Two Cents Each
- In Manhattan, Preparing for Kindergarten Admission Test
- This is simply ridiculous!
- Geeks Drive Girls Out of Computer Science | LiveScience
- Girls do seem to shy away from CS careers and that is unfortunate, but this "study" has not found the answer. I've not read anything quite so silly on livescience in a long time.
- E-books spark battle inside the publishing industry – washingtonpost.com
- Is anyone else growing tired of old school companies trying to stop innovation instead of finding a way to adapt?
- 100 Skills Everyone Should Master | Mighty Girl
- I don't think every item should be on the list but it's a great list anyway.
- Your guide to better chopstick etiquette (mostly Japanese) | Just Hungry
- A great list of tips if you want to use chopsticks properly. It does not explain "how" to use them but how to use them properly.
Happy Holidays!
Are you offended that I didn’t say Merry Christmas?
According to statistics posted on the website of the Wish Me A Merry Christmas Campaign, 53% of Americans are offended when greeted with Happy Holidays.
I have to tell you that I am a little surprised by this. I’m not sure I trust the statistics in the first place but that seems like an awful lot of people. Are people really offended by this? I understand why people prefer “Merry Christmas.” I prefer that myself and I’m very pleased when people say it, but I’m not offended when people say something different.
Another statistic on the website states that nine out of ten people think it’s okay to say Merry Christmas. Saying Happy Holidys is a good way to keep from offending the one out of ten. If more then five out of ten are offended by this effort, do we drop in in favor of offending the minority? I think the answer is no. People who are offended by Happy Holidays simply need to lighten up. If it doesn’t exclude you, don’t be offended by it. Simple as that.
I just think people misunderstand the spirit of Happy Holidays. I know many people are worried about the war on Christmas, but I don’t think that is what this is about. Americans celebrate at least five different holidays in the space of five or six weeks. Happy Holidays is a way to acknowledge all of these holidays at once. Is there really something offensive about inclusioin? Years ago my friends and I used to say Happy Hanukwanzmas. Would that be better?
The merits of the campaign itself are a different issue entirely for me. When I first stumbled onto this site I was very irritated – mostly because of my thoughts above – but I came to see some merit in the idea or at least in a modified version of the idea. I do think more retailers should offer a friendly Merry Christmas under certain circumstances. A great example is when I stop to purchase my tree every year. It would be downright silly for the clerk to wish me Happy Holidays when I am clearly in the act of celebrating a specific holiday.
On the other hand, my experience tells me that this campaign could do without the buttons. I tend to say Happy Holidays sometimes, but I’ve found that people almost always respond with Merry Christmas if I say Merry Christmas first.
Merry Christmas!
Turn Hope into Action
In keeping with this weeks topic, I found this interesting idea - Obama for Peace: Turn Hope into Action.
If you’d like to see our President live up to his promises and the prize with which he was honored, check out the site.
Monuments to Peace
Yesterdays post reminded me of a great site I wanted to share with you.
Peace Monuments Around the World “contains information about many peace monuments — over time and in all parts of world.”
I find it inspiring.
Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize – I Agree with Bill O’Reilly?
I hate to be one of millions of voices saying the same thing, but I simply must say something about this.
If you know me, or have read any of my thoughts over the last year, you know that I support President Barrack Obama. I voted for him. As it stands now, I would vote for him again. I don’t support everything he supports but I believe he is the right leader for our nation at this point.
But, like many others, I feel like the Nobel Peace Prize is premature. Along with many of us, the President himself feels that this award was a call to action. A call to follow up his words with deeds. I agree with all of that and I hope it works, but the award should have been given to someone because of his or her accomplishments.
I don’t believe, as some do, that he should have declined the award. The most interesting argument in this regard, though a bit of a stretch in my view, is by Rinku Sen. She writes:
There’s an additional element that affects the struggle for racial justice. Obama talks a lot about personal responsibility for black men. He doesn’t think you should whine and ask for things you’re not willing to earn. Is that just about asking, and never about accepting? Perhaps he will earn it, I’m not saying he won’t, but he hasn’t yet, as he himself acknowledged.
— Obama Should Have Turned It Down
As usual, I also don’t agree with Rush Limbaugh when he claims that this makes our President a laughing stock. He writes:
Folks, the Nobel Peace Prize, we owe ‘em. Our president has become a laughingstock. They are telling jokes about Barack Obama even in State-Controlled Media. ABC is assembling what they think are the funniest jokes that they’re finding anywhere, from blogs to State-Controlled Media sources and so forth and it’s hilarious. Everybody in the world is laughing except the Norwegians, everybody is laughing at our president. You know, I’m a former nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize. I was nominated this year, the year that Gore got the Peace Prize, official nominee. I’m especially qualified to comment on this. I’m much closer to having won a Nobel Peace Prize than any of you people are because I’ve actually been nominated. (laughing) And, by the way, when I was nominated there wasn’t any laughter. No, there was no laughter. There was anger and rage from certain sectors of this country, but there was no laughter. Our president has won the Peace Prize, and he is a standing joke.
