though I was born a little late for it, I consider myself a child of the sixties. I imbibed the culture and the music from my older brothers, and even from my dad, whose negative experiences growing up in fascist Italy caused him to be sympathetic to a generation that questioned authority, and particularly a generation that opposed the war in Vietnam. Though my brothers and I were otherwise raised to be pretty straight-laced kids that otherwise steered clear of the uglier side of the sixties generation, and even as I have since rejected much of the political ideology in favor of common sense conservatism (i.e., I grew up.), there is much about the sixties that causes me to look back nostalgically. If nothing else, I still love the music.

I’m sure many of my fellow baby-boomers think likewise, so it is not surprising that the commercial sector would tap into that nostalgia. A case in point is the choice of entertainment during the halftime shows on Superbowl Sundays. Young and old alike swayed and sang along with Paul McCartney in 2005 or Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones in 2006. There was something deliciously sweet to see that these sixty-somethings seemed to still have it in them.

Some performers have a certain raucous, raspy voice that lends itself well to rock-n-roll. It is evident in Paul McCartney, for example, in the Beatles’ rendition of Long Tall Sally; or Bert Cummings of the Guess Who belting out American Woman; or even Kenny Loggins (though better known for his folksy, country-acoustic style than rock-n-roll) doing Footloose. Another artist with that classic rock-n-roll voice is Pete Townshend of The Who. So naturally, I was excited to learn that the band was going to perform at this year’s Superbowl Halftime Show.

What a disappointment! As I watched in horror, I typed the following post on Facebook:

So I am watching this grey haired guy doing a very poor Pete Townshend imitation and I ask, "Who are you? Who-who? I really want to know!!"

That could not have been Pete Townshend and Roger Daltrey on stage. What I saw was a couple of flabby old guys who could barely carry their own tunes. In case you haven’t seen it in all its inglorious patheticness, here is a link to the Youtube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6Io05fTLSg

The next thought that came to my mind was: It’s a good thing they didn’t sing “Talkin’ ‘bout my generation!”. Then again, on second thought, perhaps they should have. A delicious in-your-face irony would have redeemed the show if they had done a slowed-down acoustic arrangement as they sang:

Why don't you all f-fade away (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
And don't try to dig what we all s-s-say (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Things they do look awful c-c-cold (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Yeah, I hope I die before I get old (Talkin' 'bout my generation)

Indeed it is not my intent to criticize and throw pot-shots at Townshend, Daltrey or The Who. We can chalk up yesterday’s less than stellar performance as a bad day at the office, and perhaps they would even agree. But the performance is illustrative of what happens to all generations. They start out with energy and exuberance, chock full of new ideas, and they have little patience for the thinking and traditions of their elders. And this is not necessarily a bad thing, as it is often healthy to question and re-examine values that we may have taken for granted and perhaps no longer know why we hold them. In the end, the questions and challenges from the younger generation will cause the older generation to discard the values and traditions not worth keeping and to re-enforce those that are.

But in time, the younger generation experiences a turning of the tables. We grow up and discover that our parents indeed had a lot of wisdom, and we are suddenly perplexed to find our children questioning our values. Perhaps each and every generation should come to realize that we can all learn from each other; and—by the way—we will all eventually get too old to rock-n-roll.

Required Reading

2010-02-06T21:56:00.005-05:00

Last month a fellow blogger and Facebook friend posted a quote from a historical figure I had never heard of. This in and of itself did not surprise me, because the older I get the more I am made aware of my profound ignorance, which is attributable in part to the pathetic education I received in the public school systems. Anyway, the quote is as follows:

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it. (Frédéric Bastiat)

I had to do some internet research to learn that Bastiat was a French statesman, essayist and economist of the nineteenth century. His classic treatise, The Law , is one of the great philosophical and moral defenses of liberty and limited government. I borrowed a copy from a friend and was heartened to learn that I was not alone in discovering Bastiat late in life. In his forward to the Dean Russell translation published by the Foundation for Economic Education, Economics Professor and political commentator Walter Williams admitted: “I must have been forty years old before reading Frédéric Bastiat’s classic, The Law. An anonymous person, to whom I shall be eternally in debt, mailed me an unsolicited copy.” As a fan and admirer of Walter Williams, I can say I am in good company!

Bastiat’s basic philosophical premise is that life, liberty and property (the fruit of one’s labors) are all gifts from God. We therefore have a natural right to protect our person, our freedom and our property. These rights are from God and not bequeathed to us by the law. The only legitimate purpose of the law is to organize this natural right of self-defense by instituting a common defense against anyone or anything that would violate those rights.

In his masterful treatise, Bastiat calmly employs logic and reason against those who would use the law beyond its legitimate purpose. How does one know if the law has gone beyond its proper limits? Bastiat offers a simple test:

See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot... do without committing a crime.

Speaking against his contemporaries who would use the law to restrain individual rights and remake society according to their own liking, he laments:

Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.

Even as I reproduce the quote, I can already hear the howls of protest, accusation and indignation from modern day liberals, socialists and other assorted statists, who would accuse modern-day Bastiat’s of being heartless, greedy, un-Christian or only looking out for number one. Bastiat anticipated the objection and answered masterfully:

Because we ask so little from the law — only justice — the socialists thereby assume that we reject fraternity, unity, organization, and association. The socialists brand us with the name individualist. But we assure the socialists that we repudiate only forced organization, not natural organization.
We repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us, not free association. We repudiate forced fraternity, not true fraternity. We repudiate the artificial unity that does nothing more than deprive persons of individual responsibility. We do not repudiate the natural unity of mankind under Providence. …
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

Bastiat also pointed to the United States of his day as a positive example of ordered, individual liberty, but was also quick to point out its two major flaws-- slavery and protective tariffs--citing the former as a violation of liberty, the latter as a violation of property. Fortunately, slavery is no longer tolerated in the U.S, and though tariffs have not been eradicated, they are generally frowned upon as counterproductive. Yet Bastiat would otherwise be deeply disappointed to see that the statist mindset he so eloquently argued against has since taken hold in modern day America.

Farewell

2010-01-22T22:57:00.006-05:00

I sit alone as a flood of memories parades through my head.

I am remembering the black and white photos from when we were kids. I can picture the one of you standing beside your father smirking as he is holding up a Topo Gigio doll with its head turned backwards, so it ‘s erect tail looks like something else.

We were both the youngest sons of our parents, only a few months apart in age. On the one hand, this produced an unspoken rivalry. On the other hand, we were friends and playmates. Though you were one grade ahead of me, we went through much of life together: catechism classes, first communion, etc. Our families were always together, whether at work in the mushroom houses or spending leisurely evenings socializing at home.

I vividly remember when your family would come over. Instead of knocking, your father would call out “Permesso!” in a loud voice as he walked through our front door without a moment’s hesitation. At other times he would simply yell out my dad’s name in the Genovese dialect, “Menegu!”, and my dad would yell back “Avanti!” Our parents would gather around the table for coffee or dessert, together with Uncle Joe and Aunt Josephine and others, having a grand old time talking about who-knows-what while we played together. Though sometimes we fought, we were best of buddies.

In middle school and junior high years we started drifting apart. You had a different and wider circle of friends. But as we got into our junior and senior years we started having a lot more in common. We spent weekends and summers engaged in back-breaking but dependable employment at the mushroom houses, which provided income to save for future endeavors and pocket money for going to the movies or hopping in the car and taking a day-trip lark to Ocean City.

I am not sure I remember exactly how it happened, but I think it was in part due to your encouragement that I worked up the nerve to ask Susan to the prom. That ended up working out pretty well for me. Thanks.

As far as I can remember, you were an average student in high school. I, on the other hand, had turned into a bit of a geek. But whatever academic limitations you may have had, you were determined to make something of yourself. You worked hard and put yourself through college. You got a degree in a field that interested you and then went on to get a job that you enjoyed and excelled in. I can’t remember if it was at this point or later that you shed the diminutive name “Joey” and insisted on being called “Joe”.

We both got married right out of college and were best men in each other’s weddings. The camaraderie continued as we compared notes and started raising families. It saddened me deeply when your first marriage suddenly dissolved. I remember that it also cost you your job and for a short while you moved back to your parents’ house in Rising Sun. Life was falling apart. I remember the talks we had, and how God had mercy on you as you turned your life over to Him. He blessed you with a new bride, Gina, who had been your dear friend in high school, and you were able to start life over again. And true to form as you started a new career, you worked hard and made a name for yourself. I am not sure I ever told you, but I was proud of you.

