Archive for July, 2009

« Older Entries

Racial profiling and wrong but understandable (over?)reactions

Wednesday, July 29th, 2009
(I chose this older image because this is how I remember him.)

(I chose this older image because this is how I remember him.)

That for three(?) years my office was across the hall from that of Prof Henry Gates Jr does not give me any special insight into the sudden controversy over racial profiling.

Let me cut to the chase – before more general thoughts – about what I think (not what I know) about the situation with Prof Gates being arrested then released with charges dropped.

  • This was not racial profiling. Period.
  • Prof Gates overreacted in how he treated the sergeant who came to his home.
  • The arresting sergeant who came to his home overreacted to Prof Gates.
  • Both overreactions are to a large extent understandable – which is the more important issue than what did or did not happen that evening in Cambridge Massachusetts.

Let us start with the first point. The facts are not in dispute and a copy of the police report (with more private information blacked out) has been obtained and posted on the internet. Early reports in the press were based on highly incomplete information and/or solely upon the initial account given by Prof Gates – thereby giving a highly false impression of what happened. Someone sees two “black men” shoving their way into the house. Is that a break-in. Calls the police to investigate. Police arrive. There is someone in the house. Of course they are going to talk to that person and both confirm that person is the owner of the home and try to find out what happened such that someone thought they saw a break-in in progress. (“Ma’am what you thought was a break-in was your neighbor trying to open a stuck door”.) That is their job. It has absolutely nothing to do with “race”. Both Prof Gates and the police report confirm that when he arrived home he had trouble opening his front door which was stuck – and he and his friend(?) used their shoulders to shove it open.

(I have had police on two occasions come to my home because of a reported crime and ask me for identification. “Yes I live here… Well fortunately I have my wallet and driver’s license on me”. I have also “broken into” my own home on many occasions when I locked myself out.)

Therefore for Prof Gates to respond as he did was unwarranted. He should have been realized the officer was just trying to make sure the person he was talking to was the resident/owner and not some burglar. He did not know the police officer. He could not read his thoughts – one trusts – and discern his intent. Not to mention that standing right behind him were two other officers one African-American and one Hispanic. It was wrong and unjust for him to accuse the officer of being “racist”.

(I did not know Prof Gates at Cornell University but I certainly knew of him. And I saw him several times each week passing by stopping at his door and/or coming out of his office. I recall smiling and exchanging polite greetings such as “good morning how are you?” “fine thanks” and so on. He never struck me as an arrogant hothead. But then not many people know what a vile temper I have when one of my buttons gets pushed.)

Now about that disorderly conduct thing. Police officers deal with uncooperative citizens all the time – whether they are suspects/criminals or innocent bystanders/victims. They are trained to deal with verbal abuse. It is unclear (to this outsiders who was not there and I will come back to this) that arrest was necessary.

Now if they both overreacted – their overreactions were understandable. Prof Gates was tired from a long – very long – trip. Exhausted human beings even of such intellectual and academic stature do not think or reason very well. I have been exhausted and responded badly to situations that normally I would just sit there and take it or respond better. It also turns out that racial tensions were running rather high in Cambridge because of crimes/situations involving African-Americans during the past few months. And it is not inappropriate to throw in the history of American society – an African-American of that age not only might have strong negative memories but is a high profile scholar who might be drawing upon collective memory. I would suggest he was not responding to the sergeant and this situation – he was responding to the real ghosts of real white racist cops of the past.

Now what about the police sergeant? This is a man with an exemplary record who teaches fellow officers how to avoid racial profiling. And he of all people is accused of being a “racist white cop” – and in the course of just doing his job. Sometimes when someone accuses me of something and I do/am just the opposite – I can become particularly indignant. Yes this is about wounded pride but that is a reality right or wrong. Given my background I would be exceptionally offended by someone who accused me of racism just because I happen to express an opinion about politics-society-culture that does not fit “liberal orthodoxy”. Think how you would respond if you are the hardest working person in your office and hardly ever take vacation time – and some stranger from company headquarters says you are being let go because you are lazy and are not doing your job. (That is a real example from a friend.) Yes one hopes we would just say “no you are quite incorrect” and calmly explain their misperception. But that is not what always happens.

This is largely speculation because – once again – I was not there and do not know all the facts. Which is why it was dreadfully inappropriate for President Obama to inject himself into that situation. I also dare opine that the “invite you both for a beer at the White House” thing is insensitive (do these two men after what they both have gone through really want to knock back some brewskis for the a shameless photo op? come on now) and lacking in class.

Some of the responses to this situation have been unfortunate. That certain groups and individuals who epitomize “racial identity politics” quickly turned this into a “racial profiling… what a horrible nasty racist nation America still is” incident does not speak well of them. What did they know? And what facts we know indicate strongly that they were just plain dead wrong. And let us be fair – some of the negative attacks on Professor Gates have also been underinformed and unwarranted.

But there have been voices of relative sanity. Kudos to one writer at Big Hollywood who invited people to understand how and why racial tensions had been so high in Cambridge. And – to pick two examples – Jonah Goldberg and Cal Thomas (white conservative columnists) who spoke on behalf of Prof Gates as a person even at the same time they explained why this was not racial profiling.

Yesterday on NPR – yeah yeah I know – Neal Conan interviewed an African-American social commentator who was truly a breath of fresh air. (No pun intended. Cut it out.) In a nutshell he said he had never been called the N-word and has not experienced overt racial discrimination. In other words American society has come a long way and we need to recognize that. And he balanced that with the observation that many African-Americans remember the past when it really was bad – they sometimes interpret present situations in terms of their past experience and they sometimes pass on their memories/experience to the present generation (that otherwise would not think American is so awful and nasty and racist).