— Our President is a Laughingstock: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
I also don’t subscribe to the notion that Obama won because he is black. Rinku Sen writes:
I’m sure the Nobel committee is very, very smart, but it all made me wonder if they’re so eager to reward the first black president of the U.S. that they wanted to get it done now, just in case he turns out to be a warmonger robbing them of their chance to meet the coolest kid on the block. — Obama Should Have Turned It Down
and this wingnut writes:
I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news. There is no way Barack Obama earned it in the nominations period.
— Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize: He’s Becoming Jimmy Carter Faster Than Jimmy Carter Did.
What surprised me most about all of this is that I agree with Bill O’Reilly’s comments. I’m pleasantly surprised by his comments on this. He writes:
“Talking Points” does not share the dissent — understands it, but does not share it — because having a U.S. president honored with a peace prize is good for the country. We should want the world to think we are a nation that gives peace a chance, because that’s what we are.
In the past, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson won the prize. Jimmy Carter received it after he left office. Yasser Arafat also won the Nobel Peace Prize, if you can believe it. But so did Martin Luther King Jr. and Mother Teresa.
There are times when what’s good for America should trump partisan politics. President Obama was honored Friday, and deserved or not, the world is hearing “America” and “peace” in the same sentence. That’s good.
There are a lot of negative things one might say about this development but I have to agree that this is good for America.
Dear Friend of Liberty
Last week I mentioned that I’d received a letter from Liberty University. Today I’d like to comment on that letter.
I’ve debated this for a couple of weeks now and I’ve decided to comment on the letter paragraph by paragraph. I will post the letter in full at the bottom of the post for those of you that want to read it first.
Dear Friend of Liberty,
I hope this letter finds you well and prosperous. I am writing to you today because, quite frankly, I need your help.
It does, thank you. With what can I help?
For nearly three decades, proud Americans like you have helped us grounded in the conservative Christian values that Liberty University was founded to support and defend. With the recent election of Barack Obama as President, radical left-wing activist groups are energized and seeking to use big government to mute the conservative voice. Few groups are more sinister than Americans United for Separation of Church and State and its misguided leader Barry Lynn.
What? I am ever frustrated with the labeling of others as radical and with the idea that radical is a bad thing. Were our founding fathers not radical?
and sinister? What makes a AU sinister? They stand up for freedom and the separations of church and state. Many on the extreme right subscribe to the notion that our country was not founded on the principle of separation which is probably where the term sinister comes from, but they are sadly mistaken. Our nation was indeed founded on that principle and I firmly believe it is one of the factors that has given us our prosperity (along with the entrepreneurial spirt most anyone must possess to have picked up and moved to another country).
Recently, Lynn, an ACLU lawyer turned reverend, seized on a fundraising opportunity when the university told a LU Democrat Club it could not use LU’s name and money in promoting some of its causes. The Democrat Club and its staff sponsor had refused to cut ties with the National Democratic Party, which supports abortion-on-demand and same-sex marriage.
First of all, what’s with the “an ACLU lawyer turned reverend” comment? What is that supposed to convey?
So, he was a lawyer for the ACLU. Good for him! We need good lawyers in the ACLU. I don’t agree with everything they do (and I’ve written about that before) but they stand up for freedom and that is a good thing. This is another thing that used to frustrate me about Dr. Falwell. The first time I heard him make a derogatory comment about the ACLU I was genuinely confused.
So, Lynn became a reverend. In my experience I’ve known many pastors who had been called to ministry after another career. Make no mistake, Falwell’s comments are meant to make the average “friend of liberty” think that Lynn can’t possibly be a “good guy” if he worked for the ACLU.
LU thought the Democrat Club’s allegiance to the Democratic Party was a direct contradiction to core Christian values held dear by the university, which is both pro-life and pro-traditional marriage.
This is where things get a little difficult for me to explain. I have NO problem with a university hiring employees who subscribe a a statement of faith, but university’s SHOULD NOT hold positions on issues. Once again, I DO support the right of the university to require employees subscribe, but a university is designed to be a place of education. Education by nature must be liberal. Student’s must be taught in an environment that is open to different positions.
I am also NOT saying that all material be taught as though it is on the same moral ground. I FULLY SUPPORT the right of any private university to teach students different positions and for students to learn what university leadership believes, but students should never be restricted from educational activities simply because university leadership disagrees with the political affiliation.
Lynn’s weapon of choice is the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, a federal agency which he often uses to pistol whip those who disagree with his radical, liberal political agenda.
Really? Is this any way for the chancellor of a university to speak of someone else? I’m not the biggest fan of Lynn’s but to say he uses the IRS to “pistol whip” anyone who disagrees with him? And there you go calling him a radical again as if that were a bad thing. The science department at LU teaches that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. I can think of few things more radical.
In this case, Lynn’s assertion is that LU, in limiting the use of its name and money, had violated its non-profit standing. His goal is to have LU stripped of its tax exempt status by the federal government.
I don’t know if Lynn has a case here. My suspicion is that he has, but this is an open and shut case in my book. I don’t think any of us should pay taxes but since we do I don’t think any institution should be exempt from those taxes. There is too much abuse of this. Religious institutions and other non-profits should pay taxes like any other institution (well, no they shouldn’t but you know what I mean).
