You're In The Agora
Welcome to the Net's best new source for commentary on current events, culture, faith, science and much more.
|
|
« April 2007 | Main | June 2007 » May 31, 2007Web 2.0 2.0After years of using My Yahoo! as my startup page, I've recently switched to Protopage, another cool Web 2.0 app. Protopage takes advantage of widgets, like Windows Vista, for business tasks like calendars, address books, daily planners, and the like, or you can also get games, daily cartoons, the weather, and RSS feeds (even ITA!) sent to your desktop. You can also share some, or all, of your widgets with others under the sharing tab. You can check out my public page here. Protopage still seems a little rough around the edges, but it's worth a look. Posted by David Darlington at 12:07 PM | Comments (1) May 30, 2007All You Need to Know about Web 2.0What do you do when you're a professor of anthropology at Kansas State University and you need to teach your students about Web 2.0? You make a video and put it on YouTube, of course. Be careful, it's hypnotic. 2.5 million views so far. Posted by David Darlington at 09:46 AM | Comments (1) May 28, 2007Veni, Creator Spiritus"Human pride and egoism always create divisions, build walls of indifference, hate, and violence. The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, makes hearts capable of understanding the languages of all, as He reestablishes the bridge of authentic communion between earth and heaven. The Holy Spirit is Love." Pope Benedict XVI, Homily on Pentecost Sunday, 4 June 2006.Unlike the early Christian Pasch which celebrated Christ's passion on a particular day annually, Pentecost emerged primarily as a season commemorating the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Tertullian called Pentecost "a most joyous space for Baptisms" (On Baptism 19.2). The season of Pentecost - which the new Roman Calendar has abolished completely - was viewed as a perpetuation of Easter's joy, culminating as a feast day sometime after the fifth century. And, unlike the earlier christological debates, it was not clear until the latter part of the fourth century that the Holy Spirit should deserve considered theological reflection. Due in large part to the work of the Cappadocian Fathers, the full divinity of the Holy Spirit emerged as the "Lord, the Giver of Life." As St Gregory Nazianzen reflects, "Theology reaches maturity by additions." It is only now in the time of the church, when "the Spirit has taken up residence among us, does he give us a clearer manifestation of Himself" (Oration 31.26). And Gregory did not have to look far for the Holy Spirit's home in the church. One of the earliest prayers of the church's liturgy is the anaphora, where the celebrant would ask that the Holy Spirit descend upon the bread and the wine of the Eucharist. Yet Gregory and other champions of the Holy Spirit, such as St Augustine, could also begin their consideration of the Spirit in Scripture. After all, in Galatians 4:4 St Paul states there were two sendings: "But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba Father!'" In his treatise De Trinitate, Augustine goes beyond the language of "poured out" and "given"(Acts 2) to suggest that the Holy Spirit is the bond of love between God and man. Just as the Holy Spirit is the communion between Father and Son, the sending of the Holy Spirit reveals the love of the Son in man (Romans 5:5). We come back to the Pope's assertion that the Spirit is Love. Fully divine, proceeding from the Godhead, the Spirit completes Christ's compassionate mission here on Earth until He returns in glory. Robert Louis Wilken captures this well: "Love unites Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, love brings God into relation with the world, and by love human beings cleave to God."
Posted by Seth Zirkle at 10:40 AM | Comments (0) May 25, 2007Greetings from LondonI'm currently in London, staying in the wonderful abode of fellow blogger Adrian Warnock. Adrian was kind enough to put me and some friends up for a couple nights while we explore the town. I'll have much more to say about my travels through Britain later, but for now I wanted to drop in and put in a plug for Adrian's blog, who's never at a loss for interesting Christian-themed posts. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 08:38 PM | Comments (1) May 24, 2007Why Social Conservatism Doesn't Matter AnymoreIn a new New Republic article, Thomas Edsall captures what I've been trying to say in my recent posts on social conservatism far better than I've been able to so far. Edsall says that Rudy Giuliani is the future of the GOP because modern conservatism has been redefined as toughness (usually "manly") -- "toughness" to liberals, "toughness" on terror -- without regard for actual conservative philosophy, ideology, or governance. In short, the modern GOP thinks conservatism is a style more than anything else. And the supposed gatekeepers of social conservatism enable this by not holding candidates accountable (how many are already behind Romney or Giuliani, or have at least expressed openness to the idea?). Sure, lip service to social conservative positions on abortion and the nuclear family are expected from those running for office, but the real conservative litmus test these days is how aggressively one is postured against liberals (and swarthy foreigners). The sorry spectacle of the GOP presidential contenders, save Misters McCain and Paul, tripping over themselves to declare their support for varying degrees of torture can be considered another manifestation of this new trend (McCain gets a pass because, as a former POW, he's legitimately tough). Rudy Giuliani can't pass as a social conservative under any definition, but he played the "tough guy" while mayor of New York, so he can win under the new rules. So the fearmongering against "Christianists" gets me, not just because I'm a Christian, but because it's so off point. Liberals don't have much to fear these days from social (or Christian) conservatism. They (and we) may have plenty to fear from this "macho" conservatism, which speaks loudly and swings its stick at anything that moves. Previously on ITA: "Who's Afraid of the Big, Bad Religious Right?" by David Darlington. Posted by David Darlington at 04:51 PM | Comments (15) May 23, 2007Changing of the GuardSt. John United Methodist Church in Baltimore, Maryland, has a new minister...or the same minister with a new identity. The former Rev. Ann Gordon is now the Rev. Drew Phoenix. The change will be discussed at the upcoming Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference, but is not the first time the Baltimore-Washington Conference has dealt with gender identity. Back in 2002, a male minister underwent a sex change operation, ultimately leaving the ministry of the UMC. Beyond the poetic imagery of St. John's pastor rising from the ashes of her former gender, the UMC is faced with a fundamental question: What does gender mean in a Christian, and more particularly Methodist, understanding? As Mark Tooley at IRD suggests, a conception that gender is merely one choice among others in life would require a reconsideration of an omniscient Creator and soteriology. I, for one, am glad to see a church body move beyond the jejune dialectic of the body. The ascension has nothing on Rev. Gordon/Phoenix. Posted by Seth Zirkle at 12:17 PM | Comments (11) American Heritage is HistoryThe New York Times reported last week that Forbes, Inc., publishers of American Heritage, has decided to suspend publication of the venerable history magazine. While the magazine isn't exactly struggling--350,000 subscribers is pretty solid in this day and age--Forbes has decided the 50-year old publication is not profitable enough and has suspended it until a buyer can be found. The June-July 2007 issue is in limbo, as are the magazine's staff. The magazine's web site will remain active indefinitely. I'm surpised and saddened by this news. History does make money. The History Channel is consistently the #2 or #3 most-watched cable channel behind sports networks for men under the age of 40 (academic denegration of it as "The Hitler Channel" notwithstanding). A popular history magazine with a wide enough scope in topic and intellectual honesty should be a money maker. Oh well, how does that song go? If I had a million dollars... Posted by David Darlington at 09:06 AM | Comments (0) Your Civil War UpdateThis is a remarkable video from the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum. While