There is still racism. And there still is (unjustified) racial profiling. Unfortunately my evidence for this is – among other things – an email sent by one resident in this neighborhood to everyone on the Neighborhood Watch list concerning a recent break-in. And now some might be tempted to look with suspicion on any of the fine African-American young men who just happen to live here with every perfect right to do so.

Oh yeah – not to mention African men. One of my congregants is renting a house on the next street. One of the finest Christian men I know. He is from Kenya. His skin is darker than mine. Will he be stopped or arrested just because he is out for an evening walk?

People overreact. People can be wrong. But their overreactions can be understandable. And their emotions – whether or not based on the facts of the current situation – are still real. One of the most basic principles in Pastoral Care is “the apparent problem is seldom the real problem”.

Posted in Ethnicity and race, Law and Justice, News, Personal, Politics | 2 Comments »

REVIEW – "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Twilight er I mean Prince"

Tuesday, July 28th, 2009

Perhaps my favorite book in the series I was looking forward greatly to “Harry Pottery and the Half Blood Prince”. There were times during the movie I wanted to take a short nap – and not just because I was coming down with something. But at other times I was alternately thrilled entranced and moved.

Does does one start with the negative or the positive? (You may be interested to know a few weeks back we had an English Conversation lesson that centered on movie reviews. Turns out that our Chinese friends almost never go see a movie at the theater. Very expensive in China and movie theaters are dying out. We took a delightful teenager from Church of the Nations who had never been to the movies and had never had popcorn.

Oh right. Movie reviews. Apparently nearly all movie reviews follow a certain pattern and structure – sort of like a Pauline letter or a lament Psalm.)

There are at least two strong primary criticisms. First – the movie departs considerably from the book and often in ways that make for a weaker story. We are not surprised when we find out how Draco Malfoy enables… uh… people to get in… at the end of the film. (Trying hard not to give anything away.) In the book we are surprised. “Oh – so that is what he had been doing”. The budding relationships are resolved rather early and again not in the sudden “oh my!” moment one finds in the book. Surprise and unexpected moments of glory and delight are far more interesting.

Second – and this relates to the first – the movie is astonishingly slow. Boring even. More specifically large sections in the middle (not the beginning or the end). And for some reason tries to focus heavily on all the romantic developments and entanglements. To the point that the movie is almost more about “Harry and friends snog and get snogged” than it is about the growing threat of Voldemort and the efforts by Harry and Dumbledore to defeat him. My wife thought they were trying to borrow a page from “Twilight”. As they say in the film “excuse me – I have to go vomit”. The cutesy attempts at humor often fall flat. There is cheese in this film.

Now granted perhaps some of the above was unfortunate consequences of having to take a long and very well developed story (with multiple layers) and sending it through that meat grinder also known as “producing a screenplay somewhere between two and three hours”.

The whole anti-relationship between Potter and Snape is left out entirely. Which is a shame because Alan Rickman steals nearly every scene in which he briefly appears. Watch Rickman’s face toward the beginning during and after the “unbreakable vow”. The man is a master of the craft and further evidence that the British understand drama and acting far more than the Americans. (Sorry if that offends some people.) Rickman (with the script) also takes Snape “down a notch” – less harsh and more difficult to despise. (As if foreshadowing the next/last book.)

The movie opens well. A bloodied and shattered Potter being mobbed by the press. Potter reading in a train station cafe. The attack on London. The scenes evoke well the sense of tension and growing menace.

The quidditch match – utterly delightful. Although you gotta admit… is anyone else struck by how um… odd… male players look on those broomsticks? especially as they are vying for female attention? (Think about it.) (They can take out the whole “Potter in detention” subplot but not the stupid puberty love theme?*)

*(If you do not know that is a reference to the classic “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes”.)

The scene in the cavern… I felt like an invisible hand was squeezing my chest the whole time. Chilling and frightening. One person in the theater actually cried out loud when… And to see Dumbledore “unleashed”. For a brief shining moment we see just how powerful he is. (Let us come back to that.) Extremely well done.

One change from the book that is positive is how the movie focuses much more on Draco Malfoy. By the end of the movie we cannot hate him. We pity him. And during the film we are permitted to see the emotional turmoil and anguish Malfoy experiences as he tries to carry out (most half-heartedly) his dreadful mission. He is… a different kind of Judas?

There are some “theological” themes I could get into. Many suggest that Harry is a kind of “Christ” figure especially in the final film. (This is not to suggest Rowling was engaging in cheap allegory.) But in this film… there is much about obedience and trust. Not blind obedience – but obedience to someone that one knows from experience one can trust.

“Are you going to ask me why we are here Harry?”

“No sir. At this point I just sort of go with it”.

Precisely.

If Harry is the “son” who obeys his surrogate “Father” – what of the scene where the “Father” is the one who must drink the cup that cannot be taken away? where the “Father” sacrifices himself in order to help defeat the enemy? But this fits my personal view (literary theory?) that characters can move from archetypal role to archetypal role all within the same story or film. (Consider Max in “Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome”. The rogue/scoundrel becomes the Savior/Liberator. Go figure.)

There is more we can explore – but perhaps that is enough for now.

Anyways – do see it. But I so wish they left out all that silly teenage “romance” rubbish.

Addendum:

There are two reviews at Big Hollywood – one more positive and one more negative – that seem to make many of the same points that I do. But they write so much better than I.

John Nolte, “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” (more negative)

Andrew Leigh, “‘Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince’: An Alternate View” (more positive)

Posted in Fun and Geek Stuff, Movies and film, Personal | No Comments »

Michael Baran perfectly prophesied this president

Tuesday, July 28th, 2009

Well that was a short fast. Let us see how quickly I can get back to it.