As we got older, we compared notes as we went through other rites of passage together. Our children grew and went to college. Our eldest children got married and gave us our first respective grandsons. Life was good. We probably only had occasion to speak to each other three or four times a year, but it was great to catch up. We also compared notes when life was not so good, such as when our fathers passed away, or when we both suffered serious illnesses that subjected us to prolonged and complicated surgeries. But we both pulled through!

Not this time, though. All of the sudden, you are gone. I am not sure what to do with myself. At times I feel an irrational guilt because I am here and alive and you are not. But then I remember that this life pales in comparison to what you are experiencing now. This is the blessed hope that I have to look forward to. But in the meantime, I will miss you, Joe.

Orgasmic Outrage

2010-01-10T22:53:00.004-05:00

I recently saw a YouTube link by an Italian commentator named Marco Paolini. For all I know, Paolini and I are political polar opposites, but he makes an interesting and colorful observation about the Italian body politic:

For us Italians, indignation lasts about as long as an orgasm. And then you get sleepy.

Paolini was lamenting how initial outrage over an injustice or disaster is usually followed by forgetfulness and indifference. He was referring specifically to an incident that occurred thirty years ago but is still an unsolved mystery: On June 27, 1980, Flight 870 en route from Bologna to Palermo suddenly disappeared from radar screens and was later found to have crashed into the deep waters of the Tyrrhenian Sea near the island of Ustica, killing all 81 people on board.

The event is known in Italy as “la Strage di Ustica” (the Ustica Massacre), because many believe the plane was shot down by a missile during military exercises in the area. One theory specifically alleges that the plane was in the wrong place at the wrong time, having been caught in a dog fight between NATO jets and a Libyan MiG 23 that was later found crashed in the mountains of Calabria. Others believe that a bomb was placed on board, either by terrorists, or perhaps by some Mafiosi wanting to settle a score with a passenger. Still others believe the initial findings of the official investigation, that it was simply a matter of a very old, corroding airplane that had started to break apart in flight and subsequently disintegrated subsequent to depressurization.

The dearth of information surrounding the event has spawned many conspiracy theories. For example, some radar and other air traffic control records appear to be missing or incomplete. The black box was not recovered until years later, when the entirety of the plane was finally recovered under the 3700 meter deep waters by a French engineering firm. Both the Italian and U.S. militaries contended that there had been no military exercises or operations in the area, but unanswered questions remained. In the meantime, many of the people who may have been in a position to know key facts have died, some under suspicious circumstances and timing.

In 1989, some members of the Italian Air Force were indicted for “high treason”, having allegedly obstructed the official investigation, which at this point was concluding that the plane had been downed by a missile strike. The indictments provoked the outrage and indignation that Paolini was referring to. However, everyone so indicted has since been acquitted, and the fact remains that we still do not know exactly what happened. The Italian government reopened the investigation in 2008.

I think the Italians could be forgiven that their indignation over Ustica has waned. After all, we still don’t know exactly what happened. But I cannot forgive or understand similar reactions by Americans to disasters where we know precisely what happened, and even after our initial indignation caused us to learn and implement some valuable lessons. Unlike flight 870 on June 27, 1980, we know precisely what happened on September 11, 2001, when 19 hijackers boarded four airliners and subsequently crashed American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Center North Tower, United Airlines Flight 175 into the South Tower and American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Had it not been for the courage and quick thinking of some of the passengers on United Flight 93, the terrorists would have crashed it into the White House or the Capitol Building, but ended up crash-landing into a field in Pennsylvania. In addition to the 19 hijackers, 2973 perished as a result of these attacks.

The subsequent investigations were swift and precise, and they discovered exactly what we needed to know, albeit too late. It took a direct attack on our own shores to wake us up to what was patently obvious. We had adversaries who were literally at war with us, and we had been pathetically and ineffectively treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem. These were not people who needed to be read their Miranda rights and brought into a court of law. We were outraged to learn that only a few years earlier the government of Sudan had offered to turn Osama bin Laden over to the United States but we declined because we did not think we had enough evidence to convict him in a court of law. We also learned that there were pathetic gaps in our ability to collect and analyze intelligence, and much of that had unfortunately been by design, as there were laws and long-standing policies in place that kept our intelligence and law enforcement agencies from talking to each other.

Our indignation and outrage was not without effect. Most if not all of the faulty thinking, mindset and policy was immediately corrected. Instead of waiting for terrorists to strike us, we declared war against them and against nations that were harboring or protecting them. We passed laws and implemented policies that not only allowed but also mandated that intelligence and law enforcement agencies share information. We did not concern ourselves with the constitutional rights of enemy combatants (they have none), but rather concentrated on extracting information from them in order to protect our nation from being attacked again.

The good news is that for the next eight years we were not attacked again, though not for lack of trying on the part of the terrorists. Time and time again, we were able to thwart terrorist attacks thanks to information received, analyzed and shared by our military, intelligence and law enforcement agencies. It got to a point where life returned to normal in the USA, despite the fact that we had troops fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and therein lay the bad news.

After our initial orgasm of outrage, we started to get sleepy. We reverted to a mindset of politics as usual, and opposition parties started to not only question but even criminalize the very policies and tactics that have been so effective in fighting this war on terrorism.

Oh, excuse me! We must no longer call it a war or even refer to it as terrorism. I think “man-made disaster” is now the term du jour. We have again been lulled to the sleep of a pre-9/11 mentality. Mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his cohorts are going to get a jury trial in New York City. Even the disastrous result of the first major intelligence failure—when Nidal Malik Hasan went on a shooting rampage, yelling “"Allahu Akbar” as he killed 13 people and wounded 30 others at Fort Hood Texas—did not wake us up from our stupor. Instead, we allowed the Obama Administration and a compliant media to convince us that this was not an act of terrorism but simply a matter of someone going postal (his previous contacts with Al Qaeda and other tell-tale intelligence and warning signs notwithstanding).

Neither am I optimistic that we have been awakened by the next intelligence failure either, when we failed to act on multiple warning signs and information that should have kept Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from being issued a visa and boarding Northwest Airlines Flight 253 with explosives in his underwear. Disaster was averted thanks to some courageous passengers, as well as Mr. Abdulmutallab’s wardrobe malfunction. But instead of being re-awakened to a post 9/11 mentality, we read Mr. Abdulmutallab his rights and plan to arraign him in federal court, with all the constitutional protections he so richly does not deserve.

Back to Mr.Paolini’s somewhat vulgar but otherwise accurate metaphor: indignation lasts about as long as an orgasm. And then you get sleepy. Will we ever wake up?

When the foundations are being destroyed...

2009-12-31T09:10:00.006-05:00

I hadn’t picked up a newspaper in a couple days, but the following headline from the Washington Times caught my eye as it lay on the kitchen table: Birth mom must give child to lesbian ex-partner.

I wanted to ignore it, but a mixture of perplexity and curiosity compelled me to pick up the newspaper, thinking that there must be more to this story. As I read the article, it only got worse. Read the details for yourself if you like, but the story in a nutshell is as follows:

Lesbian couple joins in a civil union. It happens. For better or for worse, this is becoming increasingly acceptable.
One of the partners gets artificially inseminated and has a child. Everything should be “happily ever after” from here on out.
Biological mother becomes an evangelical Christian, renounces her homosexuality, and wants to dissolve the civil union.
The biological mother gets custody of the child, and the other partner gets visitation rights.
Given her new found outlook on life, the biological mother is uncomfortable about giving her former lesbian partner access to her daughter.
The lesbian ex-partner takes her to court and convinces a judge to give her custody instead, with visitation rights to the biological mother.

Is it just me, or is there something wrong with this picture? Yes, I know, there is probably something else to this story and I am not saying that Lisa Miller, the biological mother, did everything right. But not very long ago, such a court decision would have been unthinkable.

Of course it can be argued that the judge followed the letter of the law. Indeed, as stated in the article, “The supreme courts of Virginia and Vermont ruled in favor of Ms. Jenkins [the lesbian partner], saying the case was the same as a custody dispute between a heterosexual couple. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear arguments on it.”

But the Dickens character Mr. Bumble was right: “The law is a ass.” The law is presupposing a moral equivalency between a homosexual couple (which is incapable of producing children) and a heterosexual couple. But even in traditional marriages that end up in divorce, absent the mother having serious issues, preference is usually given to her as the one who has done most of the heavy lifting. In this case, the lesbian ex has absolutely zilch-zero-nada connection to the child, except that she was previously in a “civil union” with the biological mother.

