Equality

This just in -- money is discriminatory:

The government discriminates against blind people by printing money that all looks and feels the same, a federal judge said Tuesday in a ruling that could change the face of American currency.

But at least they have good reasons for the fight:

"It's just frankly unfair that blind people should have to rely on the good faith of people they have never met in knowing whether they've been given the correct change," said Jeffrey A. Lovitky, attorney for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

It is also unfair that blind people must rely on others to drive them around since they can not get licenses, so we should ban automobiles. It is also unfair that blind people can't see TV programs, so we should ban all televisions (actually, I do support that one). Really, the only way to make it completely fair would be to pluck out the eyeballs of all of us seeing-folk. I believe Vonnegut wrote a story similar to this once, which of course, was discriminatory in itself, unless he read it out loud to everyone or printed it in braille.

someone at the Daily Mail is getting fired over this

Here is a story about the new male birth control pill. Science strikes another blow to morality, but what else is new? What I find particularly interesting is this line:

The new contraceptive is likely to appeal to women who are uneasy about the female Pill's ability to raise the risk of strokes, heart attacks and potentially-fatal blood clots.

Did they just say that birth control is dangerous for women? Apparently, someone fell asleep at the propaganda wheel in an effort to push this new pill.

Feel-Good Story of the Year

Congress has been hard at work ensuring that Americans get their football coverage. With the NFL Network broadcasting several live NFL and college bowl games this year, a major controversy has arisen. You see, Time-Warner Cable doesn't carry the NFL Network. So if you have Time-Warner Cable you won't have these games broadcast in your homes.* What's a sports fan to do? Why won't somebody do something? Wait a minute, it's a bird... it's a plane... it's Congress!

Congress looked into the NFL’s decision to put games on a network many cable subscribers cannot see during a Senate hearing on Nov. 14. At a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, grilled Jeffrey Pash, the NFL’s executive vice president and legal counsel, during a 90-minute hearing on sports programming. It focused on how live games on NFL Network could affect cable and satellite rates and whether the games raise any antitrust issues in connection with the Sports Broadcasting Act. Pash told the committee that systems should not have to charge viewers extra to carry the network on their main tier, while Landel Hobbs, Time Warner’s chief operating officer, told the committee, “The programming is too expensive; the value equation is out of whack.”

*Don't worry. If the NFL team playing is in your market, you can still get it locally on another network. But this doesn't work with college bowl games. Please Congress, stop the madness.

P.S. Time-Warner and NFL come out looking like a couple of big babies. Time-Warner needs something to lure more people into purchasing their worthless sports package and the NFL needs people to actually be able to see their fledgling network in order for it to profit. News flash: It doesn't matter.

Scarlett Fever

Here's to thinking ahead: Scarlett Johansson criticized President Bush's belief abstinence and "boasted about being so 'socially aware' she gets tested for HIV twice a year."

Uh, perhaps Scarlett isn't aware that the test does not prevent AIDS, it only tells you when you've got it. Sorry, Scarlett, I'm going with Pres. Bush on this one.

Botched Jokes

One imperative ingredient in the "botched joke defense" is that you must be able to show how the joke would have been funny had you not botched it. At least plausibly funny. I am not going to argue over what should and should not be said (though I do support censorship and believe some things should not be said), but what I can not stand is the weak, pathetic explanations.

Of course, there is the Botched Joke from John Kerry, explained away so well:

Kerry said he mangled the delivery of a line aimed at Bush. According to aides, the language was originally written to say that "if you're intellectually lazy, you end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq just ask President Bush."

Regardless of whether he should have said it, that explanation is not plausible because that joke, even if executed perfectly, is NOT funny!

But here is the new gem I read today. Michelle Malkin's blog has this trasncript of an ESPN interview with Keith Olberman:

Host: Would you ever go on "Dancing with the Stars?"

KO: Uh, possibly to do a cameo and introduce someone. [unintelligible] I would escort someone onto the stage, that's as far as I would go, and hope I wouldn't trip doing that.

Host: People still upset that I've had the audacity to criticize Emmitt Smith...