Personally, I find such assertions and petitions for federal involvement in curbing religious freedoms a disturbing trend as we move closer to a more intrusive and socialized federal government. in fact, AU’s actions are un-American. If a school like Liberty University can be required to endorse and support abortion rights and same-sex marriage, then how can we continue to call America “a free country”?
Wow, this is packed full of goodness.
I wholeheartedly agree that “federal involvement in curbing religious freedoms” is disturbing. I’d argue that federal involvement in anything is disturbing but unfortunately we’ve crossed that bridge already, haven’t we? So, why are so many on the right set on granting the federal government the right to restrict behaviors as personal as sex and reproduction? How is that not disturbing?
AU’s actions are un-American? LU wants to tell students to break ties with one of two political parties in this country and AU’s attempt to stop that is un-American?
Is LU being “required to endorse and support abortion rights and same-sex marriage?” I didn’t read that anywhere. First of all, one of these rights is already guaranteed by ruling from the Supreme Court but that doesn’t mean LU has to support even that one. What has always made America great is the right to disagree. Restricting the rights of someone to have an abortion is a crime as it should be but disagreeing with that is not. Allowing students to believe does not require the university agree.
“[H]ow can we continue to call America ‘a free country’?” This is the point I’ve been trying to make. America is founded on principles of individual freedom and the separation of church and state. Students must be given the opportunity to associate with any political party they want. THAT is what makes America free.
My father taught millions to stand and fight when they knew in their heart they were doing what was right.
One of the things I admired most about Dr. Falwell. No matter how much I disagreed with some of what he stood for, I admire that very much and always will remember him for it.
I think it’s time for Christian conservatives to stand up against left wing political bullies like Barry Lynn. If we don’t stop him now, your church or your family could be his next political target. I hope you can send a financial gift of $15, $25, $50 or $100 to help us fight for the heart of America.
Calling names again. This argument might be relevant if Mr. Lynn was attacking LU’s right to teach a certain religious position, but we are not talking about that here. LU is telling students they cannot associate with a political party. This is similar to LU’s efforts to stop the formation of a Greenpeace chapter on campus when I was there. They simply cannot call themselves “Friends of Liberty” if they restrict the rights of their very own students.
In closing, I must say that this whole episode bothers me as a Christian as much as it does as an American. Jerry Falwell Jr. is following in his fathers footsteps by stating in so many words that a Christian cannot be a member of the Democratic Party or support certain candidates and/or political positions. I find this upsetting in a way that I find hard to put into words. I know very many devout Christians who are Democrats. I know many who are pro-choice, myself included. I know many who support human rights for homosexuals, myself included. I also know many who support positions I disagree with. I can be very arrogant from time to time but I would never be so arrogant to tell those people that they are not really Christians. Do I run around telling people that no Christian in his right mind should have voted for George W. Bush? Well maybe but I don’t question their faith over it, do I? 
Dear Friend of Liberty,
I hope this letter finds you well and prosperous. I am writing to you today because, quite frankly, I need your help.
For nearly three decades, proud Americans like you have helped us grounded in the conservative Christian values that Liberty University was founded to support and defend. With the recent election of Barack Obama as President, radical left-wing activist groups are energized and seeking to use big government to mute the conservative voice. Few groups are more sinister than Americans United for Separation of Church and State and its misguided leader Barry Lynn.
Recently, Lynn, an ACLU lawyer turned reverend, seized on a fundraising opportunity when the university told a LU Democrat Club it could not use LU’s name and money in promoting some of its causes. The Democrat Club and its staff sponsor had refused to cut ties with the National Democratic Party, which supports abortion-on-demand and same-sex marriage.
LU thought the Democrat Club’s allegiance to the Democratic Party was a direct contradiction to core Christian values held dear by the university, which is both pro-life and pro-traditional marriage.
Lynn’s weapon of choice is the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, a federal agency which he often uses to pistol whip those who disagree with his radical, liberal political agenda.
In this case, Lynn’s assertion is that LU, in limiting the use of its name and money, had violated its non-profit standing. His goal is to have LU stripped of its tax exempt status by the federal government.
Personally, I find such assertions and petitions for federal involvement in curbing religious freedoms a disturbing trend as we move closer to a more intrusive and socialized federal government. in fact, AU’s actions are un-American. If a school like Liberty University can be required to endorse and support abortion rights and same-sex marriage, then how can we continue to call America “a free country”?
My father taught millions to stand and fight when they knew in their heart they were doing what was right. I think it’s time for Christian conservatives to stand up against left wing political bullies like Barry Lynn. If we don’t stop him now, your church or your family could be his next political target. I hope you can send a financial gift of $15, $25, $50 or $100 to help us fight for the heart of America.
God Bless You,
Jerry Falwell Jr.