This tragic decision is the inevitable consequence of a continuing moral slide, where homosexuality was formerly viewed purely in moral terms, then later more compassionately considered a behavioral disorder to be overcome, and finally as an inherent and insurmountable proclivity (lack of scientific support notwithstanding). And of course if homosexuality is an inherent trait, as if you were somehow born with a homosexual gene, your behavior is sanctioned and protected by law, with all the rights and privileges thereof.

That is why I suspect that there is an agenda here, if not on the part of the judges who are claiming to uphold the letter of the law, at least on the part of the lesbian who sued for custody (and of course the homosexual rights groups who are undoubtedly supporting her). The biological mother, by renouncing her homosexuality as part of her conversion to Christianity, represents a threat to the entire premise of the homosexual rights movement. If it is indeed possible to make a radical change in lifestyle by choice, then homosexuality is not an inherited trait after all, but very much a moral behavioral choice.

I have unapologetically stated elsewhere that homosexuality is an egregious sin, but so is heterosexual adultery and fornication, groundless divorce and other forms of spousal abandonment, cheating on your income tax and other forms of theft, all forms of deceit ranging from simple lies to full scale perjury, harsh words spoken in anger, and (last, but certainly not least) hypocrisy, pride or self-righteous attitudes toward those who practice any of the above. All these and countless other unlisted evils are equally effective at evoking divine displeasure. And all of them are equally forgivable where there is genuine remorse and a desire to change.

I therefore claim no moral superiority to the players in this saga, or to anyone for that matter. I have plenty of my own sins. My main point is that shifts in basic assumptions as illustrated in this case will have a profound impact on how the law is applied. Once moral equivalency is assumed and morality is removed from the equation, the very foundations of our system of law and government start to crumble. As the psalmist says, “When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalms 11:3)

Christmas Joy

2009-12-25T00:01:00.004-05:00

Today’s post is an adaptation of a Christmas letter I recently sent to family and friends. I write one every year as an alternative to Christmas cards. When I first started, I would send out a couple hundred of them all by snail mail. Thanks to modern technology and a touch of laziness, I have been able to save quite a few trees (and postage) by only printing and mailing about half as many.

Each year I try to achieve the dual purpose of (1) sharing family news and (2) saying something inspiring. I almost did not send a letter out this year because, to be honest, I wasn’t feeling very inspired. Too much of the family news I had to share was not very joyful, and the majority of my recipients were already well aware of it. I had heard many of them express, either verbally or via a post on Facebook, that they would just as soon bid good riddance to the year 2009.

And on one level, I could certainly understand and appreciate the sentiment, because—at least by human standards--it has not been a good year. In my 2008 Christmas letter, I had tried to wax poetic and sentimental with bittersweet nostalgia about our grandparents’ and parents’ generation, and how the years were slipping by and taking with them more and more loved ones from those wonderful generations. It was a euphemistic way of expressing an unpleasant truth: people die.

When I wrote those words, I had no idea how that truth would play out in the coming year, and how it does not just happen to the older generation. Around the same time that my wife and I were stuffing envelopes with last year’s Christmas letters, a young cousin of ours was struck by a car, ending her precious life at the age of 24. I was filled with a predictable measure of shock, horror and sadness, and also a sense of regret because I hardly knew her. That’s what unfortunately happens when time and careers and life pull you away from family. I had just started to get reacquainted with her mother (my first cousin) via email and the blogosphere, and in one email I lamented how we only see each other at weddings and funerals. And as it turned out, the next time I saw her was at a gathering in memory of her daughter.

Something similar happened six months later with another cousin, who grew up next door to me and with whom in later years I had ever so infrequent contact. Her young son of seventeen, an extremely intelligent, outgoing, other-centered and gifted young man with a promising future, died suddenly from a brain aneurysm just as he was graduating from high school. Again, in addition to the shock and sadness, there was also the regret that I barely knew him.

In both cases, I learned only afterwards how much I had missed by not having the privilege of knowing and interacting with two fine young folks, and now they were suddenly gone. It’s not supposed to be that way. Older folks are supposed to die. But then again, neither is it pleasant when our loved ones in the older generations are taken away, and we have seen plenty of that this year as well. In February I lost a dear aunt whom I absolutely adored, and she was followed five days later by my uncle, who mercifully did not have to mourn his wife too long before he was able to join her.

And now it has been one month since my own mother passed away. I would have thought this would be easier to cope with, because she had been struggling with a debilitating illness for years, and her passing was in many ways a blessing for her, as it meant the end of her suffering, and a joyful reunion with my father and all of her loved ones who had gone before. And more importantly, she is with the Savior. Still, this loss has been difficult as well.

And yet, as Job said, “The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised." At first glance, these words might seem rather flippant, as if God were aloof or indifferent to the giving and taking of life. Does He not understand the pain?

Here is the reason I can have Christmas joy even after a year like this, because God indeed does understand. He is never indifferent to our pain and sorrows, because He has experienced them Himself. The following words from one of my favorite theologians are right on the mark.

I could never myself believe in God if it were not for the cross. The only God I believe in is the one Nietzsche ridiculed as “God on the cross”. In the real world of pain, how could one worship a God who was immune to it? … I have turned instead to that lonely, twisted, tortured figure on the cross, nails through his hands and feet, back lacerated, limbs wrenched, brow bleeding from thorn pricks, mouth dry and intolerably thirsty, plunged in God-forsaken darkness. That is the God for me! He laid aside his immunity to pain. He entered our world of flesh and blood, tears and death. He suffered for us. Our sufferings become more manageable in the light of his. There is still a question mark against human suffering, but over it we boldly stamp another mark, the cross which symbolizes divine suffering. (John Stott, The Cross of Christ, pp. 335-336)

Jesus indeed understands our pain and sorrows, for He himself was a “man of sorrows.” At Christmas we celebrate His incarnation, and as we contemplate what that means, it puts into perspective any sadness we may feel, particularly during this season which is otherwise expected to be joyful.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (John 1:14)

[Jesus] made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! (Philippians 2:7-8)

The “Word made flesh” is the glorious truth we celebrate at Christmas. Jesus is our “Emmanuel,” which means “God with us”. He understands our weaknesses and sorrows and will never leave us nor forsake us. And this gives me joy, not only at Christmas, but all year long.

A joyful Christmas and a blessed new year to all!

Let’s go for broke!

2009-12-22T21:26:00.009-05:00

After winning over the last few remaining holdouts in the Senate, it appears that President Obama and Harry Reid have the necessary votes to take over one-sixth of the economy with their healthcare bill. It has long been the holy grail of the left, and it is finally within their reach.

The arguments for government run and/or heavily regulated healthcare, when repeated long and loud enough, sooner or later start to stick. The ones I have heard most often are summarized below:

Healthcare is a basic human right that should be denied to no one. All Americans have an inalienable right to medical insurance and health care.

Healthcare should therefore not be left in the hands of profit driven medical care providers, pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers or insurance companies.

Too much money is being spent on healthcare for unnecessary tests and procedures.

The only way to equitably address these issues is to leave healthcare up to the government.

The arguments have even had their intended effect on me, and my initial opposition has softened. In fact, now that government run healthcare seems inevitable, I suggest we go for broke. Why stop at healthcare? There are other major sectors of our lives and of the economy for which the same arguments are equally if not more applicable.

The Auto Industry

Transportation is a basic human right, and perhaps I should broaden this category to include the transportation industry in general. After all, we over-consuming Americans spend way too much time in cars, boats and airplanes. We should be spending much more time using public transportation, bicycles, or even hoofing it.

The government should follow the healthcare model and pass major legislation that would ensure the following:

Anyone who truly needs an automobile has a right to own one. But the government should determine not only who truly needs an automobile, but what kind of automobile they should drive. SUV’s, Hummers, and F250’s need not apply. They are much too wasteful and cause global warming.

Government regulation should determine not only the nature of the automobiles to be manufactured and sold, but also the price and the profit margin. Instead of an MSRP, we should have a Federally Mandated Retail Price or FMRP.

In order to keep the auto companies honest, government owned and operated auto companies (such as GM and Chrysler) should serve as a “public option” for those who are unable to afford the vehicles sold by those money-grubbing, union-busting price gougers at Ford, Toyota, Honda, etc. Ford in particular should be singled out for punishment, for having the audacity to refuse government bailout money.