KO: How about Bill O'Reilly on "Dancing with the Stars?" Then you could get some real e-mails.

Host: I don't think Bill would do that.

KO: I'll go on it if he will. I'll challenge him to a "Dancing on the Stars"--"Dancing with the Stars"--dance-off. How's that?

Host: I would have to side with Bill O'Reilly on that.

Olbermann: Not if I get him in the hamstrings. You know, one of those little doctor's tools. The small knives, right in the hamstrings kind of thing. Nancy Kerrigan kind of stuff.

Host: Nice, nice.

Olbermann (muttering): Joke

*Commercial break*

Olbermann: Can I do a correction?

Host: Just one?

Olbermann: Yeah, just one.

Host: Ok.

It would actually broadly fall into the category of an apology to Bill O'Reilly, if you can believe that. The joke I made on the way out there if we were on "Dancing with the Stars" was about me. If we were both on "Dancing with the Stars," I'd go after him with like a pen knife to try to sever his hamstring. It's about me. It was a joke at my own expense. But...it's beyond the pale. You shouldn't, you can't joke about physical stuff no matter what you think of somebody politically, broadcasting-wise, reputationally. It's just beyond the pale.

Host: Ok.

Olbermann: So, I apologize. [Grunts.] I apologize. You know, we gotta draw the line somewhere and the line is: You wanna criticize, be critical, be humorous, be sarcastic, yell stuff, great. But physical stuff is out of bounds. Even joking about it. Thank you. Okay.

He apologized for his stupid joke, and I don't even know if something like that is off-limits between TV folks like Olberman and O'Reilly (to be decided elsewhere). But I question the logic of his apology--How could a joke about severing your enemy's hamstring be a joke about yourself? It may even be funny, but about yourself? Perhaps people would be a little more forgiving if these joke-botchers would just understand humor a little better.

Honorable Mention goes to Charlie Rangel. I know this was not a joke, but the explanation mimics the botched joke defense:

Rangel, D-N.Y., was quoted in an article today in The New York Times, saying: “Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?”

. . .

Garcia e-mailed The Associated Press a response from Rangel: “I certainly don’t mean to offend anyone, I just love New York so much that I can’t understand why everyone wouldn’t want to live here.”

He could have just said, "Sorry. Out of line and inappropriate." At least that is believable. Besides, who the hell does want to live in Mississippi?

Web-Rage

It is times like these that I am glad nobody actually reads this blog.

The Devil Wears Green Sandals Made From Recycled Hemp

I don't know where I have been, but I just realized the mastermind behind the global warming scare is none other than Satan himself. I'm not talking in the generalized sense that Satan is indirectly behind everything that is not perfectly ordered to the Truth, I'm talking about Karl Rove-like control here.

How can I be so sure? I just heard of the new solution to global warming -- nuclear energy:

Global warming is now advancing so swiftly that only a massive expansion of nuclear power as the world's main energy source can prevent it overwhelming civilisation, the scientist and celebrated Green guru, James Lovelock, says.

I think this guy is right about one thing, nuclear power will end the global warming threat--the fact that the polar icecap may melt by 2050 will be inconsequential if the world is wiped out earlier by the nuclear holocaust that would be called World War III if anyone was left alive to speak of it.

To be fair, this is not an attack on Al Gore, Captain Planet, or any of the hippies that spend their days sitting in dying trees. I don't want to equate Gore with the devil (not in this post, anyway); he is not in league with the prince of darkness, he is merely a tool that is being manipulated. Gore has at least noted the problem:

Gore touched on nuclear power as a palliative for global warming but made it clear that this is at best a partial solution. Nuclear power inevitably raises questions of nuclear arms proliferation, he said.

(Of course, he still said it may be a partial solution). I am all for recycling our newspapers, but I hope we can realize where to draw the line. Once China and North Korea go "eco-friendly" and start building nuclear power plants, we are going to follow:

"For the sake of economic security and national security, the United States of America must aggressively move forward with the construction of nuclear power plants," Bush said. "Other countries are."