Friend of Liberty
About a month ago we received a letter from Jerry Falwell, Jr., the chancellor at Liberty University, an evangelical Christian university founded in 1971 by the late Dr. Jerry Falwell, Sr. The letter represents, in so many ways, the frustrations I have with LU in particular and the religious right in general. I will write more about that letter next week, but I thought it would be good to lay a foundation for my interest in Liberty.
I enrolled at LU in 1985. Our freshmen class was roughly 2500 strong, the largest freshmen class up to that point. The Moral Majority had become a strong political force in our country and LBC had just earned university status and had become LU. it was an exciting time to be on campus. I enjoyed my time at Liberty, learned much, graduated with a B.S. in 1988 and remained in Lynchburg until January 1989.
I knew when I enrolled that my worldview was different than Dr. Falwell’s. I used to cringe when he would review the university’s statement of faith during chapels and other gatherings. I believed most of it, but he would say …
“We believe in the pre-millennial, pre-tribulational return of Christ.”
One or two sentences is not enough to present my view, but I believe what most Christians believed until the early 1900s – Christ is reigning now over a spiritual kingdom and will return to earth but not to set up a political kingdom here on earth.
“pro Israel”
I have nothing against Israel but I think U.S. foreign policy is flawed because of an improper interpretation of Scripture. Anyone paying attention during the Presidency of George W. Bush should know what I’m talking about. I think every American should care about this but I also think Christians should be saddened by it. There are almost 2 Billion people in the world who will not listen to the message of Christ because America supports Israel no matter what the circumstances.
“pro strong national defense”
I also have nothing against a strong national defense, but including it as part of a university’s statement of faith always bothered me somehow.
I didn’t agree with everything Dr. Falwell stood for but I admired his dedication to his church and Liberty.
I have many fond memories of my college experience – fun times with friends, breaking rules, challenging authority, kidnapping the student body president – many of the same experiences others remember from college days, but there are three events I remember vividly because they helped shape my current worldview. I won’t bother to try and put them in chronological order but all of these can be dated with a bit of research.
I was on campus when a young man from another college contacted Dr. Falwell with a message he believed was from God. That message was to step down as leader of the moral majority and focus on his calling as pastor of a local church. I was impressed by Dr. Falwell’s decision to follow this young man’s advice. In retrospect, after all that I’ve seen over the last twenty years, I can’t help but wonder if there was more to that story than we were told. In any case, Dr. Falwell’s decision to focus on pastoring was the right one no matter how he came to it. This experience taught me that it is easy to be distracted by good things. If I have work to do I should do it without being distracted by other good things I could be doing.
I was running the campus radio station during the overnight shift one night during NCAA conference championship games. We never read news announcements overnight but I left the teletype running to keep tabs on the scores. Sometime that night I peeled the paper off the machine and began scanning for cities I knew were involved in the games. I noticed Charlotte, NC and stopped to read the story. Turns out that Jim Bakker had resigned from his position at his ministry due to some kind of sin and that our own Dr. Falwell was going to take over the ministry. I made the announcement over the air but to this day noone has ever confirmed that they heard that announcement. Our radio station was not very popular back then. The next day, Dr. Falwell confirmed the story in chapel.
I was not a supporter of Bakker’s ministry but I’d been to Heritage USA a couple of times and I knew that some good work was being done despite all the charlatan behavior and swindles going on. In the months that followed I heard many different sides to this story and I learned that things are not always as they seem.
The last experience came as a member of the College Republicans. I’ve been registered as Republican for most of my adult life but I’ve always considered myself more of a libertarian. I joined because, as one might imagine, it was a very popular group on the LU campus. It was exciting to be a member. At the convention it was always interesting to see how one or two very large groups of delegates could sway party decisions. Any party plank that did not have the approval of LU’s delegates was almost certain to fail unless George Mason’s group was in support.
It was during this time that I began to realize how flawed the political process can be. I was not completely naive when I joined but being a part opened my eyes to things that I’d not carefully thought through before. Our chapter, despite my best arguments to do otherwise, wanted to endorse George H. W. Bush as a candidate for President. This bothered me on so many levels that I still can’t shake the frustration.
It bothered me because Bush was in favor of what I considered to be a very totalitarian idea – a national curriculum for all schools in America.
It bothered me because Bush was endorsed mostly as a counter to Jack Kemp, who had been branded a “liberal” in our chapter. Kemp’s work with HUD had earned him this label. It seems that any Republican who supports a social program is immediately branded a liberal. I won’t try to justify the existence of HUD, but couldn’t we use a similar argument to brand Bush a liberal for his “national curriculum” idea? How is that a conservative idea?
It bothered me because Bush was clearly pro-choice and just pandering to the right wing by changing his stance. I’m pro-choice so I have no issue with that but I do have issue with a group that openly cares about one or two core issues and then doesn’t stick to them when political power is at stake. In my mind it was more important to Dr. Falwell to maintain his influence on government than to stand up for the issues he cared about.
Some of this is difficult for me to write because I have a lot of admiration for the good work Dr. Falwell did, but the fact is that I’m not proud of other things. Jim Wallis said it best when speaking to Dr. Falwell on Meet the Press in 2004
Jerry, there are millions and millions of Christians who want the nation to know that you don’t speak for them…
Weekly Link Roundup
- Stanford offers free downloads of its iPhone development class | Software | iPhone Central | Macworld
- A great way to learn iPhone programming
- Recent gopher Bookmarks on Delicious
- Wow, it's been at least ten years since I browsed gopher.