Serious reform and regulation are desperately needed in two subsectors of the auto industry:

Auto insurance: I got this idea from my oldest brother, an ardent supporter of Obamacare, who recently told me: “The auto-insurance industry is next.” He is right, of course. After all, the auto-insurers are just as evil as their brethren in the healthcare industry, and they need to be regulated or be subject to government takeover accordingly. The auto insurance industry mercilessly calculates rates and claims based on outdated and unfair factors such as driving records and risk factors. We need the government to keep them straight.
Auto repair: I have another brother who has been cheering for Obamacare, and I understand why. His small auto-repair business pays the insurance premiums for himself, his partners and employees, and he has complained bitterly about increases in premiums. I am sure he will now happily pay the higher premiums and tolerate the fewer heath care choices that will be part of the Obamacare package, because at least the insurance company won’t be profiting. But I digress. My main point is that the government should take over or at least heavily regulate the auto repair industry as well. How many of us have taken it on the chin from shysters trying to sell us an engine-overhaul when all we needed was new spark plugs? I can personally vouch that my brother is scrupulously honest, but it is the rest of those money-grubbing scoundrels in the industry that I cannot trust.

5. Finally, transportation and the auto industry would not be an issue if not for all the unnecessary travel. Any travel outside a 50 mile radius should be subject to government approval.

The Housing Industry

Just as healthcare is a basic human right, who can argue that housing is not? We therefore need the government to ensure affordable housing for all, and the only efficient way to do it is for the federal bureaucracy to control the housing industry. And there is way too much of a disparity between working class, low-end housing and the mega-mansions that only the rich can afford. Our government previously attempted to right this wrong with the Community Reinvestment Act, which mandated that banks offer mortgages to people who cannot otherwise afford them, but that had a few unintended consequences, such as the economic meltdown of 2008. No matter. There is still much the government can do. For starters, they can charge a hefty -surtax on any house costing more than $500,000. If this causes a decline and job losses in the construction industry, so be it. Those fat-cats deserve it.

To curb any potential losses in the construction industry, the government can sponsor public housing projects, an area where they already have significant experience and expertise. Cabrini Green of Chicago provides an excellent model. And publicly subsidized and regulated housing can also go a long way toward downsizing and normalizing the extravagant mega-mansions that are littering our landscape. What the public needs is basic housing, not thousands of square feet of unnecessary living space. We might have to look overseas for a good example to follow. Before his untimely death, Romania’s Nicolae Ceauşescu provided some lovely apartment buildings for his loyal subjects and was able to steer clear of wastefully extravagant housing. By contrast, U.S. expenditures on housing--like healthcare expenditures--continue to increase at an alarming and unsustainable rate. Something needs to be done now!

The Food Industry

The factors that have necessitated regulation and/or nationalization of the healthcare industry are closely related if not identical to parallel factors in the food industry. The Center for Science in the Public Interest has argued convincingly that what we are eating is killing us, and they have been quite successful in lobbying for local ordinances against restaurants serving trans-fats and over-sized portions. But why stop there? Restaurant offerings and portion sizes should be subject to federal—not local—control, and this can be achieved by taxation and regulation of certain restaurant offerings.

Furthermore, we should not limit ourselves to restaurants. After all, who can afford to eat out anymore? The authority of the Food and Drug Administration should be expanded to control the processing and distribution of food items to grocery stores, which should themselves be nationalized in order to increase equity and efficiency. Basic human needs such as food should not be left in the hands of a few profit-driven capitalists!

The model I suggest has already been tried and has worked effectively in the former Soviet Union. Do you remember the scene from Moscow on the Hudson, where the Russian émigré played by Robin Williams is sent to a grocery store to buy coffee, and he literally goes berserk when he goes into the coffee aisle and sees shelves chock full of about 50 different brands? Why all the extravagance and waste? Why not just stick with Maxwellhouse? Like the character played by Robin Williams, we would be much better off if our choices were limited to those offered on the otherwise sparse shelves of a government run food store. And just think of it: our decreased intake would likely result in a proportional decrease in obesity and other maladies.

Similarly, the government should also expand the authority of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to more heavily regulate and even take over the means of food production. Why leave such an important commodity in the hands of profit-driven farmers --or worse still-- in the hands of evil agricultural conglomerates such as Continental Grain and Monsanto? Successful models abound. Government regulation, takeover or confiscation has proven very effective in leveling the playing field of other countries such as Soviet Russia and Zimbabwe. It is not quite clear why these former breadbaskets became food importers, but we should study and learn from their example nonetheless.

The News Media

Finally, the press is an institution that is desperately crying out for a government takeover, de jure as well as de facto. The mainstream media have seen some tough times lately, as they have been inexplicably losing market share to talk radio, internet communications, as well as to a money-grubbing, profit-driven, rogue network called Fox News. In addition to providing some much needed regulation and oversight to these latter entities, the government must do something to prop up great American institutions such as the broadcast news organizations within the three major networks and CNN, as well as major print media such as the Washington Post and the New York Times. The Times provides a perfect case in point, as its diminished readership and other factors have put it on the verge of bankruptcy. Some politicians such as Maryland’s Senator Ben Cardin have astutely suggested that such major urban newspapers are “too big to fail” and are therefore in need of a government bailout. Of course, some small minded reactionaries have suggested that this would compromise the independence of the news media, but all indications suggest that an infusion of government money would have no discernible effect on the Times’ editorial policy, at least in the short term. Perhaps it is a little premature to consider a government takeover of the media, but the idea has merit and should be given some serious thought.

Epilogue

You know what’s really scary? It is becoming increasingly difficult to write parody these days. Some people who are so drunk with the idea of government control might read this and say, “Hey, where have you been? That is exactly what we have in mind!” Others who are not too far behind them are thinking, “Hey, great idea! Why didn’t I think of that?” Scariest of all are the masses of Americans who have become so used to government control and entitlements (the new opiate of the masses) and the corresponding loss of freedoms, that these ideas do not seem altogether foreign or unacceptable.

In Memory of my Mom

2009-12-03T22:49:00.019-05:00

My dear mother Angelina was born in 1930 in Torre Faro, Messina. She was the third of three siblings born in Italy, after Uncle Joe and Aunt Rosie. The family situation at the time was not uncommon for southern Italy. My grandmother, "Nonna Antonia", was what was commonly referred to as a vedova Americana: an “American widow”. That is, my grandfather, “Nonno Nicola”, like many breadwinners in that era, spent months and years at a time in the United States, where jobs and opportunities were more plentiful, so he could send money home to his wife and children and perhaps one day bring them to the USA. Unfortunately, one of his trips abroad occurred at the end of 1929, just after my mother was conceived, and at the beginning of the Great Depression. The economic downturn and the subsequent World War--with Italy and the USA on opposite sides—prolonged the separation until after the war.

Nonna Antonia managed to carry on with a multi-generational family support network, relatives from both sides of the family clinging together and looking after each other. That support network was very much needed. In 1933, Aunt Rosie died at the tender age of six. In 1938, Uncle Joe was able to join and assist Nonno Nicola in the United States, with the hope that Nonna and Ma would be able to join them soon afterwards, but then the war broke out in Europe. During times when the war heated up near the Strait of Messina, the extended family had to abandon their homes and flee inland on foot.

Despite the difficulties, Ma had many wonderful childhood memories, growing up with her friends and cousins. But she was also forced to grow up too quickly. She had a special bond with her mother that was born of shared adversity. Nonna Antonia would refer to her as “la compagna della mia vedovanza” (the companion of my widowhood).

The “widowhood” ended in 1946 when Nonna and Ma were able to come to the United States, and my mother was able to meet her father for the first time when she was sixteen years old. Afterwards, she had the joy of welcoming a baby sister, Aunt Lillian, further evidence that Nonna’s “widowhood” was indeed over. In stark contrast to the childhood Ma had left behind, she was suddenly living in a land of plenty. And yet all was not well in this strange, new land. She longed for the family, friends and companions she had known in Italy. Her loneliness continued until 1948 when a certain Italian sailor named Domenico met her while on shore leave and fell head over heels in love.

The rest is history. I and my brothers Pete and Nick, and so many others, are all the beneficiaries of that history. A little over three years ago at my father’s funeral, Pete spoke about the wonderful childhood we had growing up as Domenic's sons. We were equally blessed to be Angie’s sons. Our parents both showered us with love but in different ways. While Daddy blessed us with his keen intellect and vast knowledge, his integrity and his faith, Ma supplemented these by filling our home with fun and laughter, music and dance, and lots and lots of exquisitely delicious food.