The good news is that my cursory internet search suggests that the Greens are not on-board with the nuclear option just yet. Good for them. Unfortunately, the devil has time. Right now, he is probably just slowly drumming up support--a little devilry grassroots-style. And perhaps I am a cynic, but I don't believe that these peoples' reason will win out over time (see stem cells, abortion, etc.).

I Think I've Made My Point

I must say that I'm very excited about this webpage. I'm honored to be aligned with such noble visionaries. And speaking of visionaries, did you happen to see the news today.

This story provides us with further evidence that there is a lack of creativity in American economics. A or B.

And since we are on the subject of corporations (I will use Ransom's ending note as a starting point), I would like to highlight an offering of the late Mr. Friedman on the topic:

Then there was his famous statement, in a 1970 New York Times Magazine article, that the job of a CEO is to run things in accordance with the desires of a company's owners, "which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society." This profits-first argument was a bombshell at the time, and acceptance of it has waxed and waned since. But it is telling that nowadays even outspoken advocates of "corporate responsibility" usually make the case that what they're really trying to do is maximize long-run shareholder value. Chalk up another victory for Uncle Miltie.

And chalk up another loss for all of those wage-slaves out there. Perhaps Ransom is correct that the corporation is a topic best suited for another day. But the corporate entity by design is directed towards the maximization of profit at all cost. To follow anything more than the most basic of society's standards would jeopardize that pursuit.

What is a liberal to do?

Wal-Mart: do we love them or do we hate them?

Sure, we are supposed to hate them because they are a greedy big business that oppresses its employees, kills communities, and makes too much money. But it is getting so hard for the single-track mind these days.

First, they went and stood up for Mother Earth.

And now they are pushing a private-sector version of Universal Health Care:

Wal-Mart announced Thursday that it is expanding its $4 generic prescription program to Nebraska and 10 other states.

. . .

The company also said Thursday that it is adding 17 more drugs to the program, bringing the number of available $4 prescriptions to 331.

But the same article warns us not to take them off the most-wanted list quite yet: "Critics have called it a stunt to draw in business and a grab for a bigger share of the drug business." You see, they still are evil. And besides, liberals can still hate them for being racist, right?

Actually, I read the reader comments below the article and my mind has been put at ease. We still passionately hate Wal-Mart:

Ryan wrote on November 16, 2006 10:48 AM:
"This is just another ploy from Wal-Mart to gain trust from the consumer while putting others out of business. It's well-known that a Wal-Mart business model is to lower prices to the point that they actually lose money on product, but the competition cannot compete, so consumers go to Wal-Mart only. Then, whenthe competition has been gotten rid of, Wal-Mart can raise their prices to normal again. Fall for it suckers. Do whatever it takes to help the Wal-Mart hedgemony."

RB wrote on November 16, 2006 9:55 AM:
"Thy have more money than Bill Gates. They should make it 2 dollars and start giving back some of that money. "

Give the readers time, I'm sure we will have Karl Rove linked to the evil conspiracy pretty soon.

---------------

[Of course, after saying all this, I must admit that I really do believe that corporations are destroying society. I just dislike the superficial "we hate Wal-Mart" bandwagon and I think I can offer better reasons to hate corporations. Also, there are some serious consequences to shutting down the likes of Wal-Mart and I don't think that any of us modern folks are ready for the post-corporate world. My manifesto to come someday . . .]

Who is the hate monger?

I hate to be affected by anything said by Elton Johnand especially hate to dignify his cacophony by acknowledging it, but in light of his recent tirade on religious hate...

From my point of view I would ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it. I love the idea of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the beautiful stories about it, which I loved in Sunday school and I collected all the little stickers and put them in my book. But the reality is that organised religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate.

The world is near escalating to World War Three and where are the leaders of each religion? Why aren't they having a conclave; why aren't they coming together? I said this after 9/11 and people thought I was nuts: instead of more violence why isn't there a [meeting of religious leaders]. It's all got to be dialogue - that's the only way. Get everybody from each religion together and say 'Listen, this can't go on. Why do we have all this hatred?'

