After last week's rather lame roundup, I've decided to make up for it this week with a mega-post, so here we go.....
I say Alito, You say Scalito
Last week I mentioned that Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination and I thought that wasn't such a bad thing. I also mentioned Scooter Libby's indictment. The White House decided to kill two birds with one stone on Monday by nominating Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Conner on the Supreme Court. Not only did the nomination begin the confirmation process, it also (very temporarily) took the media away from the leak scandal.
Immediately, conservative groups praised Alito and liberal ones disparaged him. All that money saved up by these interest groups for a public fight over the nomination has to be spent and it looks like it very well may be. The left has deemed Alito "Scalito" in reference to the most outspoken conservative justice on the court, Antonin Scalia, in hopes of shaping public opinion about him. The right simply praises his judicial excellence and his consistently "conservative" rulings over the past 15 years.
I must say, I can't complain about his credentials. The guy's got what it takes both experientially and mentally. The spin I've read doesn't really give his rulings a fair shake ( what can we expect from a few hundred words or interest group's press releases?) I can't say I necessarily agree with all of the rulings I've read about, but there is certainly solid reasoning behind them and he appears to have a consistent philosophy. Is he conservative? Yep. But the bigger question is whether he's qualified and a good person to protect our rights under the constitution. I'll be interested to listen to the hearings, but I suspect he'll be confirmed next year. The Democrats don't have much ammunition right now other than ideological disagreements and I'm not sure that will be enough. Of course, everyone who voted against Roberts must vote against Alito, both as a matter of intellectual honesty and political reality, but I think that will have exactly the same results.
The best thing I've read so far on this is an op-ed by Michael Kinsley titled "What's Too Conservative?" It's short, intelligent and even-handed.
Budgets Lose Moral Ground
I was hoping I wouldn't have to revisit this, but both the House and the Senate are really making a mess of things. First, they feel they can SPEND without limit on their pet projects (see the Transportation Bill), then they cut taxes. As an antidote to the increasing budget deficit, they then CUT spending on those who are the most vulnerable: the poor and the immigrant. At the same time, they seek to violate our environmental integrity by opening up ANWR to oil drilling with little to gain but some modest income and relatively little oil. The following articles lay it out: Food Stamp Cuts Are On Table House Plan Would Affect 300,000
and Senate Passes Plan to Cut $35 Billion From Deficit.
I'm an advocate for fiscal responsibility, but it seems the height of hypocrisy to vote to spend money on pork-barrel projects on one hand and against Medicaid, food stamps and farm subsidies on the other. I would have much more respect for these guys if they were consistent, even if I disagreed with their cuts. Fiscal responsibility means sometimes raising taxes as well.
Healthcare American Style
Here's a shocker for you: Americans pay more for health care than other Western countries and get worse care. Really? That's shocking, just shocking! It's true. The for-profit scam that we call healthcare here in America (for-profit hospitals in collusion with insurance companies) continues to increase prices while we get less and worse for our money. That's the marketplace at work. The study, commissioned by the Commwealth Fund, found Great Britain to have the best performance. Perhaps socialized medicine is actually a good idea? Signs point to yes.
Additional benefits of a British-style system? Medicare and Medicaid, no need for it. Union strikes for better health-care? No need. Actually getting the medication you need instead of choosing between prescriptions and food. It's time to get over the archaic fear of the "s" word and start thinking about what is actually good for the country (although a few insurance companies might disagree.) I suspect this will likely occur when a state (Oregon, California, Washington, Vermont? Come on guys, we can do it!) passes a state-based universal health-care solution. I hope the dominoes start to fall soon.
See:
For Americans, Getting Sick Has Its Price Survey Says U.S. Patients Pay More, Get Less Than Those in Other Western Nations
US leads way in medical errors: study
CIA and Torture?Nooo...
I'm feeling a bit cheeky today, so the tone is a bit sarcastic, but it's about time we face up to it: America is a purveyor of torture. From the CIA-trained Central American death squads of the 80's to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, we like to talk the talk but we don't walk the walk. We would like to think that our government doesn't do such things, but it's not true. Recently revealed secret CIA detention centers in Eastern Europe add evidence to the argument that parts of our government act above and outside US law and international conventions (which, if ratified ARE US law - see The Constitution of The United States)
The fact is, that we are all created in the image of God and we are expected to treat each other as such. To say that the ends justify the means is a slippery slope that leads to moral ruin. Justice may be upheld without resulting to cruelty and, I would argue, torture circumvents justice. Even if it isn't technically torture, our treatment of prisoners has both violated the Geneva Conventions (Guantanamo Bay) AND the basic tenets of Just detention. It's time we draw clear and bright lines, act justly and humanely and refuse to accept anything less.