No one was ever in danger of going hungry at our home, not only because of the over abundance of food, but also the incredible deliciousness of everything that Ma lovingly cooked from scratch. In contrast to Pete, who was somehow blessed with a turbo-charged metabolism, Nick and I both struggled to keep the weight off.

Without taking anything away from the meals Ma served Monday through Saturday, the Sunday meals were an unforgettable weekly ritual. Ma would start early Sunday morning with the initial preparations of her special homemade tomato sauce (which we aptly called “Sunday sauce”), and the heavenly aroma was already permeating the house as some of us were leaving for Sunday mass. Upon our return, we were simply compelled by instinct to grab a piece of bread—or two or three—to sample the sauce that had been simmering all morning. I would typically draw a rebuke because I was eating too much bread and sauce and might not leave enough room for the multi-course meal to come. But it was a half-hearted reprimand, because Ma took great delight in how much we enjoyed her cooking. As she served each and every one of us by filling our plate with pasta or whatever dish was being served, we learned quickly to say “basta” well before there was enough on our plate, because she would keep heaping on portions well after we told her to stop.

Holidays just brought the culinary delights up to the next level with the addition of homemade pastas, including the homemade ravioli that graced our table at Christmas and Easter. In the earlier days she even served ravioli during the non-Italian holiday of Thanksgiving. So after we were already stuffed to the gills with an antipasto, ravioli, and the bracioli or other meats that had slow-cooked in the tomato sauce; she would then bring out a twenty-five pound turkey and all the trimmings. We eventually convinced her that perhaps ravioli were not all that necessary for Thanksgiving, which is after all an American holiday.

Cooking for her family and others was just a subset of her giving heart and generous hospitality. Our home was often filled with relatives from New York and Atlantic City, who would spend days and sometimes a week or two at a time with us. The visits from faraway relatives also gave occasion to much festivity. It seemed that there was always an excuse for a party or celebration, which of course called for lots of food, music and dance. Ma had a varied and eclectic taste in music, ranging from classic Neapolitan and Italian songs from earlier in the century, to contemporary Italian artists to big band music. And she loved to dance and tried ever so hard to teach all of us kids to dance, persistently and patiently attempting to get us to tango, mambo, waltz, fox trot, etc. You know how people often express their regrets later in life, something to the effect of, “I wish I had listened to my parents when they tried to teach me … whatever…”? Well this is my major regret: I wish I had cooperated with my mother when she tried to teach me to dance. Anyone who has seen me on a dance floor knows that it is not a pretty sight, and it is all because I didn’t listen to my mother! But I would watch longingly as my mother and father, or Uncle Joe or Aunt Lillian would gracefully breeze across the dance floor and made it look so easy.

Ma also filled our home with laughter. She loved to make people laugh, be it by dressing up in outlandish Halloween costumes or by playing practical jokes on people. She enjoyed making people laugh even when she did not intend to, and this usually happened because of her malapropisms. English was not her first language, so she would say some of the darnedest things. She wanted to go to Williamsburg, VA because it was a hysterical town. She once showed off her knowledge of Old Testament history by telling the story of how Ruth married Bozo. Then there was the time when she was showing off the flowers around the house, and proudly pointed out the peonies, but her pronunciation made it sound more like something you normally don’t hear mentioned in church.

But Ma’s most classic verbal moment occurred once when we were having a good laugh at her expense, perhaps teasing her for one of her verbal gems. She suddenly turned serious, and then she placed her left index finger under the cupped palm of her right hand, forming the shape of an umbrella, and she uttered, “Remember, under here it no rain!” After a second or two of incredulous silence, we all burst out laughing, wondering what on earth she meant by that curious phrase. Poor Ma never did figure out that idiomatic expressions don’t translate well literally. The idea behind the Sicilian expression, “Ca sutta non chiove!” is something like: “Go ahead and laugh and make fun of me now while you are under the protective umbrella of family and friends. But just you wait until I catch you without your umbrella."

Ma lavished love on her entire family: her husband, her sons and her daughters-in-law, her grandchildren, and her nieces and nephews. The circle of her love was quite wide, encompassing extended family on both sides of the ocean. Even to the children of second cousins she was known as “Zia Angie” [Aunt Angie] as they reflected back to her the affection that she lavished on them. A Sicilian phrase that she often used to express her affection is one that I will cherish forever: Ti vogghiu bene nu puzzu e ‘na funtana! The literal translation is something like, “I love you like a well and a fountain;” that is, “My love for you overflows.”

I mentioned earlier how our parents loved us in different ways, and how Daddy blessed us with, among other things, his faith. But that is not to say that Ma was lacking in this area. She had a strong, genuine and simple faith, unclouded by the intellectual questions that Daddy sometimes struggled with. Though her faith was much more vibrant later in life, I remember it was Ma who took me to Sunday mass when I was a pre-schooler. (Of course the only thing I remember was how I exasperated her by crawling under the pews or otherwise getting into mischief.) She was a loyal Catholic, but whenever she encountered anyone—Catholic or Protestant--who expressed a faith in and love for Jesus, her face would light up because she knew she had found a kindred spirit.

And when I spoke of her tastes in music, I neglected to mention another genre of music that Ma enjoyed. When I was growing up, she would often play an album of Gospel hymns by Tennessee Ernie Ford, which seems a little out of character for an Italian Catholic family. But she was moved not only by the music but also by the Gospel message of the lyrics. Like her faith, her love for those songs grew with the passing years.

When Daddy passed away three years ago, Ma’s illness was already taking a heavy toll on her. Up until a couple years ago she was still somewhat verbal, but as those skills deteriorated, we could only get her to repeat certain important phrases like “Ti vogghiu bene nu puzzu e na funtana”… or … we could get her to sing some of the songs she loved, like the old Italian songs or the many hymns or Gospel songs she enjoyed. We would sing together to CD’s or--weather permitting—we would push her wheelchair up and down the driveway and sing a cappella. Even as her ability to sing along diminished, it would do my heart good to hear her singing even a small snippet of some of the great hymns of the church such as “Holy, Holy, Holy”, “Amazing Grace”, or “How Great Thou Art”, as well as the many joyful Italian songs that we grew up with.

One song in particular that is a combination of both genres was one of her favorites by Domenico Modugno. The song is actually sung in Sicilian, and it expresses the gratitude of a Sicilian peasant for God’s provision and for the simple life that God allows him to live. I will always cherish this song because I think it was the last one I was able to get her to sing along, even if just a word or two of the refrain, which says…

Ringraziu a ttia Signuri
Picchi mi lassi viviri accussi.
[I give You thanks, O Lord
Because You let me live this way]

Toward the end of the song, the author thanks God not only for His provision, but for everything that God sends in this life that He has so graciously given us:

Tu c’ a li picurelli dai pastura
E li tunni a la tunnara
Tu ca m’hai rigalatu chista vita
Cu la gioia e li duluri
Ringraziu a ttia Signuri
Picchi mi lassi viviri accussi.
[You who give pasture to the lambs
And who fill the nets with fish
You who have given me this gift of life
With all its joy and its sorrows
I give You thanks, O Lord
Because you let me live this way.]

Ti vogghiu bene assai, ma. Nu puzzu e na funtana, ti vogghiu bene.

... the right of the people peaceably to assemble...

2009-11-05T22:05:00.005-05:00

I don’t have anything profound to say about today's rally at the Capitol. It was a simple exercise of some of the rights guaranteed by the first amendment, which happens to begin with the words. “Congress shall make no law…”

It was only a week ago that Nancy Pelosi announced that she was going to bring HR 3962, the $1.2 trillion, 1990 page “healthcare” bill, to a vote by the end of this week, believing she had the votes to pass it The very next day, Representatives Michelle Bachman (R-Minnesota) and Steven King (R-Iowa) took to the airwaves with a simple appeal for people to convene on the West side of the Capitol on Thursday at noon for a rally, to be followed by visits to Congressional offices to urge their lawmakers to vote “no” on the bill.

I have no idea how many people showed up (estimates range from 20,000 to 40,000), but by my eyeballing of the crowd, it did not look too shabby of a gathering for something that was just thought of less than a week ago. To ask working people to drop everything and show up in Washington on a weekday is no small matter. It was not too big a deal for me, because I work downtown, so I just took off a couple of hours in the middle of the day and worked late to make up for it. For others who dropped everything and traveled from surroundnig states and even the other side of the country, it was a big deal. God bless them.