This was too brilliant and perfectly prescient not to link. Michael Baran who clearly is a very literate fellow wrote “Obama, Shaman” for the City Journal. These two paragraphs alone make the lengthy piece worth reading:

Yet if Obama has made redemptive communitarianism attractive in an age of sagging sperm counts, he has done nothing to correct the underlying flaw of the collectivist ideal: its incompatibility with the older morality of limits. The politics of consensus that Obama favors is incompatible with the Founders’ adversarial system, which permits those whom he disparages as “ideological minorities” to take stands on principle that, at times, frustrate the national consensus. Obama makes it clear that there is no place, in the politics he advocates, for those “absolutists” who would defy the community. The “ideological core of today’s GOP,” he writes, is “absolutism, not conservatism,” an absolutism driven by those who prize “absolute truth” over “communal values.” This commitment to absolute truth, he argues, stands in the way of a politics that can solve our problems and change our lives.

Obama goes so far as to argue that the Constitution itself is “a rejection of absolute truth.” His moral relativism is intimately bound up with his conviction that we can transcend those limitations in human nature that the Founders acknowledged when they drafted the Constitution. This rejection of older moral standards, Machiavelli observed, is a tactical necessity for the charismatic redeemer. It is not simply that adherence to the West’s traditional morality would prevent such a leader from being properly ruthless in the pursuit of his ideal; it is that the old morality, with its emphasis on the limits of man’s fallen condition, makes his communitarian paradise seem quixotic—an instance of utopian overreaching.

Read the whole thing at City Journal.

What makes his insightful analysis all the more powerful – and chilling – is that this was written during the summer of 2008.

H/T Red Stick Rant.

Posted in Media, Politics, Society and Culture | No Comments »

Is repentance turning away or turning toward?

Monday, July 27th, 2009

The senior pastor and about half the ministerial staff are at Kid’s Camp so I was asked to speak to Evensong last Sunday night. The senior pastor let me know that the theme for the last few weeks has been repentance. I find it helpful to “fit” into whatever the congregation has been hearing/listening/discussing.

These are my “notes”.

********

Mark 1:14-15.

We have met Jesus – baptism and temptation / but has not spoken yet. After his formative(?) experience of baptism and temptation (time in the wilderness – 40 days) these are his first words.

Similar to John the baptizer – baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins yet also different.

Is this his thesis? That everything after this represents / works out / interprets / embodies it is the right time… kingdom of God has come near… *repent and believe* the good news. Jesus does not begin with repent (and believe) but it is the verb imperative verb. Here is the situation. This is the response.

Repent = (Greek) metanoéo literally change-of-mind (or to be more precise change-of-nous). (Because nous might not mean “mind” the way we normally think. Early teachers of the Christian church did not understand it that way. The nous is closer to what we call the heart. What we call the mind is not the nous but is broken. Lives in a perpetual state of fear and desire – so Meletios Webber.)

I pay attention to other Christian traditions. And I wanted to share some thoughts from other Christian traditions on repentance for us to consider – grist for our theological meal.

The early Christian teacher Evagrius said “the beginning of repentance is to condemn oneself”. Sounds harsh. Perhaps a way to understand/interpret this? An elegant paragraph from a book by Kallistos Ware who now is the Metropolitan of London. Immediately after he quotes Evagrius he writes:

Repentance marks the starting-point of our journey. Correctly understood repentance is not negative but positive. It means not self-pity or remorse but conversion [we will come back to that] the re-centering of our whole life upon the Trinity. It is not to look backward with regret but forward with hope. Not downwards at our shortcomings but upwards at God’s love. It is to see not what we have failed to be but what by divine grace we can now become.

Let us pause there for a moment. Repentance as positive – hope looking up what by the grace of God we can become.

Sometimes repent is translated as “turn away from your sins” – such as in the Good News Bible. Perhaps not best translation. Perhaps “turn toward God and his transforming work in your life”.

Anglican Church in North America met for the first time. (Explain briefly.) Head of Orthodox Church in America Metropolitan Jonah came and spoke – Orthodox Church wants to encourage and have a relationship with new group.

During his talk – “this is not about using the same prayer book or having neat rituals” – that is not what Anglicanism or Orthodoxy are about. But “our surrender is that spiritual quest – is to be transformed by the Spirit. It is a quest of repentance. And of renewal of our mind [RW - and a renewal of our mind? what he said is unclear here]. When you read the preaching of Jesus and Paul and the apostles. Repent.

Adds that “repentance does not mean feel guilty and beat yourself up. Repentance means by transformed in the renewal of your mind. [transform(ed)]. What we are called to is a radical spiritual transformation by the grace of the Holy Spirit.”

Positive. Transformation (by the grace of the Holy Spirit). One more thing.

Isaias of Sketis said: “God requires us to go on repenting until our last breath”. Traditional Baptist understanding of repent as “sorry for my sins thank you Jesus now I am done – I am converted”? Properly understood – lifelong process even the greatest saints in Christian history had to repent (be always repenting).

Kallistos Ware:

Repentance is not just a single act, an initial step, but a continuing state, an attitude of heart and will that needs to be ceaselessly renewed up to the end of life.

Repentance as positive. As transformation. And as ongoing process.

********

We had some time for reflection and conversation. Most was positive and appreciative. One wonderful member of the congregation (who last week found out she has cancer) pushed back a little bit and said “but we do ‘turn away (from our sins)’ when we repent. Just as an alcoholic turns away from alcohol”.

I understand the point which is not a bad one but I would suggest that human beings cannot effectively turn away from sin and addiction. (Except by the grace of God through the work of the Spirit.) I enjoy my sins and addictions. I have no desire or intention to turn away from them.

But – when we turn towards God… we also happen to turn away from <fill in the blank>. Does the alcoholic ever truly become free of the addiction? or does the addict develop a taste for – perhaps we can say the addict turns toward – sobriety? I am much more drawn to holiness than I am repulsed by my own sins and addictions. Repentance is more “that is how I want to be – God grant me the grace to turn that way” than “I am sick of these sins – I must turn from them”. I am not sure our prayer is so much “God give me the strength to stop sinning” as “Lord have mercy”.