...I have to point out two of the most recent Catholic outreach endeavors.

The Church, after all, does not hate gays:

Bishop Arthur Serratelli, who headed the committed which drafted the [“Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care”] said, that the bishops hoped the new guidelines would, “help us as bishops to promote sound, effective ministry to persons with a homosexual inclination,” noting that, “In her message the Church offers a positive message in Her teaching. The Church offers hope.”“The tone of the document,” Bishop Serratelli said, “is positive, pastoral, and welcoming… Its starting point is the intrinsic human dignity of every person and God’s love for every person. Every person who ministers in the name of the Church must respect this human dignity.”

And, in response to the questions of the leaders of each religion and “why aren’t they coming together?”:

The first Muslim intellectual to have a private meeting with Pope Benedict XVI since his election said the pontiff has a real thirst for understanding Islam and conducting a sincere dialogue with its followers.

My Fascination with Economics

For some reason I can't stop thinking and reading about economics. Not so much economics itself, but the philosophy of economics, if that is an accurate way to describe it. I have never actually studied economics, so I can't make this statement with complete confidence, but it seems safe to say that modern economics is shortsighted.

In the United States, we seem to have one of two choices. A) Keep government out of the economy so that people can accumulate limitless sums of wealth (if you are reading carefully you will catch the futility of such a pursuit) or B) Government involvement, a.k.a state-imposed virtue, ethics and morality under the credo of economic egalitarianism.

What if there is a third option; one that is properly ordered to human nature. Well, thanks to the Congregation for Clergy, we are again reminded that such an option does exist. Why isn't it used? As you near the end of the article, there is a hint: "We need a ‘moral culture’ to inform economic life."

Just a thought, but perhaps voting on moral issues has a much broader impact than our society realizes.

Helicopter Jazzercize Orange Electricity

Do you remember when words had meanings?

Nancy Pelosi promised to "create the most open and honest government in history." But then she had to spoil it all by doing something stupid like endorsing Murtha:

Melanie Sloan, the liberal head of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, was cheered on by Democrats six weeks ago when she helped reveal the Mark Foley scandal. Now she says that "Ms. Pelosi's endorsement of Rep. Murtha, one of the most unethical members of Congress, show that she may have prioritized ethics reform merely to win votes with no real commitment to changing the culture of corruption."

You mean she said something that she didn't believe just to get votes? Does this mean we can't trust politicians?

Rubber standards

Rubber standards (you know, Rubberstamps and double standards).

Leading up to the election, one of the quite negative names thrown around was "rubberstamp". Well the people have spoken and they have said they don't want congress filled with a bunch of yes-men (and yes-women) -- thank goodness we have new, free-thinking leadership. Here is a taste of what to expect now that we have removed those rubberstamping republicans from office: According to Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), "We are entering an era where when the speaker instructs you what to do, you do it." And Rep.-elect Tim Walz said (D-Minn.), "When the Speaker speaks, you listen."

Whether Republican or Democrat, it is all just a farce.

Not-so-difficult Pro-life Questions

Should we even bother discussing abortion if they are for infanticide?

The Church of England has broken with tradition dogma by calling for doctors to be allowed to let sick newborn babies die.

The problem, of course, is that we have created the technology that can sustain life in humans that otherwise would die. Neil Postman spoke of the technological Faustian bargain--"for every advantage a new technology offers, there is always a corresponding disadvantage." Well, we have made our high-tech bed, and now we must sleep in it; a simple cost-benefit analysis can not justify this position:

And the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, who is the vice chair of the Church of England's Mission and Public Affairs Council, has also argued that the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions.

Exactly how many quid is a sick baby worth again, Bishop?

--------------

Not that there was any confusion on its position, but the Catholic Church has responded in opposition of these statements:

"Euthanasia is never accepted ... be it for the terminally ill or for babies, even when they are born with severe handicaps," said Barragan, the head of the Vatican Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers.

In the interest of National Security?

I am not against censorship, but this seems more like a manifestation of Orwellian prophecy.

a firestorm has raged around the discovery that the archives secretly allowed agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Air Force to reclassify documents in the interest of national security.