the real war took four years, this video animates the front lines of the war in four minutes. Posted by David Darlington at 08:37 AM | Comments (1) May 21, 2007On the Development of DoctrineRobert Koons, professor of philosophy at the University of Texas - Austin, recently announced that he will be received into the Roman Catholic Church. This comes just weeks after Francis Beckwith, another Texan philosopher at Baylor, announced his return to the Church. On a number of accounts, Koons' reception is markedly different than Beckwith's: Koons does not serve as the head of an evangelical body and, perhaps more importantly, Koons was happily a life-long Missouri Synod Lutheran. I would suggest that it is because of his Lutheran heritage that Koons' cursory remarks (and notes) on his imminent reception seem very different than Beckwith's. Koons grapples with the "new perspective" on Paul and what it has done to the classical ("Lutheran") understanding of justification and allows Newman's On the Development of Doctrine (1845) to serve as a foundation to his inquiry of the deposit of faith. Quite rightly, Koons sees the beauty of recent rebuffs (N.T. Wright and others) of the new perspective and realizes that even the classical, Lutheran understanding of Pauline justification may fit into a Roman mold. Much like the LC-MS, Koons' theological imagination is first and foremost ecclesial. I was baptized through the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod, and I have been an active member of the church body ever since. As a Lutheran, I've never thought of myself as "Protestant", nor have I ever embraced the kind of extreme sola-scripturism that has been much in evidence in responses to Frank's announcement. I always recognized that the Scriptures are themselves the foundation of, and very much a part of, a divine Tradition. Although I believed that only the Scriptures were infallible, I nonetheless assigned great weight to the 'rule of faith' established by the continuous tradition of teaching by the Church, and as reflected in the writings of the Fathers and the decrees of Councils. Insofar as I accepted a form of 'sola scriptura', it took the form of insisting that all doctrines must have their source in the Scriptures as interpreted by the Church, or in the universal practices and teaching of the early church. This is the only sort of 'sola scriptura' principle that can hold up to logical scrutiny' since the Scriptures themselves provide no definition of the canon and no clear statement of any sola-scriptura principle (both of these can be found only in the Fathers and Councils). Extreme sola-scripturism is, given these facts, self-refuting.For an excellent defense of classical scholarship on Paul and a hardy salvo against the new perspective, I warmly recommend Stephen Westerholm's Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The "Lutheran" Paul and His Critics. Posted by Seth Zirkle at 06:31 PM | Comments (1) May 19, 2007Lord, to Whom Shall We Go?The Economist has a good article about the current travails of the Religious Right, which began well before Jerry Falwell's death earlier this week. Too closely connected to President Bush, without a first-tier champion in the 2008 race (Brownback or Huckabee are probably the best they have), and now without one of their spiritual godfathers, the Religious Right has come upon hard times. It's clear the movement needs new leadership that takes a bit broader and open-minded approach to political and cultural issues. I find it funny how The Economist gets it right, while Kevin Phillips and Andrew Sullivan are talking about "Christianists" like they're still ascendant. The Falwell/Robertson/Dobson-led Religious Right is a spent force past its prime. Where it is headed, no one really knows. Previously by the author: "Who's Afraid of the Big, Bad Religious Right?" Posted by David Darlington at 04:17 PM | Comments (6) May 18, 2007On Jerry FalwellFalwell's influence should have ended there, but just as journalists flock to Al Sharpton for the "black perspective," ignorant journalists consistently propped up Falwell as a token Christian leader. Like reader Chuck, I think this is the key sentence from Joshua's lovely negative obituary for Rev. Jerry Falwell, who died earlier this week. If I may put a different spin on it, however, I think the piece underplays somewhat how important and influential Falwell really was. One really has to go back to the mid-20th century to appreciate how much things have changed. Fundamentalists/evangelicals were virtually absent from the public sphere in the decades prior to the 1950s, thanks in part to public chastenings in the early 20th century like the Scopes Trial. Fundamentalists stayed in their corner (as is their want) and evangelicals basically didn't exist as a separate identity until the advent of Billy Graham and Christianity Today (an answer to the liberal Christian Century) in the 1950s and Bill Bright and Campus Crusade in the 1960s. (As an aside, I should say this "conservative counterculture" was unrecognized in the historiography of the 1950s and 1960s for the longest time, and although most history books today now contain an obligatory chapter Campus Crusade and Young Americans for Freedom, it might still be underappreciated). The public face of Christianity was of a liberal, mainline, WASP religion that had no real passion. This was the Christianity Falwell started his career in and was reacting to, though some might reasonably argue he was always an archconservative politician first and minister second. In the 1960s, he spoke out against ministers marching with Martin Luther King Jr, because he felt it somehow "polluted the message," but by the end of the 1970s, when the women's and gay rights movements had started copying the civil rights movement's tactics, he had changed his tune and was ready to strike back. With the founding of the Moral Majority in 1979, evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, and Rev. Jerry Falwell, were ready to become a potential political force. And boy did they ever. As much as some today would like to drive evangelicals and fundamentalists out of the conservative movement because of their negative qualities, like Andrew Sullivan's constant and annoying harping on "Christianists," it's nearly impossible to imagine the 2000 and 2004 elections of George W. Bush, the 1994 Republican Revolution, and, perhaps, even the coming of Ronald Reagan, without large swaths of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians going to the polls in support, educated by Moral Majority (later Christian Coalition) voter guides and inspired by ministers preaching on abortion, sexual license, moral decadence, and so on. Sorry libertarians, the American conservative revolution just doesn't happen without Falwell's army of "Jesus Freaks." Indeed, the fact that people are so enraged by the man and his followers is a testament to how powerful they really became. As for Falwell becoming the public face of conservative Christianity, I share Joshua's lament, but I expect as much from the media. For the media, popularity and/or success makes ones one an expert, whether or not one deserves to be. Fans of Fred "Slacktivist" Clark's long-running series taking down Left Behind for its crimes against good theology and good writing will recognize this truth right away. As the Slacktivist argues, thanks to Left Behind's astonishing success, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins are now the official voices of Christianity with regards to prophesy, despite the fact that their premillenial dispensationalism is a decided minority position in the world today and throughout Christian history (it basically didn't exist until the 19th century). Like with Jerry Falwell, their popularity has made them spokesmen for Christianity, whether they are good spokesmen or not is unimportant. Jerry Falwell was a bigot, a demagogue, a Pharisee, and a Christian. As a Lutheran, I found much of his theology in error, to put it mildly. But may God still have mercy on his soul, even if Fred Phelps won't. Posted by David Darlington at 01:06 PM | Comments (7) May 17, 2007Is the GOP the Party of Torture?The answer is no, at least not yet. But if one thing became clear from Tuesday's Republican debate, it's that the question remains in the balance. When moderator Chris Wallace asked Rudy Giuliani if he would support the use of waterboarding, an interrogation