When I turn on a road to head towards New Orleans I am not “turning away” from Lafayette. It is true that I am heading away from Lafayette – but that is a consequence and a result.

I could be wrong. But I appreciated the “push back” and the discussion. (And yes there are plenty of places in Holy Scripture where the imperative phrase is “stop sinning”.)

Lord have mercy.

Posted in Christian Practice, Mark, Theology | No Comments »

Trust in God and fast from politics?

Friday, July 24th, 2009

I feel a bit overwhelmed by the deluge of news and opinion on politics – from the right as well as from the left. Obamacare! Prof Gates! Sotomayor! Constantly talking back to my radio. I almost miss the days before the internet. Who to believe? And I am getting very tired of Facebook.

Time to look for listen to God during such a time? Focus on some other issues. More religious? More personal? Some culture and literature?

For the most part.

Posted in Fun and Geek Stuff, Personal | Comments Off

NPR's Jim Engster Show – Healthcare reform, communism, and crazy talk

Thursday, July 23rd, 2009

The title is excessively provactive – just trying to get your attention.

Gil Dupre - Louisiana Assoc of Health Plans

Yesterday a guest host Jim Nichols was in charge of the “Jim Engster Show” on our local National Public Radio station. (I do not enjoy the show very much. But I often listen to NPR and this show happens to come on about the time I am driving in morning.) The host was talking about the current healthcare reform debate with Gil Dupre(sp?) head of the Louisiana Association of Health Plans. I appreciated both what Gil Dupre and Jim Nichols had to say. Jim Nichols began his interview by commenting that “I think everyone supports the idea of health coverage for everyone. But there are still questions about cost and accessibility“. And Gil Dupre did a fine job I thought of commenting on the healthcare reform bill currently up in Congress. In a nutshell he said it contains several good and worthy changes. But much of it is not good. I appreciated the “Jim Engster Show” giving someone who actually works in the heathcare industry a chance to comment.

Listen to the show by following this link.

Where the show got seriously weird was when Jim Nichols  started taking calls. I may or may not have voiced loud and inappropriate things at my radio. I have seldom heard such breathtaking idiocy.

The first caller said there are two main questions. First – whether healthcare is a privilege or a right. Second – his expressed concern that in the relationship between healthcare and insurance industries the patient does not have a voice. Dupre and Nichols handled the first question well. Dupre declined to answer what he defined as a “philosophical” question and said it does not matter whether one regards it as a privilege or a right – either way we still have the problems of cost and how to get coverage for the un- or underinsured.

For the record I would argue it is not a right. Although it is a good and worthy goal. (Keep in mind that I still agree with Gil Dupre – whether healthcare is a right or not matters less than some think.)

What does it mean to say something is a “right”? I have a right to free speech – does that mean American taxpayers should pay for my ability to say what I want? So if I want to say “I disagree with politician so-and-so” and want to say this on national television at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars – everyone must pay for me to do that?

In general (and I will come back to this) “rights” are things that I can do without restriction but also impose no obligation on others. On the Baptistlife discussion board in which I used to participate one person expressed this point exceptionally well:

First, health care is not a human right. A human right is something that can exist simultaneously among all people without imposing an obligation on someone else. The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are such rights. Free speech, a free press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, the right of self-defense (2nd Amend.) and the right to file grievances against your government are all rights that we Americans have that impose no obligation on others.

Health care, on the other hand, cannot be classified as a human right under that definition. Health care may be needed as much as food, clothing and shelter, but it is not a right. One cannot have health care as a human right without imposing an obligation on others. A “right” to health care means that if I cannot afford medical services, then you are to be coerced through government force into providing it for me. What moral principle says that I have the “right” to insist you pay for something I cannot afford? Why should you have to sacrifice you right to enjoy the fruits of your labor in order to provide something for me? You may do so out of the goodness of your own heart, but should you be forced to do so?

However, like a basic education, we may define a societal right to health care and may set up a government program to administer it, but health care is not a human right. [emphasis added]

There is at least one important counterexample which is the “right to an attorney”. “If you cannot afford one an attorney will be provided for you” (at public expense). Perhaps our excellent friend above would classify that as a societal right (or a societal obligation under the United State Constitution).

Dupre also pointed out that huge steps have been taken to make sure the concerns of patients are addressed. Well answered sir!

Before I get to the truly annoying and chilling phone call let me address directly what Jim Nichols said about healthcare reform and economic competitiveness.

A lot of countries have gone to a more socialized or government-run health care. They seem to have contained costs. And have gotten something of an economic advantage over us. Some would say part of our problem competing in the global economy is our cost of health care in America.

I was sorely tempted to call in at that point – because it is not (necessarily or clearly) true that the cost of healthcare in America is a factor in how we compete effectively in the global economy. But I am not an economist – I merely read what economists of stature have to say.

Greg Mankiw who is an economist at Harvard University – and is an insufferably rational and reasonable thinker who handles dyspeptic hacks like Paul Krugman with uncommon civility and grace – has addressed this on a few occasions:

A common argument, often made by ostensibly sophisticated commentators, is that the United States needs to reform its health care system to maintain its international competitiveness. Regardless of your views of health care reform, this particular argument is, to put it bluntly, nonsense. Long ago, Paul Krugman wrote a nice piece demolishing the whole concept of international competitiveness as a motive for national economic policy. More recently, the Congressional Budget Office has done a nice job explaining why the idea of international competitiveness as a reason for health care reform is fallacious.

Read the whole thing here. And I will stop writing “you do not have to register” after every quote.