This seems fine- good even. But I'm a little less supportive when our protecting "National Security" involves eliminating unrelated historical information.

When Rep. Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut, held hearings on the reclassification program in March, he said it was "drowning in a sea of faux secrets." For example, some of the reclassified cold-war-era documents detailed an unsanctioned CIA project to drop propaganda leaflets by hot-air balloon into Eastern Europe. (It did not go particularly well.) Another was a document that the CIA itself had already published. (It showed that on October 13, 1950, the CIA had assured President Truman that the Chinese would not send troops to Korea. Six days later, the troops arrived.)

It Is Funny Because It Is True

Ecumenism and Identity

Does ecumenism necessarily mean sacrificing identity? If so, then I think it is a foolish, foolish idea that should be sent back to the netherworld from whence it came.

I would like to think ecumensim is a good thing. Creating a baseline Mere Christianity is a good place to begin interfaith discussions. However, agreeing on Mere Christianity should not in any way deemphasize the differences between faiths. If you believe that your particular church is right (and I think that everyone must believe this; why would anyone attend a church that they think is wrong?), then you should not be too quick to cede those things that separate yours from Mere Christianity even while agreeing on the baseline (noting, of course, that all disagreements should occur with love and humility).

So you may imagine the queasy feeling I got from this story about a handwritten Bible commissioned by the Benedictine monks of Saint John's University. A little off the topic of the article, though very important, is the penultimate paragraph:

The monks' committee has been particularly keen on ensuring the project's ecumenical appeal. It instructed Mr. Jackson to illustrate Matthew 16:18--"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it"--in a way that would de-emphasize the passage's special significance for the Roman Catholic Church. Catholics trace to this passage the idea of the one true church being in Rome and of the popes' being the spiritual descendants of Peter. But the illustration merely shows Jesus standing as a bulwark between various demonic images representing Hell and a rock with the vague outlines of a face on it, representing the Christian community. There are no signs of the Roman Catholic hierarchy or St. Peter's Basilica, for example.

Why would the Catholic monks try so hard to deemphasize this passage? Is it that important that we all agree on the meaning of Scripture when we sit in mixed company? If Mary Theresa Catholic believes that this passage supports the papacy and Joe Protestant believes otherwise, is it better that Mary Theresa abondons her interpretation so they can agree that the rock on which Jesus builds his church is Peter's faith, if not Peter himself. They go away ecuminecally happy, but Joe does not get any closer to the Truth (in fact, he still believes that the pope is the antichrist).

If we keep paring down our idea of Christianity to what everyone can agree on, we will be paring it down until nothing remains. Thomas Jefferson created a version of the Bible, too, but he took out all references to Jesus's divinity and made Him nothing more than a great moral teacher. Must we be sensitive to the beliefs of the Jeffersonian deists as well?

I wonder if the monks will do anything else to make this Bible less offensive to other faiths. Perhaps they should take out those pesky Catholic books that protestants dislike. All in the name of ecumenism, you know. The idea of making a non-offensive Bible is a bit absurd; it is hard to imagine where it will end. Those folks who don't believe in slippery slopes may be asking 'how bad could it really get?' I am not sure, but if someone takes this politically correct idea to the extreme I bet it could get pretty bad.

Not for Profit.

I just discovered this wonderful program that occurs every November: the NaNoWriMo.

It fits well with number ten on the top ten list below:

10. Go fishing (or bake cookies, or whatever else is human and without apparent profit).

It is not fishing or baking, but it is creating for the sake of creating with no real probability of profit. The organizers hold out no hopes of having anything more than 50,000 words of crap and the end, but they still do it:

If I'm just writing 50,000 words of crap, why bother? Why not just write a real novel later, when I have more time?
There are three reasons.

1) If you don't do it now, you probably never will. Novel writing is mostly a "one day" event. As in "One day, I'd like to write a novel." Here's the truth: 99% of us, if left to our own devices, would never make the time to write a novel. It's just so far outside our normal lives that it constantly slips down to the bottom of our to-do lists. The structure of NaNoWriMo forces you to put away all those self-defeating worries and START. Once you have the first five chapters under your belt, the rest will come easily. Or painfully. But it will come. And you'll have friends to help you see it through to 50k.