Will it have any effect? I don’t know. The other side does seem intent on jamming this down our throats. If they do, they will have a lot of angry voters to contend with in a year or so, and that has to be on their minds. After all, we do live in a constitutional democracy, at least for now.

Here's an idea

2009-11-01T21:21:00.004-05:00

House Democrats announced their latest version of a healthcare “reform” bill last Thursday at a rather exclusive unveiling ceremony. According to the Washington Times and many other press outlets, “The West Front of the Capitol -- where President Obama was inaugurated -- is traditionally open to the public. But the entrances were blocked off Thursday morning by metal fences, with Capitol Police officers standing next to staff members holding clipboards with lists of approved attendees.” That is, only their handpicked, trusted invitees could attend.

Of course, they were not going to be able to hide the bill forever. Rather, they were interested in avoiding the embarrassing and tough questions that would otherwise be inevitable at a more open event. But Democrats would hide the details of their bill if they could, as has been demonstrated by their repeated votes along party lines to kill Republican attempts to require a 72 hour waiting period with the bill posted on line before it comes to a vote.

In the Senate, with the apparent defection of Joe Lieberman and perhaps some other Democrats, it looks like the Republicans are going to be able to filibuster in the Senate. This got me thinking about recent Democratic filibusters, back when they were trying to keep any Bush court nominees from coming to a vote. They employed a mere procedural mechanism which I call "filibuster for sissies”. That is, by a mere determination that there are not enough votes for cloture and the matter cannot come to a vote, everyone goes home for the night.

That is not the way filibusters used to be done. It used to be that the filibustering party would literally keep debating by engaging in a 24-7 talkathon. I think one of the most famous examples in history was when Strom Thurmond read out of the phone book in an attempt to filibuster the Voting Rights Act. Of course he was on the wrong side of that cause, but then again, that’s when he was a Democrat. But at least it was a real filibuster, not the fake filibusters of today.

I believe Republicans would do a great service to the nation by employing a genuine filibuster against the health care bill. And they could do so not by reading the phone book, but rather by taking turns on the Senate floor reading the healthcare bill itself, all 1990 pages. It would not only keep the bill from coming to a vote, but also provide all one hundred Senators and the entire C-Span audience with the one thing that the Democrats have been trying to avoid all along: an opportunity to know exactly what is in the bill.

The Unconstitutional Congress

2009-10-26T20:26:00.002-04:00

Lost amidst the headlines about healthcare, Afghanistan, the Administration's war on Fox News, etc., I found the following article in today's Washington Times:

Rental industry hopes to buy influence on Hill

The first two paragraphs read;

For more than a decade, the rent-to-own industry has watched as 20 separate pieces of federal legislation it supported failed in Congress. After years of frustration, it decided to assert itself more aggressively.

Already a major political donor, the $6.3 billion-a-year industry paid lobbyists to "put a human face" on its case and looked for new ways to sow good will with key Democratic lawmakers, who were wary of an industry that rents equipment such as televisions, appliances, computers, furniture and refrigerators to people -- often low-income consumers -- with the option to buy them later.

There is no need to read any further for our purposes, because these two paragraphs are just enough to produce the typical and predictable reaction:

"Those damned lobbyists are trying to buy off Congress again."

While I don’t disagree with the sentiment, it misses a broader and more fundamental question: What kind of laws is Congress attempting to enact which would cause legions of lobbyists to descend on Capitol Hill to ensure their interests are represented? Particularly in this example of lobbyists from the rental industry, why should Congress even be bothering with such matters? Is it any of their business?

I did some checking in Article I of the Constitution, which deals specifically with the Legislative Branch. In particular, Section 8 of Article I enumerates the specific “Powers of Congress”. I read through it a couple of times looking in vain for a clause that would make it Congress’ business to regulate the rental industry. Lest anyone think I am being less than truthful or am not reading carefully enough, please click on the hyperlink above and examine Section 8 for yourself.

Does anyone see something that I missed? The only thing that comes close enough for Congress to hang its hat on is the third item under Section 8:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

This is commonly known as the “Interstate Commerce Clause: and it is indeed Congress’ favorite loophole. Congress invokes this clause to regulate any economic activity whether it involves interstate commerce or not. They simply assume that all economic activity (or even the lack of economic activity) potentially involves or affects interstate commerce and voilà, it suddenly becomes their business.

The reason the founders inserted the interstate commerce clause in Article I, Section 8 was to ensure uniformity and to keep state governments from interfering with interstate commerce. It was not meant as a license for Congress to regulate any and every aspect of our lives, as in dictating rules governing the rental industry or, for example, telling us how we may and may not spend our money on healthcare.

And speaking of the healthcare debate, there is one thing Congress can and should do constitutionally in this regard, and it would be in specific fulfillment of the intent of the interstate commerce clause. They could pass a federal law effectively overruling current state laws that prohibit insurance companies from competing across state lines. Such a law would expand consumer choice and would lower healthcare costs based on good, old-fashioned competition.

But nothing like that will ever come out of this Congress, because it is not as much fun as trying to run everybody’s life. It is also too constitutional.

Choosing to put a tiger in my tank

2009-10-25T18:59:00.006-04:00

Economic behavior is for the most part driven by free choice and self interest, which usually means looking for the best product at the best price. Every once in a while, our economic behavior is modified by a positive or negative political, social or moral cause, which influences us to boycott product A or patronize product B based on a personal value judgment.

An example in history was the tea boycott staged by American colonists, given the onerous taxes on tea imposed by the British crown. I don’t know how effective it was, but it was at least a symbolic gesture that helped rally the cause that inspired the American Revolution.

Other cause driven economic behavior fails to gain traction, such as when Hillary Clinton said: “I turn off a light and say, ‘Take that, Iran,’ and “Take that, Venezuela.’ We should not be sending our money to people who are not going to support our values,”

Before I come down too hard on Hillary, I have to confess that I too engage in futile, cause-driven economic choices, though for the most part I am looking for the best value and what is best for me and my family. For example, though I will obviously look for the lowest gasoline prices in the vicinity, I always avoid Citgo stations. I have to be running on fumes and know for a fact that there is not another service station in ten miles before I will purchase a drop of gasoline supplied by the thuggish government of Venezuela.

I do realize that at best I am just making myself feel better. It is difficult to buy any petroleum product these days without supporting some thug-ocracy somewhere, and I wouldn’t doubt that Hugo’s crude finds its way to some of the brand-X, convenience-store based gasoline outlets like Sheetz or Wawa, which I patronize frequently.

But our economic choices are also driven by things we approve and affirm, which is why Wawa doesn’t always get my business. For example, just off of east bound US 50, a few miles before the Bay Bridge, there is a Wawa that has some unusually low prices, especially considering that it is on such a major thoroughfare. But right beside the Wawa there is an Exxon-Mobil station that usually matches the Wawa price.

It’s a no-brainer to choose the Exxon, not because I believe for a minute that the brand-name product is in any way superior to brand X, but rather because I remember how last year Exxon-Mobil was made to be a major bogey-man, the symbol of evil, corporate capitalism, by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other left wing politicians.

As far as I am concerned, any company that has supplied an in-demand and needed product or service, employed thousands of people worldwide, earned handsome profits for its stockholders and has paid its fair share of taxes (demagoguery to the contrary notwithstanding) is fine by me and deserving of my support. If Exxon-Mobil has inspired the ire of the left, it must be doing something right.

So today I filled my tank to the brim with Exxon regular. Take that, Hillary! Take that, Barack!

Behemoth

2009-10-24T15:18:00.005-04:00

In case you have hours to waste or nothing better to do, you can now see a copy of one of the proposed healthcare “reform” bills on line at

http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb101909.pdf

I certainly don’t have the time or inclination to pore over all 1502 pages, but be my guest if you like. The Congressional Budget Office has yet to score the bill. I will also leave it to others to come up with a summary of what this behemoth actually entails, but I did a few word searches to get some idea:

A search for “malpractice”, “tort”, “tort reform” yielded zero hits. Why am I not surprised?
“Abortion” resulted in over 20 hits, the most telling of which is on page 141, which describes the abortion services for which public funding is permitted and prohibited: “The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.” I see quite a wide berth for a Mack truck.
“Medicare” also yielded multiple hits, a substantial number of them under the Title V Section entitled “Fraud, Waste and Abuse”, Subsection A, “Medicare and Medicaid”. I am all for eliminating fraud, waste and abuse, but why am I suspicious? How long have Medicaid and Medicare been in existence? If they can save so much money by cutting waste, fraud and abuse, why haven’t they done so already?