Do note that even Paul Krugman argues against the “healthcare-competitiveness fallacy”. Note that we are not even addressing the questions of:

  • whether socialized or government-run healthcare really contains costs 
  • whether socialized or government-run healthcare reduces quality and accessibility 
  • whether nations with socialized or government-run healthcare are truly economically competitive vis-a-vis the United States 
  • whether anyone really would prefer socialized or government-run healthcare 
  • whether anyone would want to work in the healthcare profession within a socialized or government-run system 

Do not misunderstand me. I strongly support the idea of healthcare reform. Not just in terms of “containing costs”. But also in terms of helping all or most Americans receive adequate insurance coverage.

(Quick important point. People talk about “universal health care”. That is not really the issue. The issue is “universal health insurance” or “universal health coverage” yes? What we are debating is the extent to which you receive healthcare and do not have to pay for it out-of-pocket.* I am pretty sure that is what we really are talking about. I also think the current situation – where we depend upon our employers for health insurance coverage – is not a healthy one. It means too often Americans will not look for new/better jobs because they are afraid about losing/changing their health insurance coverage. I would like to think this is of concern to all or most political conservatives.)

Back to the “Jim Engster Show” yesterday morning.

The next caller was something else. Something about how we “couch our Christianity in America in terms of concern and compassion… not knocking [or did he say not for - hard to hear him at this point] free markets… should we lower the salaries commanded by people in this arena [healthcare and insurance industries]… compared to individuals who work and struggle to pay the bills. They live a comfortable lifestyle. How much more money do you need? If you can live comfortable in a nice home drive an automobile feed you family – how much more rich do you need to be? To me sir it all boils down to greed…”

Or envy. And the desire to control others. And make them do for us what we will not do for ourselves. But let us pass over that for the nonce.

It is difficult not to hear good old fashioned Communism in that call. Yeah I know it is unfashionable to throw out that word and others will dismiss you as a reactionary wingnut – but do think about it.

“I think you guys make enough money. I do not think you should make any more money past a certain point. I think I and/or the government should dictate what those salaries and reimbursements and so on should be”.

It is tempting to take that stance. And there are legitimate questions about how much profit is enough and at what point does the legitimate desire for profit turn into exploitation? But one has to wonder who this fellow is to determine what is enough – for people who do work thank you very much and often work harder than the working people who struggle to pay the bills. Did my dad make a high salary? Yup. And he worked at least 60-80 hours each week and traveled all the time.

How would you like to be a doctor and have the government say “you know – after all those years of med school and being up all night studying and working 100+ hours each week as a resident and all the rest… we do not think you should be well compensated for what you know and what you do”? My last primary care doctor transferred to working at the hospital because it meant for the first time in two years he might get some holiday time off with his family. He worked and sacrificed to get where he is. He works harder than I do. Darn right doctors should be well paid.

And let me note in passing that during his address to the American Medical Association the president rather strongly hinted that one way to contain costs is… that everybody gets paid less. And who will make that decision? And how will it be enforced? (Some offhand comment about “spreading the wealth around a little” comes to mind.)

I am not sure how much I should thank the “Jim Engster Show” for letting us know that Communism and craziness are alive and well in Baton Rouge. But my genuine appreciation to Jim Nichols for an intelligent discussion. And especially to Gil Dupre for how well he addressed the issues.

Posted in Economics, Local, Media, Politics, Propaganda, Uncategorized | No Comments »

NPR celebrates $20 gas and the forced hyper-urbanization of America

Monday, July 20th, 2009

Somebody please explain to me why I listen to NPR.

Friday afternoon listening to “Talk of the Nation: Science Friday” hosted by Ira Flatow. Talking with writer Chris Steiner author of $20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Price of Gasoline Will Change our Lives for the Better. The title is more or less self-explanatory.

Steiner laments the comparatively low gasoline taxes – which if higher would help fund our transportation infrastructure. Fair enough I suppose. But he has much more to say. How super expensive gasoline would force Americans (who live in the suburbs or the country and commute to jobs in the cities) to start moving and living closer to where they work. In other words force them to move into the cities. It would also force many airlines out of business and make air travel an expensive luxury. America would be forced to significantly expand and develop public transportation.

Hoorah For $20 Gas!

If you’re anything like me, you consider distance before getting in your car for a joyride, and hold your breath when it’s time to fill up. For many, there is a brace yourself moment of fear that the price of gas will mirror the four dollars a gallon horror we had to live through last summer. But according to author Chris Steiner, our lives would be a lot happier if gas rose to even the double digits. Seriously. We’ll give Steiner room to explain himself, and the title of his book: “$20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better”.

Listen to Talk of the Nation: Science Friday July 16 2009.

My reactions to this are not entirely negative. Of course the United States needs to develop a better public transportation system. In fact conservatives should support this because conservatives want to see people get out and work and support themselves right? But for the working poor transportation is a major problem. They may not be able to afford new cars that are reliable. And if they (a) do not have a car or (b) have an old car in poor condition that is not reliable it becomes difficult to find and keep a job. The working poor need a public transportation system that is (1) fast (2) not expensive and (3) reliable. In fact not just the poor could use such a system and the result is less traffic less time wasted in traffic and less use of fuel. I would like to think political conservatives resonate with such goals.

It would also help foster the creation of community. People who live near each other and know each other. And give new life to downtown commerce – small businesses and shops which would provide goods and services to this growing urban population. When I talk with my Chinese friends most of whom are from cities they explain how cities are organized much differently in China. To a large extent people in China live near their places of work. And often within walking distance of the shops and businesses they use.

And Steiner also notes this will encourage Americans to use their bodies more to get from place to place. Walking and bicycling. He cites one researcher who argues there is a correlation between low gasoline prices and increased obesity. Again – fair enough.

What troubled me about Chris Steiner was how glad he seemed about the prospect of $20 gasoline and the changes it would force upon many Americans.