2) Aiming low is the best way to succeed. With entry-level novel writing, shooting for the moon is the surest way to get nowhere. With high expectations, everything you write will sound cheesy and awkward. Once you start evaluating your story in terms of word count, you take that pressure off yourself. And you'll start surprising yourself with a great bit of dialogue here and a ingenious plot twist there. Characters will start doing things you never expected, taking the story places you'd never imagined. There will be much execrable prose, yes. But amidst the crap, there will be beauty. A lot of it.

3) Art for art's sake does wonderful things to you. It makes you laugh. It makes you cry. It makes you want to take naps and go places wearing funny pants. Doing something just for the hell of it is a wonderful antidote to all the chores and "must-dos" of daily life. Writing a novel in a month is both exhilarating and stupid, and we would all do well to invite a little more spontaneous stupidity into our lives.

Perhaps some November . . .

separation of church and state

As I was reading this post:

While I took out my voter registration card and driver's license, I noticed to my right that the authorities hadn't cleansed the place of other appeals to voters' consciences and intentions. As large as life there was Jesus, in plaster, hands outstretched nearly in my direction. I could see the print of the nails. His Sacred Heart stood bare for all to see.

I realized that every time I have voted, it has been in a church. I guess the government needs religious buildings, just not religious thought.

Hypocricy, installment two

From yesterday's "Best of the Web Today":

Hypocrisy, Anyone?

"Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois today urged hundreds of blacks not to vote along racial lines next week in Maryland's Senate race. Obama, the only black U.S. senator, came to the state to rally support for Democratic Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, who is white. Cardin's Republican opponent, Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, is the first black candidate ever elected statewide and has been courting black Democrats."--Associated Press, Nov. 3

"The nation's only black senator, Barack Obama, D-Ill., asked voters at two black churches and at a Nashville rally to elect [Harold] Ford, a Democrat who is trying to become the first black senator from the South in more than 100 years. 'I know that all of you are going to work the next couple of days to make sure it happens, because I'm feeling lonely in Washington,' Obama said at the Mt. Zion Baptist Church. 'I need my dear friend to join me.' "--Associated Press, Nov. 5

A Little Afternoon Proof-Texting

I have always thought that Rev. Lovejoy had the best refute of any argument based on proof-texting:

"...oh just about everything is a sin, have you ever sat down and read [the Bible]? Technically we're not allowed to go to the bathroom."

Some truths are not spelled out with proof-text-necessary clarity to ensure an easy victory in the battle of Bible verses (like the Trinity, for example, but for some reason that one is fine with protestants). And, curse my Bible-illiterate Catholic upbringing, I don't even know all the good verses to play the game. Well, there is good news for me today. I just read one little Purgatorial nugget to add to the arsenal, Matthew 12:32:

"And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come."

According to St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, XXI, xxiv):

"that some sinners are not forgiven either in this world or in the next would not be truly said unless there were other [sinners] who, though not forgiven in this world, are forgiven in the world to come"

Now, that is a proof-text!*

-----------------------

*I know that I broke the proof-texting rules** by citing a Saint, but that is the most-logical reading of the verse, so it is still valid.

** As far as I know, the proof-texting rules are: (1) quote a Bible verse out of context; (2) its literal reading must support your argument.

Top Ten List

[Provided by Anthony Esolen in the comments of the Touchstone article linked in the post below.]

Ten most countercultural things we Christians can do:

1. Keep the Sabbath -- and I mean really keep it.
2. Have children.
3. Stay married.
4. Dump the television.
5. Teach your children at home.
6. Read old books.
7. Prefer local businesses to national chains.
8. Dress decently.
9. Join or assist the Boy Scouts.
10. Go fishing (or bake cookies, or whatever else is human and without apparent profit).