tactic that makes detainees believe they are drowning, Giuliani glibly replied, "Whatever they can think of." The other leading Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, said he supported the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" with the approval of the president. "Enhanced interrogation techniques" is a term of art that refers to doing as much as possible while still falling outside the Geneva Convention on treatment of prisoners of war. And in typical Romney fashion he upped the ante with Giuliani, saying "We ought to double Guantanamo." Go get 'em Romney. But not all candidates support torture tactics, most notably John McCain and Ron Paul. McCain famously spent five and half years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, undergoing a whole host of torture tactics. His captors crushed his shoulder with the butt of a rifle, bayoneted him in his left foot and abdominal area, and it was not uncommon for him to be beaten until he lost consciousness. In short, McCain knows a thing or two about torture. Here's what he had to say at Tuesday's debate: "When I was in Vietnam, one of the things that sustained us, as we went - underwent torture ourselves - is the knowledge that if we had our positions reversed and we were the captors, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them."McCain and Paul are not alone among the American public, of course, but what is particularly striking is the military leadership that are almost universally opposed to Romney's "enhanced iterrogation techniques." Among the many generals opposed to the tactics are the commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999 and the commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994. Here's a widely signed open letter to the Senate in 2005. In other words, there are not just moral reasons to oppose torture, but very practical ones as well. This is an important issue that marks a defining moment for the GOP. As Andrew Sullivan notes, the result has drastic implications toward "national security and to the integrity of American democracy." Let us hope the party of Lincoln and Reagan chooses wisely. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 03:13 PM | Comments (12) May 16, 2007The Second "Debate"As is my rule, I didn't watch the second GOP "debate" the other night. For one thing, I'm really upset that the campaign has started so early, and I'm loathe to dignify a 24-month election season by commenting on any of these yahoos. For another, I think every single one of the current contenders is worthless -- except for Ron Paul, who apparently distinguished himself last night by drawing Rudy's mendacious ire. So a front-runner can misrepresent the position of the only small government candidate and win big? I grow ever more disenchanted with the national GOP. A roundup of libertarian reactions to Giuliani's hit below the fold. [Updated] Citing the Central Intelligence Agency's "blowback" principle, Paul explained that U.S. intervention in Middle Eastern affairs over the past several decades contributed to anti-American sentiment and helped create enemies, some of whom are today's terrorists. This didn't go over too well with Rudy Giuliani, who seems to know little about U.S. foreign policy for someone who supposedly led his city through the worst international terrorist attack in U.S. history. Giuliani, interestingly, openly lied about Ron Paul's position on 9/11. Paul specifically did not make a statement, as Giuliani immediately claimed, that the U.S. invited 9/11. I rewound to double-check. It was the Fox questioner who ratcheted up the stakes on that question, not Paul. Paul demurred on a specific answer and switched the question to the general issue of blowback. As to who's right, the answer is both. Remember, the war on terror, Giuliani says, is something he understands "better than anyone else running for president." The sad fact is, that might even be true, considering everyone else up on that stage except for Paul. But it's sort of like winning "Best Complexion" at the Leper Colony. The way I see it, there's three possibilities here: Prediction: The overlap between people who thought the Democrats were wrong to purge Joe Lieberman and people who think the GOP would be right to purge Ron Paul will be around 100 percent. As for Saudi Arabia, seems odd that a man who got paid to help improve the image of the country that produced 16 of the 19 September 11 hijackers, and that continues to fund, foster, and protect hateful anti-west, anti-liberal propaganda within its borders, would have the gall to lecture Ron Paul about his war on terror bona fides. Someone needs to ask Giuliani about his representation of the Saudi government in the next debate. Posted by Zach Wendling at 03:27 PM | Comments (3) Greener GrassThe in-depth study I linked to the other day about how 32 families use their homes had another unsurprising find: they don't use their yards. Despite the fact that the average yard is larger than the interior of a home, families rarely venture outside -- except to do chores. Even when a family had purchased special and carefully-maintained exterior features, they rarely used them. Interestingly, children "gravitated toward paved surfaces," which makes sense given that lawns and landscapes seem manicured wholly for the benefit of passersby. (We should remember here that status-seeking is a zero-sum game, and therefore wasteful.) But even if a family uses its lawn, the yard is a curious invention. Here's some insight from Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough & Michael Braungart: Consider the process of building a typical universal house. First builders scrape away everything on the site until they reach a bed of clay or undisturbed soil. Several machines then come in and shape the clay to a level surface. Trees are felled, natural flora and fauna are destroyed or frightened away, and the generic mini McMansion or modular home rises with little regard for the natural environment around it -- ways the sun might come in to heat the house during the winter, which trees might protect it from wind, heat, and cold, and how soil and water health can be preserved now and in the future. A two-inch carpet of a foreign species of grass is placed over the rest of the lot.A skeptic might react to this characterization as too tree-huggy or the beginning of an anti-sprawl screed. Really, I think it just highlights an irrational consumer preference, which has unfortunately become a cultural norm. There's no reason why we must demand sterile subdivisions with high-maintenance vegetation surrounding our homes. They only exist because we lack imagination and worry about resale value (or selling the thing in the first place if we are the developer*). Hopefully, a greater awareness of the high costs of lawns (in terms of construction, maintenance, aesthetics, and ecology) and the low benefits (in terms of use and status) can change that. * Estridge has an interesting model up in my neck of the woods. The subdivision is still pretty intrusive ecologically, but the houses are built close together without much of a yard to speak of. The benefit is that there is a large communal greenspace that's probably much more fun to play on (it even has a sledding hill). It could be even nicer if they had more trees, but they started with cropland. I'd even say it probably has lower maintenance costs than scores of individual yards. (Note: Estridge isn't giving me any money for praising them.) Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:38 AM | Comments (4) May 15, 2007FDT: Certified Bad A$$In a letter dated today, May 15, Michael Moore challenges Fred Thompson to a debate. In a video submitted this same day to Breitbart.tv, Thompson responds, with cigar in hand. Mickey Kaus offers this: More important, I think: quite apart from its advantages as a campaign tool, the video is itself evidence of Thompson's actual presidential qualifications. You can't make a quickie spot like this unless a) you know what you think (or have a really fast pollster) b) you can react to new situations quickly, and c) you have some sense of theater. Those are all extremely important things for a president to have. Fred Thompson: Let's open the door. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 06:34 PM | Comments (2) Rev. Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist in Chief