See: US defends foreign detentions
Paris is Burning
This is a huge news story that isn't getting much play here in the US. If riots were going on for a week in New York City, we'd hear about it. It seems to be mentioned in passing here. I mention this mostly because it's important to know about. Firstly, it could (and has) happened here. The roots of the rioting are class and race inequality sparked by economic squalor and perceived injustice. This is similar to Watts or LA riots, with the explosive addition of religious tension. I hate to keep beating the same drum, but I think the roots of this event are in a failure of justice. Human sinfulness abound on both sides of this conflict, but had they (and we) a society that "loved mercy, acted justly and walked humbly with our Lord" (Micah 6:8) we would find a much less volatile situation.
See: French riots spread beyond Paris
Rioters Attack Trains, Schools and Businesses in the Paris Suburbs
Friday, November 04, 2005
Thursday, November 03, 2005
A Father's Voice: Kill Your Television
There's a pretty popular bumper sticker around here: Kill Your Television. It's a sentiment I share for numerous reasons and I've been thinking about how to put it into words for some time. If I had one piece of advice for new fathers, near the top of the list would definitely be pitch the TV. The negatives of television are easily enumerated: lowered brain state activity, lack of communal interaction, exposure to unwanted imagery and commodification of people (e.g. consumerism) are just a few. Some of those things can be controlled for, others are simply built in to the technology. For this post, however, I don't want to focus on the negatives, but the positive aspect of being TV-free.
From birth, my son has seen very little television. There is occasional exposure, which we don't shy away from, but it is often limited and definitely not constant. At almost two, he is able to entertain himself with toys or, more often, books. He enjoys music, has an active imagination and loves going out to the park, children's museum or library. I don't know if television would have changed any of that, but it's not a risk I'm willing to take.
The advantages for my son, however, are nothing compared to the advantages for me. I purposely don't have the option of popping in a DVD for my son or turning on a show for me. When I come home, I must interact with him. I get to play with him and read to him. We color or play music together. My attention isn't divided and even when I am exhausted after a long day, I can't "veg out" - I must engage both my wife and my son. This is important, not only for the tangible benefits, but for the tacit message that is conveyed: "You are important to me and I want to spend time with you."
As my son grows older, the advantages will become even more obvious. The love of reading alone (which he already manifests) is worth it. He (and I) have more time to read both together and individually. His wants and desires will be formed out of his interests and who he is, rather than what Madison Avenue thinks it should be. Finally, the research shows that television viewing tends to be inversely proportional to physical fitness, academic achievement and attention span, which means the less you watch, the better of you are. As a father who wants the very best for my child, why wouldn't I limit television exposure?
Of all the advantages of killing my television, however, I have to go back to time spent with my family. It is little sacrifice to me to never have seen an episode of "Lost" if that means my wife or son gets an additional hour with me. The time I spend reading to Avi or rough-housing with him is far more precious than any pleasure I may derive from what comes out of the tube - it is also more lasting, even eternal.
I may return to this subject again, but I think there is reason enough here to boot the box. If fathers would take this one simple step, I think you would begin to see the roots of a revolution occurring. It is only a tiny and incomplete step, but an important one. So go ahead - kill your television, you won't regret it.
From birth, my son has seen very little television. There is occasional exposure, which we don't shy away from, but it is often limited and definitely not constant. At almost two, he is able to entertain himself with toys or, more often, books. He enjoys music, has an active imagination and loves going out to the park, children's museum or library. I don't know if television would have changed any of that, but it's not a risk I'm willing to take.
The advantages for my son, however, are nothing compared to the advantages for me. I purposely don't have the option of popping in a DVD for my son or turning on a show for me. When I come home, I must interact with him. I get to play with him and read to him. We color or play music together. My attention isn't divided and even when I am exhausted after a long day, I can't "veg out" - I must engage both my wife and my son. This is important, not only for the tangible benefits, but for the tacit message that is conveyed: "You are important to me and I want to spend time with you."
As my son grows older, the advantages will become even more obvious. The love of reading alone (which he already manifests) is worth it. He (and I) have more time to read both together and individually. His wants and desires will be formed out of his interests and who he is, rather than what Madison Avenue thinks it should be. Finally, the research shows that television viewing tends to be inversely proportional to physical fitness, academic achievement and attention span, which means the less you watch, the better of you are. As a father who wants the very best for my child, why wouldn't I limit television exposure?
Of all the advantages of killing my television, however, I have to go back to time spent with my family. It is little sacrifice to me to never have seen an episode of "Lost" if that means my wife or son gets an additional hour with me. The time I spend reading to Avi or rough-housing with him is far more precious than any pleasure I may derive from what comes out of the tube - it is also more lasting, even eternal.
I may return to this subject again, but I think there is reason enough here to boot the box. If fathers would take this one simple step, I think you would begin to see the roots of a revolution occurring. It is only a tiny and incomplete step, but an important one. So go ahead - kill your television, you won't regret it.
A Father's Voice: Introduction
This post is the first in what I hope will continue to be my Thursday series: A Father's Voice. The focus of the Thursday posts will be to address the challenges, triumphs and practicalities of being a Christian father in 21st century America.