There are numerous other references to penalties, fines and taxes, as well as federal requirements levied on states. It is enough to make anyone’s head spin. I am convinced that the length and the complexity of the bill are by design.

Supposedly, this bill does not contain the controversial “public option” or so I am told. How is this for a "public option"? Let’s have the government use its power of numbers to either self insure or to negotiate a variety of reasonably priced group health insurance policies to offer to those who are otherwise unable to get insurance. But the rules are that HHS or whatever government entity administering such a plan must either break even or turn a profit, and under no circumstances may the entity borrow additional monies from the treasury. They must therefore adjust their premiums and benefits schedule accordingly and not gain a competitive advantage over private health insurers. Fair enough?

Such a provision could be written up in a bill of less than one page. (It took me less than one paragraph). The bill could add a page or two each to (1) allow private insurance companies to compete across state lines, (2) extend insurance premium tax deductibility to all individuals and (3) bring down medical costs by instituting some serious tort reform. The result would be a decent healthcare bill that will provide for those in need, expand their individual choice, allow healthcare providers and insurers to freely and openly compete, and turn the world’s greatest healthcare system into something even better.

But something tells me that is not going to happen. Why not? First of all, because the government knows it cannot compete if it has to abide by the same rules it imposes on the private sector. But more importantly, the authors of the bill are not so much interested in making healthcare more affordable as they are in controlling a major segment of the economy. How much control do they want to exert? At least 1502 pages worth.

I could have done better

2009-10-23T20:11:00.003-04:00

I just had a very unsatisfying exchange with a Jehovah’s Witness in a Safeway parking lot.

The young lady was smiling and soft spoken as she handed me a tract. I immediately accepted it and quickly turned to the back to see if it said “Watchtower Society” somewhere in the fine print. But it was already getting dark and my eyesight isn’t the best, so I just confronted the issue head on.

“Thank you very much,” I said. "What church do you go to?"

“I’m a Jehovah’s Witness.”

I wasn’t sure what to say next, so I blurted out, “I’m afraid I don’t subscribe to Arian theology.”

“What’s that?”

“I’m afraid you don’t have an adequate understanding of who Jesus is.”

“Oh we believe He is the Son of God.”

“Well, good. Do you believe that He died for your sins?”

“Oh, yes.”

“Well, meditate on that.”

That was the conversation as best as I can recall. I found it terribly unsatisfying for a number of reasons. First and foremost, though I don’t think I was rude, I was nowhere near as friendly as she was. I could make lots of excuses for it. I was in a hurry, as I was out specifically to run an errand for some zucchini, without which dinner preparations were being delayed. Also, I have been under the weather all week. And perhaps I have allowed myself to get sucked into a contentious mood as I have recently been sparring in the blogosphere with atheists and socialists, and their ad hominem attacks were starting to get on my nerves.

Long story short, I don’t think I was a very effective witness for the Gospel, in word, deed or attitude. Also, I’m not quite sure how to deal with Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cults that have some rather strange and erroneous beliefs but otherwise believe a number of things with which I have no quarrel. What if, despite the strange teachings to which they are exposed and to which they might subscribe, they truly believe and trust in the one thing that Paul describes as fundamental?

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” (I Corinthians 15:3)

I suppose it's possible for someone to believe all kinds of crazy things and yet, when it comes to who and where they place their trust for their eternal destiny, still correctly know that Jesus is their only hope. In the same way, it’s possible for someone to know and assent to the glorious Gospel and never come to true faith and repentance.

I will leave it to God to sort it all out. But I still need to do a better job representing Him.

Breathtaking Double Standards, Part III

2009-10-21T21:19:00.004-04:00

Parts 1 and 2 of this series are from a previous blog I used to contribute to:

Breathtaking Double Standards

Breathtaking Double Standards (Part II)

I could have easily turned it into a weekly series, but it would get old real fast to keep repeating the painfully obvious, so I have stayed away from the theme.

I was inspired to take it up again by an email that a good friend recently forwarded to me. It basically lists an assortment of the missteps, gaffes and boneheaded policy decisions that have occurred in the first months of the Obama administration (most of which have been excused or glossed over by the media) and rhetorically asks the reader if they would have received similar treatment if George W. Bush were still president.

It apparently has been floating around the internet for a while, and I have no idea who is the original author, but the post has apparently been replicated on quite a few blogs since last May. Instead of just replicating the post again, I am going to try to comment on each item and make an attempt to be somewhat fair about it. Here goes.

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer
installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed
and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really
controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

George Bush’s mangling of syllables, sentence fragments and other assorted verbal gaffes had almost become proverbial. Of course, they were magnified by a hostile press. In his defense, these occurred primarily during press conferences and other unscripted events. Now if Obama is indeed using a teleprompter even during a press conference, this is indicative of one of two things: (1) He is even more dependent on this crutch than other presidents or (2) he has an incredibly gifted staff that somehow manages to feed the right lines to the president at the right time. If the latter is the case, I would suggest that they give a teleprompter to Robert Gibbs, the press secretary whose job it is to think on his feet and be an articulate spokesperson for the administration. This would cut the time of his press briefings in half by removing all the “uh”s, “um”s and “duh”s and other assorted sentence fragments from his pronouncements. I am not sure if Gibbs’ problem is that he is inarticulate or that he has the unenviable job of defending the indefensible.

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

I am not sure this is an entirely fair criticism, because Presidents are entitled to have a private life and should be able to take the first lady out on a date. Unfortunately, this will inevitably result in the disbursement of taxpayer funds, because it will require an entire entourage of Secret Service agents. On the other hand, I don’t think George and Laura did anything this elaborate, as they seemed to restrict their getaways to the ranch in Crawford, Texas. Of course, had they done a night on the town in NYC, they would have been pounded for it by the same press that excuses the Obamas.

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

With the initial bailouts and pushing for the TARP legislation, George Bush gave Obama political cover for his unprecedented, unlawful and unconstitutional intrusions into the private sector . Of course, Obama took this unprecedented government intervention to new heights. Once having his foot in the door with the Trojan horse of bailout money, he strong-armed the private sector into submitting to his requirements, much to the detriment of all the owners of GM stock. It is a scary thought indeed to think that a U.S. president can in effect fire a C.E.O. What he did to Chrysler and its stockholders was even worse as it was not only unconstitutional in principle, but specifically in clear violation of bankruptcy and contract law.

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

Give the guy a break, for crying out loud! I have two disabled children and I was not offended by the joke. Of course, again, the point remains that the press would have pounded Bush if he had said something similar.

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted VD's, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

I will treat these two together because they are similar in nature. I can only hope and assume that even President Obama is not that inept and tacky, but he does need to fire some inept staff members who evidently are.

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

Nothing wrong with being deferential to the customs of your host, but he had to know that it is perfectly acceptable to shake hands.

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent
"Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

Yes, this was indeed a gaffe, but who cares?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who
cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

I dare say no one would have approved and, indeed, all such cabinet picks would have been run out of town on a rail if they had been Bush appointees. If my memory serves correctly, the only tax-dodging Obama appointee who had to withdraw was Tom Daschle.

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

This is a tempest in a teapot. As someone who is not Spanish illiterate, I can say that this was a perfectly legitimate and purposeful mangling of words in Spanish. The purists would have wanted him to say “Cuatro de Mayo” to underscore the fact that he was a day early, but that would not have had the oxymoronic oomph of saying “Cinco de Cuatro”.

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have hammered him
for it for years like Dan Quayle and potato as proof of what a dunce he is?

Having examined a copy of the handritten note, it does appear that he wrote “advise” instead of “advice”. But who cares? It’s a handwritten note, for crying out loud!

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single
tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

This is true, but to be fair, CBS and other media outlets did point this out.

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over
millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing
widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what
happened on 9-11.?

True, but it is not fair to blame Obama, who was just as miffed as the rest of us and took corrective action.

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

Maybe this story is too old, but I can’t find any documentation indicating that the response of the Obama Administration to the Midwest flood victims was inadequate. I am open to correction. On the other hand, the press's pounding of the Bush Administration for Katrina, where the incompetence was at the state and local level, was inexcusable.