Let me share an obvious secret about expensive gasoline. It hurts poor people the most.

If you make $100k per year drive a large car and gas goes up to $5 per gallon – that is a nuisance. It probably means less money you are able to save for retirement or travel or college for your kids.

If you make minimum wage drive an old car and gas goes up to $5 per gallon – that is a disaster.

There is a reason – a good reason – why there are such things as income tax deductions. There are certain minimum unavoidable expenses involved in living in America. If it costs a minimum of $15k to live (housing food clothing and transportation to work) and you make $15k per year – then any increase in any necessary expense (gasoline) is a disaster you cannot absorb. Persons with higher incomes are in a better position to absorb increases in certain expenses.

So I do not quite understand why political liberals who supposedly care so much about the poor can without apparent hesitation advocate higher taxes for certain things like gasoline. “It will force Americans to buy more fuel efficient cars and drive less”. Well that is fine – if you are a middle or high income earner. You are in a better position to make those changes. It would hurt my family to buy a new car right now – but we could do it.

But the poor are much less able to make those adjustments. More expensive gasoline could mean not being able to make ends meet. They cannot afford to run out and buy a Toyota Prius.

Also – there are at least two huge reasons why many Americans live in the country and work in the city.

First – the cost of housing. There is a reason my family did not purchase a home closer to Louisiana State University. We cannot afford it. We can afford a home around $150k. Most small homes around the university or around the church campus run $250k and up. I cannot afford to live within walking distance of my work. Period. That simple.

(Now granted I would like to ride my bike – but Baton Rouge is one of the most bicycle-hostile cities I have ever lived in. Most roads and streets have no shoulders let alone no sidewalks. There is an ongoing campaign to push the city to make it more bicycle friendly and apparently they are getting results.)

People often live in the boonies or the suburbs because it is the only way they can raise a family in something other than a cramped one or two bedroom studio apartment.

In a bad neighborhood.

Which is another reason why people often live away from cities. To get away from the crime and violence. No not every part of every city is riddled with violent crime and other social pathologies. There is a reason why my family moved from Richmond to nearby Mechanicsville when I was in seminary. We did not enjoy beer bottles smashing through our bedroom window at night. Or being afraid to go for a walk in the evening.

So I am troubled by the apparent enthusiasm Chris Stein exhibits for watching millions of Americans being forced to move into cities. Ira Flatow read one email from a listener who said “I live in the country and commute 45 miles to work – what am I supposed to do?” Stein said (paraphrasing slightly) that “Americans have had the luxury of being able to choose to live in the country and work in the city – then you will not be able to make that choice and will have to live in the city”. It is easier for the relatively affluent – like the researcher that Steiner quotes – to move into decent homes in decent neighborhoods in the city. But not everyone can afford even an “attached townhome in central Greensboro”.

And while we are at it what about schools.

The forced hyper-urbanization of America.

In one sense I welcome this. One could argue that is how it should be – people live close to work. Cities should be beautiful dynamic places of culture and community.

But until we have a better handle on urban planning and urban life – and education and crime and housing and all the rest – do we really want to force Americans to live in tiny apartments in dangerous neighborhoods?

And elsewhere I have addressed that America is becoming increasingly divided along rural-urban lines. I take it NPR thinks it would be just grand to watch the further destruction of rural America and the growth of urban America – along with the growth of urban culture and urban sensibilities.

The more expensive it becomes to travel – the less free we become as a people. Deeply troubling.

Addendum: I searched the internet for any conservative critiques of Chris Steiner and his book. Most hits were at public radio websites – and most of those were pretty much the same text reproduced. I was not able to find much at all about Steiner and his book outside public radio websites. Very strange.

Posted in Culture, Economics, Media, Politics, Propaganda, Science | No Comments »

"No Senator. I am not a duck. I am a rabbit"

Thursday, July 16th, 2009

Readers of this website know that one of my “buttons” – things that make me quite angry and that is not to excuse an un-Christian reaction – is when people insult my intelligence.

The nomination of Judge Sotomayor and the confirmation hearing are an insult to my – to all of our – intelligence. Just how stupid and gullible do the president and Senate Democrats think we are?

There are two major problems even if you agree with the judicial philosophy of Judge Sotomayor and support her being on the Supreme Court. And I would like to think there are principled liberals and Democrats who would be troubled by these.

First is the issue of fairness and consistency.

Republicans are supposed to roll over and wag their tails because Sonya Sotomator is a Latina. If they question her too strongly or vote against her confirmation they supposedly risk offending and alienating a huge chunk of the American  electorate. Given the conversation I had with a gentleman on the plane from Los Angeles to Houston I think there is some truth to this. He was deeply angry and offended by conservative opposition to and criticism of Sotomayor basically because his wife is Mexican. Is that logical or rational or reasonable? Frankly no. But that is not the issue. The issue is perception and reaction.

But let us recall how Senate Democrats have treated non-Anglo nominees in the past yes? Robert Bork – oh wait he was male and white and deserved what he got. Clarence Thomas? And dare we recall Miguel Estrada? And according to Democratic staff memos later unearthed Estrada was not even allowed a hearing because (a) he was Latino and (b) then President Bush was possibly grooming him for the Supreme Court. Senator Leahy of Vermont has lied about this claiming that Republicans opposed Estrada.

What is it about liberals and some Democrats – this obsession with rewriting history?

I am not a big fan of Ann Coulter. She can be harsh abrasive and hyperbolic. But she is right on target with her latest piece which addresses the unfairness and inconsistency of Senate Democrats when it comes to Supreme Court nominees.

So when Republicans treat Sotomayor with respect and Sen. Lindsey Graham says his “hope” is that “if we ever get a conservative president and they nominate someone who has an equal passion on the other side, that we will not forget this moment,” I think it’s a lovely speech.