- 8 Year-Old Entrepreneur Makes Plea For Job – Business Opportunities Weblog
- What a cool little kid!
- Tarjeta de dentista :: Cuarto derecha
- Very creative design idea.
- Garlic Shrimp and Scallops Recipe (by Jeremy Zawodny)
- Rachel Sutherland, 2006 The Other Half of Famous Twins | GetBack Retro Images, Video, Games and Trivia
- HugeURL
- Totally useless site but good for quick laugh.
- Talking Points Memo | Frightful Kindle
- I love the Kindle app for iPhone but I like the Kindle better. The "non-backlitness" is a big plus for me. I spend a lot of time in front of a screen so the more I can get away the better. The iPhone app is very cool for "having my books with me" all the time. I carry the Kindle a lot of places but I carry the iPhone everywhere.
- Twitter / mcuban: can't say no one makes mon …
- Haha, good point
- "60 Minutes" freaks out over Conficker. Where's John Hodgman when you need him? | TV Barn
- "Maybe tonight, a lot of 50-plussers will update their security software or lock up that wi-fi they've been sharing with the neighborhood. I suppose that's all for the good. Still, I wonder if anyone bothered to inform Lauren, the 30-trying-to-look-like-22-year-old featured in those Windows ads, that her $700 Windows box could get infected with Conficker — but a Mac, or a PC with non-MS-manufactured Linux as the operating system, can't?"
- BBC NEWS | Magazine | Death and my daughters
- A moving story about dealing with death.
- BBC NEWS | UK | England | North Yorkshire | Missing chef website investigated
- I was in the hospital with third degree burns on 22% of my body when I was a junior in high school. A local convenience store placed a can for donations in the store. I know they collected donations – people told me and it was a high traffic store. I never saw a dime of those donations!
- Perfect Running Pace Revealed | LiveScience
- "Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison now have an explanation for this state of running nirvana, and we can thank our ancestors and some evolutionary biology for it."
Texas Considers Allowing Guns on Campuses – NYTimes.com
The NY Times is reporting that the state legislature in Texas is considering a bill which would allow properly licensed persons to carry concealed weapons on a college campus.
I hate guns myself but I firmly believe our right to carry them helps protect our freedom. I also believe that if more people carried concealed weapons there would be less violence – not more.
On the other hand, I tend to worry about weapons on a college campus. I have a lot of friends of college age and most are very responsible, but we all know that college is a time when students “let loose” a bit (or a lot). Concealed weapons may not be a great idea in this environment.
What do you think?
A New Crop of Scientists Are Using Their Children as Research Subjects – NYTimes.com
Apparently, some scientists use their own children as test subjects in the name of science.
At a birthing class, Dr. Sinha, a neuroscience professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, stunned everyone, including his wife, by saying he was excited about the baby’s birth “because I really want to study him and do experiments with him.” He did, too, strapping a camera on baby Darius’s head, recording what he looked at.
— A New Crop of Scientists Are Using Their Children as Research Subjects – NYTimes.com
I love science as much as anyone, but this is very disturbing to me. Does anyone NOT see an ethical issue here?
World Community Grid
This great site lets you donate your computer’s processing power to be used for good.
When I signed up there were six active projects – five related to health issues directly and one for clean energy. I decided I wanted to participate in all six but you can choose the ones you are interested in on the website.
You begin by signing up for an account on the website and downloading some software. After downloading, you will want to configure it so that it runs when you want and works on tasks related to projects you care about.
The first thing I noticed was that one of the projects was World Community Grid which actually covers all of the project you select on the website. The software also allows you to assign other projects which are not part of World Community Grid but I did not look into any of them.
Then I set the runtime settings so that this program runs as my screen saver. Anytime my Mac goes into screensaver mode, it will request tasks and begin working on them. It’s a nice thing to be able to give in this small way.
You should check it out. If you find other projects online worth checking out, let me know.
Cory Doctorow – Grossly Deceitful?
On Wednesday, Cory Doctorow wrote an excellent piece in response to an Op-Ed piece by Roy Blount Jr. to which I’ve linked before
Today, Peter Glaskowsky at CNET tells us that he has been “sorely tempted” to write a formal response to Doctorow’s essay but he decides instead to dismiss it as “grossly deceitful” and move along to his own opinion on the matter.
I’d like to see Mr. Glaskowsky at least attempt to answer the questions Doctorow and other have rasied.
Two Votes Against Me
This is one of those stories I just can’t believe.
Big guy forces the little guy out of business. Little guy sues. Big guy, forced to pay $50 million, vows to appeal and spends $3 million to help elect a judge. Then he appeals and wins.
I simply can’t believe that anyone thinks this is how things should work – I can’t believe it.