Despite all of this, Falwell shrewdly garnered national influence by positioning himself as a leader of fundamentalist churches and organizations. The structure of fundamentalist southern churches are by nature independent and locally oriented. But Falwell managed to marshall their collective influence, first through the forceful acquisition of the PTL Club, a fundamentalist religious group and TV network. Armed with a mouthpiece and means through which to reach millions, Falwell began to extend his influence, particularly in politics. The Moral Majority - which Falwell founded - claimed to be the voice of protestant Christians with respect to public policy throughout the 1980s, and although it dissolved in 1989, its structure and purpose remained throuhgout the 1990s in the form of Christian Coalition. Unsatisfied with a perceived secular infestation in America's colleges and universities, Falwell then moved to found Liberty University, a generally fundamentalist college. Falwell's influence should have ended there, but just as journalists flock to Al Sharpton for the "black perspective," ignorant journalists consistently propped up Falwell as a token Christian leader. The result was predictable: conservative politicians felt the need to bow at the alter of Falwell's symbolism. That's why John McCain, who referred to Falwell as an "agent of intolerance" in 2000, nevertheless gave a commencement speech at Liberty University in May 2006. Falwell artfully capitalized on controversy in much the same way as Sharpton, although it was Falwell who arguably perfected the technique. Falwell's ghostwriter, Mel White (who later declared he was gay), said Falwell remarked about gay protesters, "Thank God for these gay demonstrators. If I didn't have them, I'd have to invent them. They give me all the publicity I need." In short, Falwell was a demagogue and political activist that forced his way onto the public scene. He did not represent most conservative American Christians, but he did represent a potent fundamentalist faction whose influence continues on. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:45 PM | Comments (16) Boston: A Crimeless Victim
Could a bunch of light-up boxes advertising a cartoon really be reasonably mistaken for an infernal device? I guess it depends what you mean by reasonably. In my book, someone being reasonable presumes they aren't [an] hysterical moron, but I'm not really sure the [Commonwealth] of Massachusetts shares my definition.Well, now it's official: the City of Boston was acting unreasonably when they flipped out. Massachusetts prosecutors have dropped charges in return for community service already rendered and a cleverly-worded apology, "I deeply regret that this incident caused such anguish and disruption to so many people... I had no intention of upsetting or alarming anyone." Or, as Brownlee paraphrases, "In other words, 'I'm sorry Boston's city officials are such idiots.' Aren't we all?" via David Weigel Previously by the author: "Dear Boston, Everyone is Laugh at You" Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:38 AM | Comments (0) May 14, 2007Clean SweepThe Discovery Channel was once devoted to interesting documentaries and other informative shows. It has since split off into about a dozen other channels, which all seem to show either homes or people being made-over. These bore me, but there is one that has become a treasured indulgence: Clean Sweep. This is superb television. If you've never seen the show, here's the gist: a family appeals to the program to come help them reconstitute one or two rooms of their house that have become overrun with junk (one suspects that these incorrigible families have more than two rooms that need help). The Clean Sweep people arrive, make fun of the family for being so slovenly, then proceed to tear everything out of the rooms and spread them out on the lawn. The couple must sort their garbage into one of three piles: keep, toss, or sell. Then the real fun begins. One of the hosts, Peter Walsh, goes through the junk with the family piece-by-piece and chastises them when they want to keep some useless piece of crap. On the very best episodes, he can make them cry. The rest of the show is the usually boring stuff about decorating, but the purge in the middle is the best part. These middle-class couples are directly confronted with their sick, hoarding tendencies and the awful effects they have on their ability to simply live in their homes. It feels good to watch the rooms be put in order and the offenders to come off with a light browbeating. But one also has the uneasy feeling that this is too little. Has Mr. Walsh treated a symptom or the disease? What's to prevent them from using all of their new space to store more, newer junk? And how many countless homes across the country suffer from this agonizing condition of over-accumulation? Hopefully, not everyone is quite so bad as the families on Clean Sweep, but I think it's safe to say that many if not most households have too much unused crap, even to the point of making those houses dysfunctional. For data on this, several UCLA anthropologists are studying 32 middle-class families and how they inhabit their spaces (hat tip: Matthew Kahn). They have found that: Despite the fact that contemporary Americans now control the largest amount of private space per person in the history of urban civilization, the team documented what Arnold calls "a storage crisis" among the first 24 of 32 families studied . . .Of course, this is a limited sample size (and in LA), but it has the ring of truth, no? And the kicker is that all of this junk is apparently useless: Ironically, much of the garage-stored material goes unused. Half of the families never even visited the garage spaces during the study, and more than half of those who did spent 10 minutes or less among the possessions sequestered at such a considerable trade-off.And this is in the garage -- not only is it right there, but one has an obvious alternative use for that space. How much more worthless must storage facilities be? (I once heard that one in ten Americans rent storage space.) This is reminiscent of some sort of psychological trick, like over-eating. Conventional wisdom tells us our bodies are hardwired to store up calories for when times are lean. Are we also programmed to hoard? I doubt it, or else our cathartic purges wouldn't feel so good. Andrew Postman wrote in Real Simple Magazine two years ago about clearing out his Brooklyn brownstone's basement. He concludes, "When you're accumulating, you can't imagine throwing stuff out; when you're throwing stuff out, you can't imagine how you accumulated." Posted by Zach Wendling at 09:18 AM | Comments (3) Who Would Thompson Choose?An interesting idea from Matthew Kahn: It strikes me that the attributes to win the election are different from the attributes needed to govern. Am I right? How would I prove this claim? We could switch to a system where the person elected then chooses someone else to govern and receives a payment ex-post based on the President's performance?Or maybe we could dispense with Presidential polls and vote directly for Electors. Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:00 AM | Comments (0) May 13, 2007To Ask Is To ReceiveIn certain Catholic circles the reform of the reform is not reform at all, but rather a return to the dark, dingy liturgical past of the Church - one where smells and bells drown out the parishioner's "active participation" and Fr. Bob really and truly is altus Christus. And don't forget Latin; really, who needs a dead language, Kyrie eleison notwithstanding? Of course, caricatures of modern liturgists are exactly that, caricatures. So often the invective overlooks the reality that, for better or (more often) for worse, the majority of Catholics today experience and know their faith through the novus ordo Missae promulgated some forty years ago. To insouciantly dismiss such a reality forsakes any discussion on the role of the liturgy. After all, if the liturgy is "the outstanding means whereby the faithful may express in their lives, and manifest to others, the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church" (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 2), then any and every attempt to effect change should proceed from considered dialog and reflection. The Rogation Days of Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday before the Feast of the Ascension provide a rich opportunity for such a discussion. On these days of fasting and prayer the faithful are once again reminded - just as they were nearly forty days ago at Easter - that the Father's love is one of justice. The festive white vestments of Eastertide are exchanged these three days for the penitential purple. One of the many unsung causalities of the liturgical renewal, Rogation Days have all but disappeared from the Catholic mind. Rogare, to ask. After a tumultuous year of earthquakes and drought, St. Mamertus of Vienne, France, instituted in 470 a penitential procession with public supplications on the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday before Ascension Day. The Fifth Council of Orleans, held in 511, approved the practice for all of the Gallican churches. In 816 Pope Leo II introduced the practice to Rome. The Litany of the Saints, the psalms and prayers sung during the procession on these days are supplications. The object of these "rogation" supplications is to seek God's mercy and to pray for the harvest. A similar practice is also observed on 25 April, on the Feast of St. Mark, but this is of Roman origin. That date also marks the Robigalia, a Roman festival celebrating Robiga, goddess of crops and plentiful harvest. He heard my voice from His holy temple, alleluia: and my cry before Him came into His hears, alleluia, alleluia. Ps. 17:7, from the Introit of the Rogation Mass. Posted by Seth Zirkle at 03:36 PM | Comments (17) May 12, 2007Fred Thompson: Let's Open the DoorMy affinity for potential presidential candidate Fred Thompson is no secret. But today I decided to take it a step further and create a short video promoting Thompson's candidacy, featured below. It's a bit over the top, but, ya know, that's part of the fun. Related ITA entries: More Thompson Chatter, by J. Claybourn Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 08:37 AM | Comments (6) May 11, 2007Ron PaulAndrew Sullivan on "Taking Ron Paul Seriously" The condescension to and mockery of the sole Republican candidate who seems to care about individual liberty has begun to tick me off. Chris Matthews can be heard groaning "Oh, God," after Paul spoke of the "original intent" of the Founders with respect to the Constitution. And in the YouTube clip below, Rudy Giuliani actually seems to be guffawing after Paul's defense of habeas corpus. I'm glad Paul's supporters are fighting back on the web. He deserves more respect than he has gotten thus far, not least because compared to the pandering of his competitors, Paul actually seems to believe what he says. And what he says has more to do with conservatism than the crap the rest of them are peddling. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 02:49 PM | Comments (15) Who needs Mitt?Erik Erickson of RedState has officially ditched Mitt Romney. The "straw that broke the camel's back" for Erickson was news that Romney's wife had donated money to Planned Parenthood. This seems like an awfully small straw, but this is being trumpeted on numerous blogs as a mighty tide turn (see, for instance, here). Yet no one seems to be noting that this isn't the first time Erickson has ditched Romney. In December Erickson loudly procalimed "I'm Giving Up on Multiple Choice Mitt," and offered much better reasons for doing so. Maybe Erickson intends to officially re-ditch Romney every couple months for effect. Who knows, but with Romney's surging numbers in New Hampshire, the candidate isn't going away any time soon. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:04 AM | Comments (0) Liberal LiteratureEzra Klein says that John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath is the best fiction for understanding the economics of the Left. Hmm, I don't know if he speaks for his side of the spectrum, but if so, what does it say about liberalism that at the time of its writing, Steinbeck was, if not an outright Communist, pretty pinko? And the novel itself? Keith Windshuttle: there is now an accumulation of sufficient historical, demographic, and climatic data about the 1930s to show that almost everything about the elaborate picture created in the novel is either outright false or exaggerated beyond belief. Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:25 AM | Comments (2) May 10, 2007One Cheer for Giuliani, and an EpitaphThe New York Times is reporting that after their candidate fumbled questions about his stance on abortion at the GOP presidential debate last week and elsewhere, the Giuliani camp is just going to come clean, keep it simple, and run the former mayor as a pro-choice Republican. The mayor's people think he can still win the nomination by going after the big liberal states like New York, California, and New Jersey who hold their primaries on February 5th, rather than the traditionally route of more conservative states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. If he wins, he'd be the first pro-choice GOP nominee in a generation. I gotta give some respect to the former mayor for deciding to run as himself, unlike some other people we know. But respect doesn't get the votes out. Rudy will still have support among people who think security is the only issue in this election, but I don't see that as enough. And even he does win the nomination, can a Republican win the general election without the pro-life base? Perhaps someday, but not in 2008. Thanks for playing, Rudy. Posted by David Darlington at 07:11 PM | Comments (6) Thompson <3's the French?In an article on National Review Online, possible presidential candidate Fred Thompson says, "Break Out the French Wine". Related ITA entries: More Thompson Chatter, by J. Claybourn Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:21 AM | Comments (2) Truth in AdvertisingFast food advertising photographs versus the real thing. Also applicable to presidential candidates. Posted by David Darlington at 09:07 AM | Comments (0) Heather has two mommies...and a daddyLast week in a post about men's "reproductive rights" ending at conception, I linked to an article which mentioned cases of males being held liable for child support even when the father of the child was the victim of statutory rape, or when the woman had signed an agreement waiving the man's financial obligations. At the very time I was writing that post, another case was being added to the list: a sperm donor is being ordered to pay child support for two children he enabled a lesbian couple to conceive. The man was a "longtime friend" of one of the lesbians, and the...er...donation process occurred at the mother's home. When the lesbian couple split up, the non-biological mother was held liable for child support. She sued to force the biological father to contribute. The lower court ruled against her, but an appeals court has reversed that ruling. The appeals court decision would seem completely ridiculous except that--far from being a mere sperm donor--the biological father has been involved in the children's lives, including spending "thousands of dollars" on items for them. And yet another wrinkle in the case--the man suddenly died of a stroke in March. A very interesting case, to say the least. Posted by Eric Seymour at 08:40 AM | Comments (0) May 09, 2007Mitt Romney's Game of Guess Who
Of course public officials can change their positions and worldviews, and such changes should not always be condemned if done out of genuine study and reflection. As Romney likes to note, Ronald Reagan famously left the fold of liberal Democrats to lead the modern conservative movement. Yet Romney's conversion is far too recent, appears not to be based on any sort of intellectual reflection, and fits far too nicely into a long pattern of political opportunism. Indeed, Mitt "the chameleon" Romney continues to dissapoint. In a newly released political ad on his website Romney says repeatedly, "I like to veto." He promises to cap all non-defense discretionary spending at the rate of inflation minus one percent, and asserts that he'll veto any budget that exceeds that. He asserts that he vetoed a lot as governor and he can't wait to get to Washington to start vetoing again. Oh, and just in case you forgot, he likes vetoing. What to make of this video? First, Romney favors arbitrary spending caps without regard to the items or programs being cut. Romney's proclamation is, once again, a pathetic attempt at political opportunism at the expense of mature, intelligent reform. Mike Dunford puts it this way: After the last six years, I would really hope that Americans have had enough of the whole not-taking-this-seriously-Presidency. Call me crazy, but I would have thought that anyone running right now would want to strike something that bears at least a faint resemblance to a serious pose. That's not the impression I'm getting from Romney. The image I'm getting from the "I like to veto" ad is like something out of "Madagascar" - a lemur swinging around the Oval Office by his tail, singing, "I like to veto, veto. I like to veto, veto. I like to . . . VETO!"  