I continue to see a need to reinvigorate fatherhood in America. Deadbeat dad should never be a household term, nor should we allow fathers to abdicate their responsibility or authority over their children. Parenting is ideally a team project, the mother's voice and father's voice speaking in unison, raising and training up a child. The deficit in fatherhood comes, I think, first from the fact that so many children are raised without a father (or perhaps a father partially there with shared custody.) Those of us blessed enough to have fathers learned fatherhood primarily by example, sometimes good, sometimes not. Somewhere, it seems, we lost fatherhood 101 - what does it mean to be a father and how do you do it? I'm not advocating a one-size-fits-all checklist, but it would be good to at least have some good overarching guidelines.
This series is my attempt to put some form to my nebulous thoughts, to help them solidify into something concrete and to make whatever intelligence I may gather "actionable." To that end, I start with a very practical piece of advice: kill your television.
I continue to see a need to reinvigorate fatherhood in America. Deadbeat dad should never be a household term, nor should we allow fathers to abdicate their responsibility or authority over their children. Parenting is ideally a team project, the mother's voice and father's voice speaking in unison, raising and training up a child. The deficit in fatherhood comes, I think, first from the fact that so many children are raised without a father (or perhaps a father partially there with shared custody.) Those of us blessed enough to have fathers learned fatherhood primarily by example, sometimes good, sometimes not. Somewhere, it seems, we lost fatherhood 101 - what does it mean to be a father and how do you do it? I'm not advocating a one-size-fits-all checklist, but it would be good to at least have some good overarching guidelines.
This series is my attempt to put some form to my nebulous thoughts, to help them solidify into something concrete and to make whatever intelligence I may gather "actionable." To that end, I start with a very practical piece of advice: kill your television.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Wednesday's Big Idea: A Box Lunch (Psalm 103)
The verse for the day was Psalm 103 which is a fantastic psalm. It's opening verse is best known as a song: "Bless the Lord, O my soul and all that is within me." But that's just the beginning. The idea of a box lunch comes from Rick, who likened this Psalm to a meal which you can pack in a hurry but is filling and nourishing all day. This is definitely one of those psalms which you could read in the morning and gain spiritual sustenance all day. Here are the first five verses:
Praise the LORD, O my soul;
all my inmost being, praise his holy name.2 Praise the LORD, O my soul,
and forget not all his benefits-3 who forgives all your sins
and heals all your diseases,4 who redeems your life from the pit
and crowns you with love and compassion,5 who satisfies your desires with good things
so that your youth is renewed like the eagle's.
If that can't sustain you, then I don't know what can! We could spend weeks praying through this and still have plenty left over. If you need some Biblical reading and don't have much time, read this. If you need to kick start a prayer, read this. Pack it up in the morning and be fed all day.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Isaiah on Tuesday - Justice for the Poor
We continue with Isaiah 3, moving to three verses which place a judgment on those who would oppress the poor:
"The LORD takes his place in court;
he rises to judge the people.14 The LORD enters into judgment
against the elders and leaders of his people:
"It is you who have ruined my vineyard;
the plunder from the poor is in your houses.15 What do you mean by crushing my people
and grinding the faces of the poor?"
declares the Lord, the LORD Almighty."
The elders and leaders in Israel have neglected their role as defender of the people taking their place, instead, alongside the oppressor and the thief. As the people whose responsibility it was to administer justice, the elders and rulers should have been on the side of the poor. Their arrogance and pride, however, led them away from compassion and humility. It is no wonder, then, that God judges against people who have forsaken their duty to protect and defend the fatherless and the widow, the downtrodden and the disenfranchised.
God appointed them and gave them power not to crush His people, but lift them up. Much was expected of them because much was given, yet they not only failed to perform, they went one step further to participating in evil.
As a modern day Christian, my hope is that God does not find the plunder of the poor in my home. I hope that my comforts, my food and my clothing are not bought on the backs of the poor or oppressed. There are many manifestations of this, but as a practical matter this means to me that, as much as possible, my purchases should be from companies that treat their employees justly, that the product was created or grown in a way that is responsible and the product itself is not a reflection of injustice or exploitation. My earnings must not be at the expense of the poor, nor must I participate in an endeavor that is harmful to people or the earth.
God's judgment was against those who not only should have known better, they were empowered to do better. I believe it is incumbent upon Christians to hold ourselves to the standards that God has set up for us. My hope is that someday God will find an America where Christians are known for their compassion and humility as well as their righteousness. My fear is that Christians maintain the appearance of righteousness, but fail to be transformed inwardly. We are very good at "shall nots" (or at least talking about them), but fail miserably at the "shalls". Yet the "shalls" are our greatest commandments. Our daily struggle is "to love the Lord our God with all my heart, all my mind and all my strength and love our neighbors as ourselves. All of the prophets and the law is fulfilled in these commandments." As Einstein once said, "the rest is details."
Further reading: Finding Justice in Charity, Bill Moyers (article adapted from a speech at the wealth and giving forum, October 2005)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)