I’m not thinking due process and I’m not thinking 14th Amendment; as a citizen I’m sitting there saying, ‘How in the world? I’ve got two votes against me and we haven’t even started yet,’
Hugh Caperton (the little guy)
Andrew L. Frey, attorney for Don Blankenship (the big guy) posed a few interesting questions but I think they are all easy answers.
Should a judge sit on a case involving a newspaper that endorsed his campaign?
Yes.
Is recusal necessary when one party is an interest group that worked for the judge’s election?
Yes.
If the justice Blankenship worked so hard to oust had been reelected, would he harbor such animus that he should recuse himself from the case?
Probably, yes.
Am I the only one who thinks these are not difficult ethical questions?
YouTube – Coal Action Heats Up Capitol
Young people standing up for our planet on Monday.
NFL Players Player’s Talk About Barack Obama
My posts over the next week will be mostly Super Bowl related and I thought the following video would be an interesting transition from my previous posts.
What do NFL players think about our new president?
Some of them speak out in this video.
WhiteHouse.gov
By now, most people have probably seen the new White House website.
There are promising signs that this will be an administration that cares to communicate with the public in a much more open way. Most third party content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, the unreasonable restrictions in the robots.txt file have been eliminated (I’ve seen others credited with finding this first, but it looks to me like it was reported first here.), and the blog looks good so far.
Some have argued that the site doesn’t go far enough, and I’d agree in principle; but I think it is a great step in the right direction. The responsibility for the welfare of our society falls on each of us. We must have a government that wants to keep the us informed as well as hear and understand our needs and opinions.
Check out the new site.
Roe v. Wade
Two days ago marked the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I think it’s safe to say that no other Supreme Court ruling has spurred so many into active protest and support. Millions of people call themselves pro-choice and millions call themselves pro-life. Thousands march ever year in Washington in what they call the March for Life and thousands more march and act in support or protest of this ruling.
With the election of our new President, this ruling is again at the forefront of the minds of many. Barack Obama co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act and stated that he would sign it as his first act as President, which has millions of people furious and frustrated. I’ve read summaries of FOCA written by supporters and detractors, but I have not read the bill myself yet. As such, I cannot say that I support it. It seems to raise issues regarding states rights which complicate the matter in my mind. I will have to save that discussion for another day.
But on the matter of a woman’s right to choose, I’ve made up my mind. I can’t pretend that this issue doesn’t leave me conflicted, but I believe in freedom. I think abortion is a terrible thing and I’d like to see fewer abortions this year than there were last, but I have never believed it is an issue for government to decide. Those who march against the right to choose, like to talk about the “slippery slope.” I don’t see any other way to look at anti-abortion laws as dangerously slippery. Reproductive rights should be protected at all costs. Any government big enough to tell you that you cannot have an abortion is big enough to tell you that you must!
I know many would argue that the this right infringes on the rights of the unborn. I understand this argument, but I think this is similar to other judgement calls that need to be made in a free society. Stripping a woman’s right to choose places her freedom in the hands of government as well as others with a stake in the matter – parents, extended family, etc. This must be placed in balance against the rights of the unborn child. This is one of those issues that is a no-win situation. In many cases, a young woman is in grave danger when it becomes public that she is pregnant.
I don’t have the time to spell out all of my thoughts on this controversial and complicated subject. This is a heated debate and I don’t want to inflame the emotions of those with whom I disagree. Along with my thoughts on FOCA, I will have to make time to write at length about this issue, but on this day close to the anniversary of Roe v. Wade I wanted to make two of my opinions clear.
One, I am pro-choice. I strongly support the right of a woman to decide what happens in the matter of her own pregnancy.
Two, I am pro-life. I strongly believe that abortion is always a bad decision. I would argue that even in the case of rape, incest, and the life of the mother – abortion is not a good solution. It is a terrible thing.
So, how do I reconcile these disparate views? I remind myself that this discussion takes place on two levels – personal and societal. On a personal level, I believe abortion is wrong. I don’t want to see any woman have an abortion. I’d like to say that I have enough respect for others to allow them to make this choice without judgement from me, but on the issue I strongly disagree. On a societal level, the issue is different. It is not whether abortion is a bad thing, it is whether any society has the right to force a life-changing choice on an individual.
Obama’s First 100 Days
Since FDR, it is common for Americans to judge a president’s effectiveness based on his productivity over the first one-hundred days of his presidency. It’s interesting to note that the “100 days” of FDR were actually not the first one-hundred days of his presidency but the first one-hundred day session of Congress. Congress was convened on March 9, 1933 – five days after the inauguration, and they adjourned on June 16, 1933 – 100 days later. This period of time was the most productive in American legislative history.
I think most Americans understand that it is unfair to judge a President based on what he can accomplish in less than 7% of his term – and at the beginning of it – yet we all still seem fascinated by this arbitrary measure of productivity. There are websites where one can see the progress other presidents made and others that will track President Obama’s progress (here and here) and still others with lots of advice for our new President.
Businessweek has advice on how to be productive in the first one-hundred days and the Washington Post warns that Obama should not make the same mistakes Clinton made.
As official Washington turns its attention from the transition to Obama’s plans for the first 100 days, Clinton’s difficult experience in his own first 100 days can again serve as a cautionary tale for Obama.