No other office in the world is like the U.S. presidency, and as such it demands an amount of ideological fortitude that Romney sorely lacks. Romney recently gave the commencement speech at Regent University. As the brainchild of Pat Robertson, his mere decision to give that speech at Regent should give us cause for concern. It suggests Romney does not really understand the conservative Christian movement in America - a movement that Robertson is only a "leader" of in the minds of the east coast journalists. The Washington Post reports this gem from Romney's speech there:"It seems that Europe leads Americans in this way of thinking," Romney told the crowd of more than 5,000. "In France, for instance, I'm told that marriage is now frequently contracted in seven-year terms where either party may move on when their term is up. How shallow and how different from the Europe of the past."I disdain the French as much as the next guy, but as Ana Marie Cox dutifully reports, Romney's claim is flat out false. If you ignore for a moment the cringing foreign policy concerns over such a statement and look only at the claim, it seems as though he was told this fun French fact by The Memory of Earth, a fictionalization of the Book of Mormon set in outer space. Perhaps this kind of source shouldn't be all that surprising. Romney's favorite book is Battlefield Earth by L. Ron Hubbard, the science-fiction writer and Scientology founder. Of course, it wouldn't be a Romney answer unless he soon changed it. Days later he qualified Battlefield Earth as his "favorite novel". The Bible, he said, is his favorite book. You never know which Romney you're going to get, but frankly, I'm not interested in either of them. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:44 AM | Comments (9) The Costs of the Iraq WarMy brother sent along a feature from the Boston Globe jumping on the latest figure for the costs of the Iraq War through September: $456 billion. What would that buy? Among other things,
The National Bureau of Economic research sponsored two studies last year that provided estimates of the true cost of the Iraq War. Gary Becker reviewed these and concluded that a reasonable mid-range estimate for the cost is "between $500 and $850 billion, taking account of the loss in life and injuries." As we're approaching the lower end of that range based upon appropriations alone, a thirteen-digit total seems possible (depending on what happens after the surge). We're likely to see ever more fantastic opportunity costs like those mentioned in the Globe feature. Except that the alternative to invasion was never massive public works. One of the NBER studies (Davis, Murphy, and Topel) also estimated the costs of continuing with containment, our pre-invasion policy. They provided a net present value (inflated for which year, I don't know) of between $300 and $700 billion. At the high end of that range, the total bill for the war will have to be around $1.2 trillion in order to justify the Globe's laundry list. That doesn't make it any less astonishing, though. Posted by Zach Wendling at 09:14 AM | Comments (4) May 08, 2007A Real GasFriday morning's unpleasant surprise was a 25-cent increase in gasoline prices. Looking beyond the simple explanation of greed, this Reuters article explains why: This year, companies struggling to retool refineries to meet new environmental standards, have faced longer, more extensive maintenance and serious outages, draining gasoline inventories ahead of peak summer demand.Ah, those pesky environmental standards, they're to blame, right? And why can't those refineries get their act together? This mistakes the real culprit, says Tim Haab: Now this seems like AAA is trying to blame high gas prices on producers. But the real question is what is causing the need for increased production (a movement up the supply curve). Only two things can cause an increase in the price of gas, a decrease in supply or an increase in demand. If refiners are struggling to keep up production, then the recent price increases are clearly not the result of a decrease in supply. So, the answer has to be an increase in demand. I keep trying to tell you it's all your fault.His incessant solution to high gas prices? "Drive Less!" Which is not to say that a silly email making the rounds that calls for a boycott of gas consumption on May 15th has any merit. Prof. Haab bashes that here. Posted by Zach Wendling at 09:48 AM | Comments (11) MST3k 2.0The New York Times profiles RiffTrax, a new venture brought to you by the guys behind the classic television show, Mystery Science Theater 3000. For the uninitiated, MST3k's basic premise was that an unwilling subject (first portrayed by comedian Joel Hodgson and then series writer Michael J. Nelson) is shot into space by mad scientists and forced to watch B-grade (at best) movies in an effort to determine how best take over the world. Their poor subject can only make it through by riffing on the bad movies "with the help of his robot friends." The show survived 11 years and two network changes before ending its run in 1999. It is generally considered one of the best--and most under appreciated--shows of the 1990s. Rifftrax reunites host Mike Nelson, Kevin Murphy (Tom Servo), and Bill Corbett (Crow) in a new but familiar environment. In this new environment, the sci-fi back story is gone, but the heart of the old show remains: riffing on the worst the movie industry as to offer. At Rifftrax, customers download MP3s of the three familiar voices taking on popular Hollywood movies for as little as $0.99. You then play these MP3s along with your DVD of the movie to reproduce the original MST3k experience (minus silhouettes in the bottom right corner). Rifftrax as an advantage over the old show because the crew wasn't required to get the rights of the films they riff (you're not downloading the movie, just an MP3 of people talking), meaning the targets are much bigger films than ever. See this page for some sample riffs. I'd say the crew still has game. In the not too distant future... Posted by David Darlington at 09:08 AM | Comments (1) Sin and DeathOver at He Lives (a blog with a fantastic blend of science and theology which I'm reading more and more these days), David Heddle raised a very interesting question yesterday: What if Adam and Eve had never sinned? I agree with David that the death which entered the world through sin was spiritual death, and that physical death existed before the fall. Given that most theologians would agree that pathogenic disease is a result of the physical corruption of the world by sin, death would have occurred only by "natural causes." So we can rule out death by pneumonia, but what about cancer, heart disease, etc? Those all represent some sort of corruption of the body. Perhaps Adam and Eve's bodies would have eventually just "worn out"--like a colored fabric fading away rather than being torn apart--and they'd have died peacefully in their sleep. Another point to consider is that God's command to mankind to "be fruitful and multiply" came before the fall. So instead of two sinless humans inhabiting Eden in perpetuity, the population would steadily increase. As David points out, this raises the problem of eventual overpopulation if there was no physical death before the fall. He also poses another interesting question: what if Adam and Eve never sinned, but one of their descendents did? Interesting stuff. Posted by Eric Seymour at 08:42 AM | Comments (0) May 07, 2007A Matter of Theology: Protestant DefectionsDr. Francis Beckwith, the president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), has converted to Catholicism. ETS was founded as an academic professional organization for conservative Protestant scholars, although the doctrinal statement is arguably broad enough to include Catholics. Beckwith explains his conversion here. Although his decision was no doubt a complex one, the following reasoning appears to have played a part: I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification, correctly understood, is biblically and historically defensible. Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible, I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church's historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries. . . Given these considerations, I thought it wise for me to err on the side of the Church with historical and theological continuity with the first generations of Christians that followed Christ's Apostles.Beckwith considered keeping his conversion quiet until his term as president had ended, but James White, a relatively prominent theologian, broke the story on his ministry's website. Beckwith decided to step down, although apparently on his own volition. White's take on the conversion was not exactly supportive: Now that just such a high-profile conversion has taken place, prepare yourself for the flood of substance-less "Come Home to Rome" articles. Let me make a prediction: as is so often the case, the very act of conversion, not the reasons for so doing, will be the primary focus. "He's so brilliant, if he converts, he must have a brilliant reason!" There are very few "new" reasons for conversion that have not been fully addressed in the past, and Rome's modern apologists have learned that it is never to their advantage to give air to the replies offered by the most careful of their critics. As any review of the current body of Roman Catholic "conversion stories" will bear out, fair, balanced, insightful representation of the facts related to sola scriptura, Papal primacy, the Mass, the Marian dogmas, purgatory, etc., is utterly lacking. Emotional appeals to "the ancient church," mythical references to the "unity" of Rome (those actually inside the communion and familiar with its rancorous disputes cannot help but chuckle at those blissfully naive, breathless commentaries), and the warm feeling of "coming home" to the Church (almost never anything about conversion to Christ) are the keys to successful conversioneering.Jimmy Akin, another Catholic convert whose work apparently played some role in Beckwith's conversion, has more on it all here. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:05 AM | Comments (6) Izzy ReduxIzzy's film debut can be seen below. The clip was directed by my sister Kelli. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:02 AM | Comments (3) May 06, 2007Silly GaulsReuters reports today that Nicolas Sarkozy, a candidate of France's Conservative Party, won the that country's presidential election, marking the third presidential election in a row that conservatives have been elected to lead the country. Sarkozy won on a platform of reform, painting himself as a "candidate of work" that would loosen the 35-hour work week, trim fat from the public service, cut taxes and wage war on unemployment. With the hard work of campaigning over, the "candidate of work" got down to business the French way: by taking a vacation. C'est la vie. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 04:13 PM | Comments (0) May 05, 2007One Cheer for MitchDuring this year's legislative session, the Indiana General Assembly passed SEA 490, a bill familiar in spirit in far too many States: it provides for the registration of interior designers, who were to join a list of protected professions that includes dry cleaners, dietitians, and hypnotists. Sadly, our ignoble legislators passed this bill by 44-5 in the Senate and 62-34 in the House. (Hardly surprising considering how diffuse the costs are and how concentrated the benefits among the interested parties.) These sorts of things happen routinely throughout the country. It was a pleasant surprise to find one politician standing up to such rent-seeking. Governor Mitch Daniels vetoed the legislation, and his second and longest veto message to the General Assembly this year is articulate and, dare I say, stirring. It reads in part: I can find no compelling public interest that is served by the establishment of new registration requirements for interior designers as contained in SEA 490, nor in the bill's effective "criminalization" of violations of such registration requirements. Indeed, it seems to me that the principal effect of SEA 490 will be to restrain competition and limit new entrants into the occupation by requiring that they meet new educational and experience qualifications previously not necessary to practice their trade.He goes on to cite a recent George Will article on similar legislation in Nevada and Utah. (One could also look to Bill Richardson's efforts in New Mexico.) But he doesn't stop there. This isn't just about interior design: SEA 490 is an example of government intrusion into the private marketplace, unnecessarily expanding the power and reach of a professional regulatory board (of which we have too many already), and protecting the "ins" at the expense of would-be competitors. The marketplace already serves as an effective check on poor performance; designers doing poor work are more likely to be penalized by negative customer reaction than by a government agency trying to enforce arbitrary and subjective qualification standards.Wow! How refreshing to hear a politician, especially in the face of such opposition, to clearly lay out the proper scope of government (though his detractors might say he, um, rather underappreciates its necessity in other areas, this is clearly not one of them). via Doug Masson, who, as usual, has much more. More about this trend among interior designers can be found at the Institute for Justice. Posted by Zach Wendling at 05:29 PM | Comments (6) May 04, 2007Grumpy in ParisDespite their national love affair with leisure time, the French are less happy than Americans. This is the conclusion of research discussed by Will Wilkinson in an NRO article today. More broadly, the research indicates that free markets do more to increase overall happiness in a nation than welfare programs: The numbers show that high average incomes, a low unemployment rate, extensive economic freedom, and relatively open labor markets tend to boost happiness levels, while generous welfare handouts, lower levels of inequality, and bigger government have little or no positive effect. The areas where the French do relatively well, such as low inequality and size of government, tend not to make its people feel much better, while the areas where they do poorly, such as unemployment and economic freedom, take a real bite out of happiness. The conclusion seems to be that while being poorer than your neighbor and/or working 50 hours a week instead of 35 might decrease an individual's happiness, the economic consequences of regulating the economy to eliminate those situations creates more unhappiness than it solves. Related ITA entries: Time off for le peuple (J. Claybourn) Posted by Eric Seymour at 09:37 PM | Comments (2) Cybersquatting for Darwin?The recent discussion of evolution here reminded me of something I noticed a few weeks ago. What side of the creation/evolution debate would you expect to find at a website called AntiEvolution.org or TalkDesign.org? If you said Creationism or Intelligent Design, you'd be wrong. Both of these web sites are devoted to criticism of Creationism and ID. Both of these sites are apparently run by the same folks who run TalkOrigins.org. And neither site is very active (6 posts in the last year on one, none in the last 8 months on the other). It's pretty clear they were started simply to snatch up a domain name that some critic of evolution might want to use, and to confuse a few people Googling for information on the controversy. So what of it? Some might say that this little prank does not reflect well on a group of people who purport to represent a portion of the scientific enterprise. I say let them have their fun--but they better make sure they renew their registration on time! Posted by Eric Seymour at 09:03 PM | Comments (8) The State of EvolutionAs a followup to Josh's post, here is a map from Scientific American, courtesy of the strange maps blog (quite possibly the most fascinating blog I've ever seen):
Here's the breakdown by candidate:
Doesn't seem to be too much of a correlation. One would expect that the governors, who have the greatest ability to influence State policy and would be more reflective of local values, would line up nicely, yet they are split as well. We also see that the candidates face a bit of a conundrum headed into the Iowa caucuses. Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:35 AM | Comments (3) May 03, 2007Where do you stand on evolution?