Voting Tomorrow

As everyone heads to the polls tomorrow to fulfill their civic duty, I want to remind the citizens how inconsequential their votes are in the whole scheme of things. I offer two authoritative and irrefutable sources of support for this statement: Touchstone and South Park. That said, I will be first in line tomorrow morning to cast a ballot for the lesser of two evils.

Schism

Not that it is all that surprising that a Protestant church would choose to "protest" against its hierarchy, but for one reason or another, this caught my eye.

Strangely enough, this protest is in the direction of orthodoxy, rather than stupidity. At its very roots, the Anglican/Episcopal church is the poster child of compromise. But perhaps the current downward spiral can be more accurately traced back to 1930, when the church conveniently revised its teaching on contraception.

Hopefully, through the intercession of St. Thomas More, these lost congregations are taking their first step back towards union with Rome.

Hypocricy?

It is election week, so there is plenty of juicy news stories popping up, including this one. Just so there is no misinterpretation that I am defending the guy, lets start here:

Evangelist Admits Meth, Massage, No Sex

The minister is apparently taking damage control lessons from John Kerry--I don't imagine the church folk saying, "Oh, just illegal drugs and a massage from a gay prostitute; well, that is different." All I want to point out is that his accuser is trying to point out the hypocricy of this dirty little man. I will second the claims of 'sin and 'crime', but I'm not sure the situation is hypocritical. We are all weak, fallen creatures who are going to sin (again and again). This goes for the preacher as well as the preachee. This doesn't make sin acceptable, we still must strive to be perfect, but most of us are quite a ways off. Now, a preacher will always have a weakness (perhaps vulgar language or an affinity for wine in the excess instead of gay prostitutes, but some weakness nonetheless). Assuming that he is in an orthodox church, this will be a sin. If a preacher is not allowed to state that something is a sin just because he has done/will do/is doing it, on a long enough timeline, there will be no sins left(I suppose it is wishful thinking to believe this isn't already true).

So: Sinful? yes. Hypocricy? maybe not. Politically effective? we will see.

A Tale of Two Studies

Here is an article of note from the WSJ:

Two scientific events of note occurred this week, but only one got any media coverage. Therein lies a story about modern politics and scientific priorities.

And before all the Worshippers-of-Gore dismiss the article, they should understand that the author's very reasonable angle:

[T]hose of us who take a skeptical approach to these doomsday climate scenarios aren't trying to end the discussion. The Earth is warmer now than it was in the recent past, and this may be partly attributable to human behavior. But everything else--from how much warmer, to the extent of mankind's contribution, to the cost of doing something about it--remains very much in dispute.

At Silent Planet Uprising, the U.N. is not held in the highest regard, so I think it should get credit when it is due:

The other event was a meeting at the United Nations organized by economist Bjørn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus Center. Ambassadors from 24 countries--including Australia, China, India and the U.S.--mulled which problems to address if the world suddenly found an extra $50 billion lying around. Mr. Lomborg's point is that, in a world with scarce resources, you need priorities. The consensus was that communicable diseases, sanitation and water, malnutrition and hunger, and education were all higher priorities than climate change.

This is the key to the debate. Global warming may be important, but just how important is it? Yes, we should go ahead and fix it--after we end world hunger, educate every child, purify all the world's water, etc.

We are a reactionary society. Politics, for instance, must occur in thirty-second sound bite segments, so there is no way to discuss issues, there is only time to deride the opposing viewpoint (just don't botch the joke!). It is a bad way to work, everything becomes a yes or no question very quickly -- are you for or against the war; do love or hate the environment; are you an evolutionist or creationist. (This is amusing considering we live under the dictatorship of relativism, but that is a bagatelle.) I do not think this is compeletely off base. Everything is a yes or no question--there is only one right answer--but many of the right answers can not be found as quickly as we expect and desire. For now, the U.N.'s little sharing-session understands part of the solution: "in a world with scarce resources, you need priorities." The WSJ gets it too:

Meanwhile, there are far more urgent, and far less speculative, problems that we know how to solve with the right policies. That message may not get scary headlines, but it would improve the lives of more human beings around the world.