Clinton sought to move on a number of major policy fronts — an economic stimulus package, an overhaul of the health care system led by Hillary Clinton — that were eventually abandoned, and was buffeted by unforeseen controversies (gays in the military/”don’t ask, don’t tell”) and unpredictable events (the Branch Davidian stand-off in Waco, Texas).
“I think there was a great deal of exuberance by the president in terms of what he’d be able to accomplish immediately, and, no, he couldn’t match it all,” said Democratic pollster Peter Hart of Bill Clinton in the spring of 1993.
Obama’s First 100
So, what should Barack Obama do in his first one-hundred days?
Scientific American says
Energy security is the greatest challenge and the greatest opportunity of our time. But lack of action has put the U.S. at risk. America needs a bold plan that ignites our collective imagination, sparks innovation, and creates economic and national security. The starting point? A call to action from our new president in the first 100 days of his administration.
Obama’s First 100 Days
and it is clear that many others care about peace and the environment.
I think most people believe that the biggest challenge we face at this point is the economy. Commenters on the WP piece seem to agree that the economy is most pressing (followed by Isreal, and energy). Gerald F. Seib, Executive Washington Editor at the Wall Street Journal says that the top five items on the to-do list are economy, economy, economy, economy, and economy. This guy says the top issue is the economy (followed by Guantanamo, the Middle East, energy, and healthcare) and one of his commenters points out the following:
Barring any event of the magnitude of 9/11 or something approaching it, the bread and butter issue of American politics is, as it’s always been, the price of bread and butter.
link
and others agree
Though presidential historians say it’s an arbitrary Рand in some ways unfair Рmeasurement, they say Obama’s early actions will set the tone for his administration and establish his priorities and leadership style.
“It’s an unreasonable expectation that we put on all our presidents, just because it worked that way in 1933 for FDR. They shouldn’t be held to that” said Stephen Hess, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who worked for several presidents.
Obama’s advisers and outside observers say it is clear that fixing the economy and creating jobs will dominate his agenda in the early days, just as it did Roosevelt’s.
Shades of FDR
Alan Murray, Deputy Managing Editor at the Wall Street Journal, says that even though President Obama faces “a significant number of foreign policy problems” (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Middle East) of which any one could hijack the President’s agenda, the economy is the biggest issue “bar none” and that the stimulus plan he pushes through Congress will “probably be the defining product of his presidency.” In a video preview of the next one-hundred days, he says that Obama will be considered successful if he can recover the economy and tackle just one more of the important issues on his agenda. Another commentator in the same video reminds us, though, that every day spent on the “short term agenda” is a day not spent on healthcare, climate change, or taxes.
President Obama’s campaign website has a list of issues that also puts the economy at the top, though the list is actually in alphabetical order.
The President himself had this to say:
“The first hundred days is going to be important, but it‚Äôs probably going to be more like the first thousand days that makes a difference” he told a Colorado radio station in an interview shortly before Election Day. “Most of the big challenges that we face, whether it’s making college more affordable, or fixing our health care system so it works for everybody, or making sure that we’ve got a serious energy strategy, or winding down the war in Iraq, all those things are probably going to take longer than three months to complete.”
Shades of FDR
Actually, I am not sure I’d agree that the economy should be the point of focus over the next one-hundred days. I must admit that I feel a certain sense of unease at the present state of our economy but I am in a different position than most – I have very little debt and 80% of my income comes from recession resistant sources. I’d like to think that my opinion would be the same even if that were not the case. Our economy has thrived for years on over-consumption and that has led us to this point. In order to solve our environmental problems and improve our stature in the world, we need to cut back on our consumption. I think a sluggish economy is a necessary evil and I am not sure we need to jump in and save it.
That being said, I believe that something must be done to help those who desperately need to survive during these hard economic times. My biggest concern, and the number one reason I voted for President Obama, is social injustice in the world. There are many in our own country who cannot afford to put food on the table and that ought not to be so in a place like this.
So, I guess in a sense it all comes back to economic concerns again.
What do you think?
The Time for Change Has Come
As I mentioned yesterday, I’ve waited a long time for this day.
There is no need to focus on all the things I didn’t like about our previous president – others have done that well. It’s time to focus on the positive things that can happen now.
I have no illusions that all we be well in America now, nor do I believe President Obama will do things as well as he should. In fact, I fully expect him to make decisions with which I do not agree. Nonetheless, I expect the next four years to bring about significant changes to our way of life in this country.
There are many who wish him harm, pray that he fails, or look to the future with paranoia and fear; but I’d argue that even those who disagree with his policy should hope for the best. Like our President said yesterday and at other times, “there is no such thing as false hope.” We should all hope and pray for our great country and our new leader.
We should also not forget the significance of his election to power as an African American. We can not all be free until we are all free. The fact that these two men can stand on the platform together is a testament to how far we’ve come.
A Freedom Fighter and An Extremist – Thank God!