It might even persuade me if I were born yesterday.

But Democrats treat judicial nominations like war — while Republicans keep being gracious, hoping Democrats will learn by example. (emphasis added)

Read the whole thing at Townhall. You do not have to register.

I will come back to that point in bold.

So that is the fairness and consistency issue. Senate Democrats will engage in vicious ruthless cynical possibly racist tactics in order to block Republican nominees and/or conservative judges. And get away with it. And then lie about it later. And expect us to believe all this.

Second – the confirmation hearings themselves and the apparent disconnect between what Judge Sotomayor is saying now and what she has said/done/written during her previous career.

There is much to say about Judge Sotomayor’s record – in terms of speeches in terms of articles and in terms of decisions. But Jim Geraughty brings it all home in his latest article:

But if you were a Republican senator, and wanted to vote in good faith to confirm Sotomayor, you would have to believe:

· That her “wise Latina” argument was just a bad “rhetorical flourish” that accidently left listeners believing she disagreed with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, when she actually agreed with her.

· That the misperception of the “wise Latina” argument remained uncorrected through six separate uses of it.

· That Sotomayor genuinely has “no idea” why George Pavia, a senior partner in the law firm that hired her as a corporate litigator, would say, “I can guarantee she’ll be for abortion rights.”

· That she did not read the legal briefs filed by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund while she was on that organization’s board.

· That she genuinely does not have an opinion on whether citizens have a right to self-defense, and could not think of “a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question,” despite the fact that the Heller case decided last year declared, “The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.”

· That she “actually agrees” with Justices Scalia and Thomas that judges have to be “very cautious” about using foreign law, despite a speech earlier this year in which she said, “Suggest[ing] to anyone that you can outlaw the use of foreign or international law is a sentiment that’s based on a fundamental misunderstanding.”

· That she really believes that “we don’t make policy choices in the court,” even though she said in a 2005 appearance at Duke University that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”

· That she genuinely believes that “the process of judging is a process of keeping an open mind,” when she said in a 1999 speech that there is “no objective stance but only a series of perspectives. . . . Aspiration to impartiality is just that, an aspiration.”

· That she thinks the man who nominated her has a fundamentally flawed perspective on the role of judges, and that she will not “approach the issue of judging in the way the president does.”

Read the whole thing at National Review Online. You do not have to register.

Precisely. In a nutshell the confirmation hearings have revolved around the theme of “everything I have said in the past – I meant the opposite”.

Let us assume for the sake of argument and at the strain of credulity that she is telling the truth. That she is not just pretending to be a rabbit for the sake of satisfying the Senate and the public – when for years she has walked and talked and quacked like a duck.

What we then are being asked to believe is that for years Judge Sotomayor has been incapable of making herself understood.

Does that not trouble even liberals and Democrats? Surely the ability to communicate clearly and be understood is important for a judge or a Supreme Court justice. Will her decisions be misunderstood as badly as all of her previous speeches writings and decisions? What “rhetorical flourishes” might there be in a dissenting or supporting opinion on the Supreme Court that would radically disrupt lives and businesses and organizations – and all because she did not mean what she said in fact she meant the opposite of what she said?

This is an insult to my intelligence. And God have mercy on me because that makes me quite angry.

Look. You want a Latino-Hispanic on the Supreme Court? Fine. You even want a liberal Latino-Hispanic on the Supreme Court? I do not like that but hey guess who won the last election. One expects that.

But surely we can do better than this. Why not the liberal Hispanic judge who harshly denounced how Sotomayor handled (or not) the Ricci case? Why not just be honest and consistent?

“Yes Senator. I think some people of some races and backgrounds are wiser and make better decisions than others. I do not believe impartiality is possible – or even a goal to which a judge can and should aspire. I think judges and justices make policy. I think racial discrimination against individuals in order to correct past wrongs against other groups is a fine way to go.

Yes Senator. I swim. I fly. I quack. I am a duck”.

Posted in Issues, Law and Justice, Media, News, Politics, Propaganda | No Comments »

REVIEW – "Foyle's War" and the superiority of British television

Wednesday, July 15th, 2009

In addition to theology and politics – is there a person behind this website? I want also to share things that I have been enjoying.

Since age five or so I have been a science-fiction fan. Read and watch almost nothing but. However the last few years I have more or less exhausted my favorite writers. I know there may be some good writers I have not yet encountered. But at this point I have my favorites.

So I have been branching out into mysteries. A good friend recommended the British television series “Foyle’s War”. About a seasoned police detective in the coastal town of Hastings in England during the Second World War. Sounds a bit boring right?

Television does not come much better than this. The stories are riveting. Only once have I been able to pause our video player and get to bed after midnight in order to finish that episode the next day. What is interesting is how nearly always there are two to three stories. There is the main story – the murder or other big crime. And then one or two other stories or crimes. That are unrelated to the primary story – and yet they are related. Often the minor crime leads the police to the major crime.

The stories tell us a great deal about life on the home front. And about the effects of war on human beings – those on the battlefield and those back at home. “Foyle’s War” often shows how badly war damages and scars human beings. Seething hatred of the enemy – even otherwise good men who just happened to be fighting for their own country and could care less about Nazism. Disfiguring wounds and injuries. Crippling psychological trauma. The death of parents children and spouses. The randomness of sudden and violent death.

The stories also reveal the sinfulness and brokenness of human beings. Is there heroism and nobility during a war? Yes indeed. But also selfishness and profiteering. Cowardice and deceit. Adultery and abandonment. Theft and even murder.

Often the episodes confront us with troubling moral dilemmas. What do you do when someone vital to the war effort has committed a terrible crime? Too many times Detective Chief Superintendent Christopher Foyle is told “you will not arrest this person – he is doing something that will help us win this war” until finally he has enough and resigns in exhaustion and disgust.