If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken
more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

Whenever I or anyone else raises alarm or concern about the Obama deficits, the stock answer is, “Why didn’t you complain about George Bush’s deficits.” In fact, I did. The Bush deficits were inexcusable, and probably one of the main reasons many of his conservative supporters turned against him. But if his $250+ billion deficits were so horrible, why are Obama’s trillion dollar deficits so wonderful?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

Ditto.

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Now to be sure, my attempts at being fair and cutting Obama some slack where that is possible does not undermine the basic premise of the posts: That the establishment press would never have cut the same slack to George W. Bush and in fact never did, but ruthlessly attacked him at every turn. In the meantime, they continue to fawn all over the current president.

It's not too late.

2009-10-21T19:21:00.002-04:00

If the Obama Administration and Congress really wanted to to turn the economy around, they could do it right away, but it would require a major change in course. I'm not holding my breath.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/21/unemployment-capital-gains-payroll-tax-opinions-contributors-gingrich-varroney.html

Here we go again!

2009-10-19T20:31:00.004-04:00

You have heard it all before, or maybe not, because the media has done a wonderful job of de-emphasizing it. The economic crisis we are in was not caused by “free-market capitalism” or “greed on Wall Street” or (that favorite bogey-man) “eight years of deregulation under George W. Bush”. I wrote about this ad nauseum in previous posts such as Despair and others referred to therein:

We are suffering from the domino effect of a credit crunch created by the government, which encouraged and even coerced banks into irresponsible lending practices to non-credit worthy individuals. And to add insult to injury, the inmates who caused this mess, who brushed off Bush Administration warnings about the impending insolvency of Fannie and Freddie and the toxic assets they were spreading around the financial community, have been put in charge of the asylum.

But even if the perpetrators and perpetuators got away with their irresponsible behavior, you would have thought that the one bright side in this fiasco is that the irresponsible lending to non-credit worthy individuals has finally ended. Well, think again.

According to a Washington Times article I read this morning (Easy Money Still Provided by the Feds), the Federal Housing Administration is picking up where Fannie Mae and Feddie Mac left off.

"I find it hard to distinguish between the actions of FHA and the self-denominated subprime lenders," said Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer at Fannie Mae who recently testified before a House panel on FHA's growing default problems. "The results are the same - unsustainable loans that prolong and perpetuate our nightmare of foreclosures."
Mr. Pinto estimates that 20 percent of the FHA's entire portfolio of $725 billion mortgages will end up in foreclosure - a rate recently borne out by estimates FHA provided to Congress. He predicts that the agency will require a taxpayer bailout within two to three years.
One reason defaults are soaring is that the agency is attracting nearly all of the business of homebuyers who haven't saved enough to make down payments, he said. Loans with little or no down payments have high rates of default because the borrowers have little financial stake in losing their homes to foreclosure.

Presiding over these hearings was none other than House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, the same person who pig-headedly refused to heed similar warnings about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Based on what I read in the article, he doesn't have much of a problem with what FHA is doing, believing that they must extend affordable housing to prop up the housing market.

Words fail me.

Grazie, Cristoforo!

2009-10-11T20:42:00.005-04:00

Thank you, Chris, for your amazing achievement.

So what if you really weren’t the first European to make it to the Americas, having been preceded 500 years earlier by Leif Ericson, et al? Your discovery is the only one that mattered.

So what if you grossly underestimated the circumference of the earth in thinking that it would be a shorter route to India by going west? And so what if you thought you were in India when you were actually in the Bahamas?

So what if a bunch of historical revisionists who have nothing better to do try to paint you and your achievement in the worst light, blaming you for introducing all the evils of European civilization on the supposedly peace loving and innocent indigenous peoples of the Americas?

There are still plenty of us who celebrate your courage to try something new and daring. And even if there is a grain of truth to the revisionist rants, there are those of us who maintain that the Americas are still a better place because you stumbled into them.

So thank you for your amazing feat. Thanks for joining the long line of Italian achievers, and particularly for putting your birthplace of Genoa on the map. And, last but not least, thanks for providing federal workers an extra day off in October!

Birthplace of Christopher Columbus, Genoa, Italy

Fiscal Folly

2009-10-06T19:16:00.004-04:00

A belated happy (fiscal) new year to all!

October 1 has come and gone and, as usual, Congress has not passed the appropriations for the new fiscal year, so federal agencies must operate off of a "continuing resolution".

According to the Library of Congress’ website on the “Status of Appropriations Legislation for Fiscal Year 2010’ the only appropriations bill that Congress has passed and the President has signed into law is P.L.111-68, which funds operations for the legislative branch. You can tell where their priorities are.

The funding of the business of government (whether legitimate or illegitimate, constitutional or unconstitutional) is usually tied to separate appropriations bills. This year, the appropriations are divided as follows:

Agriculture
Commerce/Justice/Science
Defense Energy and Water
Financial Services
Homeland Security
Interior and Environment
Labor/HHS/Education
Military/Veterans
State/Foreign Operations
Transportation/HUD

They usually don't get around to passing anything into law until March, and by then they usually abandon any attempt at treating the bills separately. They just throw them all together into a witch’s brew called an “Omnibus” spending bill, and voilà, the government is funded for the rest of the year.

The annual delays wouldn't be a bad thing if they kept a reign on spending, but alas they do not. First of all, as with most other bills, I seriously doubt that many members of Congress have a solid idea of what they are voting for. Who knows what else has been thrown into the witch’s cauldron along with the President’s original request. I am open to correction, but I don’t ever recall Congress ever authorizing anything less than what was requested in the President’s budget, only more. After all, they have to add all the pork and earmarks to satisfy the folks back home:

"Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg, and howlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble."

In the meantime, federal departments and agencies have been operating the entire year on the baseline of the previous fiscal year’s budget. This of course leaves no possibility that wasteful and inefficient programs will ever be cut. Government will forever continue to grow. (The only exception that I know of was in the early eighties when Ronald Reagan had the testosterone to actually decrease the size of government, including Reductions in Force.)

When the omnibus spending bill eventually passes in February or March, federal agencies will start to go into high gear to quickly spend any new funding received on top of the old baseline. With the fiscal year more than halfway gone, there will be a mad scramble to spend money before it “expires”, which will inevitably result in poor planning, lack of coordination and other sundry inefficiencies. And on top of that, you can be certain that Congress will add billions in “supplemental” or “emergency“ appropriations before we get into the next fiscal year and start the madness all over again. Your tax dollars at work!

Dilemma

2009-10-01T21:27:00.007-04:00

I think I need to change my profile. Maybe. Maybe not. As any of my extremely limited number of readers knows, I make no bones about coming from a Christian perspective. I also mention that one of my passions is apologetics and I even quote one of my favorite verses on the subject:

"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." (I Peter 3:15)

I still try to live by that verse, but the “gentleness and respect” part sometimes gets me into trouble. Whether I am talking religion or politics, the views I hold are usually not mere preferences but rather convictions. So it is a challenge to avoid getting too passionate or argumentative. This is why I prefer blogging to spoken debate. While alone at my computer keyboard, I can take a deep breath, gather my thoughts and calmly put together a reasoned discourse while perhaps sipping a glass of wine. I then read it over several times and say a prayer before clicking on the “submit” or “publish” button.

Yet I am also at a bit of a disadvantage, if you will, when I say out front that I am a Christian and even quote verses about treating people with gentleness and respect. What do you do when you want to show the ridiculousness of an opposing view by hurling a zinger or otherwise having a little fun with the written word? Don’t get me wrong; anything I write would be pathetically mild compared to some of the vicious vitriol I have seen elsewhere, and of which I have already written in a previous post, Christian and Atheist Bloggers Abound. I make it a point to not respond in kind and I always try to remember “there but for the grace of God go I”. Yet there are times when I like to poke a little fun, and that gets me into trouble.

For example, I recently had to apologize to an atheist blogger after challenging his use of strawmen to try to distract from the excellent arguments posted by the blog's author. (See Observations and Atheism and the ensuing comment string.) He took my poor attempt at humor as a personal attack and called me on the carpet about not living up to I Peter 3:15. My apology was accepted, so all is well that ends well. But I wonder, where do I go from here? There has to be a balance between being deferential, gentle and respectful, and at the same time having the liberty to demonstrate absurdity by being absurd, poke fun at people, or occasionally hurl a few zingers to add a much needed exclamation point. Any ideas?