Today we celebrate the life of one of my heroes – the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In his memory, the family and I listened to his most famous speech and I re-read his masterful writing in Letter from a Birmingham Jail. After reading this again, I’ve decided there is a lot I want to say about Dr. King. Perhaps I will write more on the anniversary of his death or next year on this holiday, but today I wanted to defend his reputation as an American and Christian. Bear with me – I am going to get there the long way today.
Like millions of Americans, I have looked forward to January 20, 2009 for quite some time – since the last inauguration in fact. My anticipation grew stronger as I came to believe in a new candidate. I plan to write more on Wednesday next week about why I decided to vote and campaign for Barack Obama, but I will admit now that his race was a factor. I would never have voted for him simply because he would become our first African American President, but there is no doubt that I was (and am) caught up in his proposal for change and the fact that he is different is exciting to me.
Though race was a factor for me, I did not fully comprehend how enormous an event this would be until election night. I’ll never forget that evening. The whole family was excited, we made O shaped food, put on our T-shirts and sat down to celebrate change. As we watched the coverage, it became clear to all of us that this was indeed an historic event. An African American man would become our next President and the face of our nation. I was still excited about the real policy changes that I believe Barack Obama might bring to our nation, but now I was excited about something more. We could no longer say that all of our presidents were rich, white men.
As the inauguration approached and I realized that it would fall on the day after a day we set aside to celebrate the life of one of my heroes, I grew even more excited. This would be a true celebration of progress in America. Obviously we have not arrived, but we have clearly made progress. And this brings me to what I really wanted to talk about …
The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. has long been one of my heroes. I remember reading about him and his work in elementary school. I attended an elementary school with a student population that was at least 50% African American in a the “white section” of a city with terrible public schools. At one point, four of the schools in our city were among the ten worst schools in New Jersey. Living among, attending school with, and playing with children of color was simply part of my life. It did not occur to me until later that the state of our school system might somehow be related to the race of many of the children in our city. My parents never spoke ill of anyone based on race. They, like many of that generation, had stereotypes to overcome but they never spread bigotry or fear – for that I am very grateful. I feel as though I grew up in an environment where I could learn to understand people’s differences and embrace them.
I can only remember one serious classroom discussion about race – in fourth grade (1976-77). While reading about Dr. King, we read that people of color used to be referred to as “colored,” negroes, or worse. In my time, it was becoming more common to call them “black” and we discussed this in the classroom. I’ll never forget my teacher calling on each of my black classmates so that they could tell us what they thought. It was clearly embarrassing to them. One girl said “I don’t care, you can call me purple if you want to!” It may have been my first glimpse into the bias of a white adult in my life. I couldn’t believe that less than 15 years before African Americans had been treated so poorly, and now it seemed my teacher did not have any sensitivity to it – or didn’t know how to show it. (In the interest of full disclosure, this was – by a long shot – the worst teacher I’d ever had. She was mean and vindictive to all students. I’m not saying that to explain away her actions in this situation – I would eventually meet other adults who were outright bigots.)
As we continued to learn about Dr. King, I was mesmerized by his willingness to break the law in support of freedom. Even at a young age, I was a lover of freedom and these stories were my favorites – stories of those who stood up to the establishment. I would not understand until high school what I admired about Dr. King, Ghandi, Rosa Parks. It was the willingness they showed to disobey unjust laws and to put up with the punishment for disobedience. As a teenager, I realized that there were examples of this in Scripture – Daniel, who prayed in public when he knew it was against the law; Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael, who refused to bow to Nebuchadnezzar’s idol; and others.
When I finished elementary school after sixth grade, my parents enrolled me in a private Christian school where I would attend until I graduated in 1985. To this day, I believe this school prepared me to be the thoughtful, truth-seeking individual I am. I am a better person for having attended, but there are things about that place that sadden me. One is that they teach students that the universe is less than 10,000 years old when it is a matter of virtual certainty that it is at least 12,000,000,000 years old, but that is a topic for another day. The other is that everything we learned about the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King was tainted by insinuations that he was a communist. This was the early 1980s, so we thought any communist was as evil as Satan himself. We were NOT taught Dr. King was a communist, but nothing was done to defend him from those rumors. It was defamation by omission and I am ashamed to have been a part of it.
I am grown now and I’ve read Dr. Kings works myself and listened to his speeches. I am certain he was not a perfect man. I am also certain that perhaps someone has evidence of some wrongdoing committed by Dr. King. None of that matters to me. So many of us live our lives and contribute nothing to our fellow man outside of criticism of someone else’s life and work. Dr. King dedicated his adult life to standing up for others and preaching Scripture.
His Letter from a Birmingham Jail is filled with quotes I will write about at a later date – quotes about extremism, unjust laws, etc. Today, I want to reflect on what he said about the church. It seems an appropriate ending to my thoughts today.
If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.
And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.
If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century.
I simply don’t understand how someone can honestly read his writings and listen to his speeches without a real reverence for his work and ministry while on this earth.
-
Subscribe
-
What I'm Reading
-
What I'm Watching
-
About This Site
This website is simply a place for me to express my opinions. I post my thoughts on faith, family, freedom, and fun. -
About Me
Subscribe via RSS