Well sort of. Foyle is played exquisitely by veteran British actor Michael Kitchen (whom many would recognize from James Bond films of the Brosnan era). I read that Kitchen set out to convey whole pages of meaning with the lifting of an eyebrow. Foyle is nearly always quiet and calm – even when explaining to the other person how and why they lied to him and betrayed his trust and so on. You do not need to shout or rant and rave. It is enough to speak the truth. I do not think he ever hits a suspect or fires a weapon. A master of minimal force to achieve maximum effect.

What is also fascinating is how the series portrays “appropriate” behavior particularly in the workplace. Often Foyle reminds others “you do not need to be talking about that – it is none of your business” (a particular case he is working on) or “if I ever hear you criticize a senior officer in my presence again I will have you reprimanded and possibly removed from the force” (when junior officers badmouth a particularly annoying police commissioner). Civility. Respect. Restraint. All these are basic values in “Foyle’s War”.

Compare this to how modern American tend to talk. We think everything is our business. Criticize a boss or fellow church member or member of the ministerial staff behind their back. Gossip. We do this all the time. “Foyle’s War” reminds us we do not need to. Nor should we.

The last couple years I have watched several British television series on video (often borrowed from our rather excellent public library system). There is something about British television – the writing and the acting – that seems better than much of the melodramatic fluff that we Americans come up with. Oh sure the British have their share of schlock on the tube. And Americans are capable of occasional brilliance. But in general – they just seem to know how to do television better than we.

More on this later.

In the meantime I cannot recommend “Foyle’s War” enough. Do make sure you get enough sleep however.

Posted in Personal | No Comments »

Presiding Bishop is right – in all the wrong ways

Tuesday, July 14th, 2009

One hardly knows where to start. General Convention 2009 of the Episcopal Church began on July 7. In her opening remarks the Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori had many things to say but this paragraph in particular has attracted attention:

The crisis of this moment has several parts, and like Episcopalians, particularly the ones in Mississippi, they’re all related. The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention.

Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.

Heresy. Besides my difficulty in understanding just what she is trying to say I find it remarkable that any Episcopalian at this stage of the game let alone the Presiding Bishop can use that word with a straight face. And all the turmoil in the Anglican Communion and in the Episcopal Church in particular? Apparently that has nothing to do with words and actions and decisions by the Episcopal Church and its leadership. No – it is all the fault of those nasty conservatives who adhere to a pernicious heresy. Thank you Presiding Bishop for clearing that up.

The Presiding Bishop is not entirely wrong. Of course salvation is not solely an individualistic matter. Nor is salvation simply a matter of saying the correct words. But orthodox Anglicans know this. The Presiding Bishop is engaging in sophistic caricature.

Another bishop, who asked not to be named, described Bishop Jefferts Schori’s view of salvation as being difficult to reconcile with the vows taken at baptism and Paul’s statement on confession (Romans 10:8-10).

Professor Christopher Seitz of the Anglican Communion Institute noted that the presiding bishop needed to define her terms. If by the “Western heresy” she meant the individualism of the Enlightenment, the priority of the individual conscience as articulated by Kant, or the need for individual certainty in science and history suggested by Lessing, “these are bedrock foundations of TEC liberalism.”

As a matter of history, there is no individualist heresy, the Rev. Ephraim Radner, professor of historical theology at Wycliffe College in Toronto told The Living Church. Jesus calls individuals “by name” and saves them “one by one,” he said, and a catholic theology cannot deny this.

“Her remarks would suggest simple ad hominem arguments against conservative evangelicals, masking as theological incoherence,” Fr. Radner said.

Read the whole thing at Living church.

Precisely. Professor Seitz recognizes the irony and hypocrisy behind what the Presiding Bishop says. And Ephraim Radner articulates well her underlying intent.

Doctor Mark Thompson offered some of the most trenchant and devastating dissections of what the Presiding Bishop offered:

The Presiding Bishop’s “ignorance of the Bible and Christian theology is nothing short of breathtaking” the Dean of Moore College in Sydney, Dr. Mark Thompson told CEN.

The presiding bishop’s condemnation of the culture of individualism was not misplaced, Dr. Thompson said, but the theological approach she was taking to address the problem was erroneous. “No one was suggesting that Paul ignored the corporate implications of shared salvation,” he observed, but an “unrelenting dichotomy between the individual and the corporate” was a modern phenomenon.

Augustine, Luther, the Protestant Reformers and the Anglican divines all taught that “God’s purposes are deeply relational and hence the very opposite of fragmented, isolationist individualism. Yet they also extend further than simply corporate identity to call on human persons as persons to repent and believe the gospel,” Dr. Thompson said.

For evangelical’s “more serious still” was the presiding bishop’s “caricature” of a confession of faith that she said made salvation dependent “on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus,” Dr. Thompson said.

The confession that “Jesus Christ is Lord” was “certainly a form of words,” but “they are never simply words,” he explained. “They represent a fundamental orientation of life which includes a willingness to have our thinking and behaviour shaped by the One we acknowledge has such a supreme claim upon us,” he noted.

Read the whole thing at Conger. You do not have to register.

This is why I say the Presiding Bishop is partly right – but for all the wrong reasons. She does not appear to understand what she is talking about. And insofar as she does understand it appears she is projecting onto others what is most true about herself and the Episcopal Church. Something about beams and motes.

One of my best friends – who was ordained a deacon and then a priest in the Episcopal Church through this diocese – commented that many of the clergy in this diocese have an “infantile theology”. I am afraid Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Schori demonstrates this all too well. Bishops are not just theologians – but bishops should be theologians. Something about teaching and defending the faith once delivered to the saints.

Posted in Anglicanism, Logic and Reason, Rhetoric, Theology | No Comments »

« Older Entries