But one question was simply amusing and offers some interesting insight into the personal views of those on stage. A Politico.com editor asked John McCain whether he believed in evolution. McCain answered he did, and then the editor asked any candidates who did not believe in evolution to raise their hand. This won't show up in transcripts and, unless you have TiVo or DVR, you weren't likely to see the quick showing of answers. Thankfully I have DVR. Of the ten candidates on stage, three raised their hand: Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:16 PM | Comments (26) Time off for le peupleEzra Klein is singing the praises of French 35 hour work weeks and long vacations. He writes: I'd give up a lot for a guaranteed five weeks of vacation. That's time enough to vacation with friends, and regularly see my family, and take the occasional long weekend. Indeed, I'd love to see an economist model what that would cost us. It would have to be an almost unimaginably high number to dissuade me from taking the deal. And, in any case, I'd love to see some better reporting on the French elections, wherein it's actually explained that the French keep choosing these policies, and that their effect isn't simply to drive down economic indicators, but to order society in a way that emphasizes leisure.As I read this post I began to wistfully yearn for the French leisure time. Maybe I could learn to eat salads after already eating a whole meal, wear black socks with white tennis shoes, and enjoy Woody Allen movies. If only I could cut my work load down to 35 hours a week! And that's when I did some research. It turns out Americans can choose to work 35 hours a week. Who knew we had this option all along? Surprisingly, it turns out that the French "choosing" to work less is very unlike the American choice. This French "choice" is actually forced, and with a few exceptions, everyone must work no more than 35 hours a week. Ah well, at least the Democratic majority is "order[ing] society" for everyone "in a way that emphasizes leisure." It makes you wonder how we ever get by here in America without the all-knowing bureaucratic majority ordering our lives. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 02:42 PM | Comments (12) Geek tip of the dayVia Matthew Stevenson's facebook profile I came across LibraryThing, a nifty website for personal libraries. It allows you to search and sort your books, "tag" books with your own subjects, or use the Library of Congress and Dewey systems to organize your collection. LibraryThing is also a great social space, or in its words, "'MySpace for books' or 'Facebook for books' ... You can check out other people's libraries, see who has the most similar library to yours, swap reading suggestions and so forth. LibraryThing also makes book recommendations based on the collective intelligence of the other libraries." Here's Matt's library. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:55 AM | Comments (1) May 02, 2007The Conservative Case for... Hillary?Bruce Bartlett writes in NRO that the 2008 election is pretty much a lost cause. "Sometimes the trend in one party's direction is so strong that even the grossest incompetence can't keep it from winning," he says, and "I think 2008 is shaping up as that kind of year for the Democrats." As such, Bartlett argues, distraught Republicans should make sure, if a Democratic victory is inevitable, that the Democrat elected is the most conservative of the bunch. In his calculus, he has Hillary Clinton on the (relative) right, John Edwards on the left, and Barack Obama somewhere in between. Now I might quibble with Edwards and Obama (haven't thought about it much), but he has placed Clinton correctly. The fact she hasn't apologized for her vote to authorize the war in a party that wants it over yesterday shows some political guts. Of course, like all the Democratic contenders, she now favors a rapid pullout. Economically, Bartlett argues, Clinton would be more appealing than Edwards' left-wing populism or whatever Obama comes up with, because she'd be, well, Clintonian: On economics, it is reasonable to assume that Sen. Clinton's policies would not be altogether different from Bill Clinton's. This is not a bad thing. On trade, his record was outstanding, and on the budget was far better than George W. Bush's. While Clinton raised taxes in 1993, it should be remembered that he cut them in 1997, including a cut in the capital gains tax. On regulatory policy, Clinton was no worse than the current administration and probably better on net. Are things really that bleak for the GOP that conservatives need to consider voting for Hillary Clinton in order to make the best of a bad situation? I don't think the situation is that far gone yet. We might have an entry by Fred Thompson, or one of the current candidates could catch fire (I mean that figuratively). Furthermore, is Hillary Clinton really the best Democratic option out there? And have Clinton's chances just been torpedoed by what is nearly an endorsement in National Review? Finally, is it me, or did it just get really cold in here? Posted by David Darlington at 08:48 PM | Comments (5) It Doesn't Make One Iota of a Difference...For St. Athanasius it did. Today, 2 May, is his feast day, and every Christian - whether you love the smells and the bells or a bouncing ball on the megatron - should take notice. It was largely due to the work of Athanasius and his followers at Nicea in 325 that Arianism began its slow decline, with distant holdouts in Gaul remaining Arian well into the fifth century. Don't let popular history fool you: Rome was not sacked by pagans; many of the Visigoths following Alaric into Rome were Christians, of the Arian persuasion converted by missionaries from Constantinople (hence the beautiful doors of Sta Sabina are still here for us today, complete with one of the earliest depictions of the crucifixion). In our world without Arianism, with the exception of the Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians whose Christology is very near, we often forget yesteryear's high adventure of orthodoxy: Athanasius was deposed by the Arian Synod of Tyre, beaten in the streets by the public at least twice, forced from his metropolitan church by imperial soldiers once, and exiled to the desert five times. Yes, Athanasius fought for the homousion (of the same substance) of the Son against Arius' homoiousion (of like substance). While we all must avoid what Newman called a church of the mind, Athanasius' very noetic struggle transformed even our most basic conception of Christ. The Word of God, incorporeal, incorruptible, and immaterial, entered our world. Posted by Seth Zirkle at 07:37 PM | Comments (3) Life in the fast laneAFP reports that city life may be speeding us up: [British research] found that globally, people's walking speeds have increased by 10 percent over the last decade, with the biggest increases in the Far East. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:20 PM | Comments (0) May 01, 2007Not Quite IzzyPosted by Zach Wendling at 12:42 PM | Comments (0) Iraq: Time to Go IIIn a previous post, I incorrectly identified the withdrawal from Iraq as "Plan Z." This helpful article from Phillip Carter correctly notes that it is "Plan G," and he fleshes this out by recounting our previous series of too-little-too-late strategies. One might raise the objection that between "Plan F," i.e., the Surge, and an exit, we have the option of partitioning the country, but I think once the surge ends and an admission of failure is inevitable, no one will have the energy for one last Hail Mary pass. We are about to run out of options. The interesting question is what will George Bush do once he can no longer delay facing reality? Can he really do that until January 2009? The prominent objection I raised to the withdrawal is that the resulting regional turmoil would lead to global economic turmoil. Recently, Niall Ferguson looked at what that would mean for America: That makes me nervous. If McCain is right and the Middle East does blow up some time after an American exit from Iraq, oil could end up at $100 a barrel. Then what? Well, how about higher inflation, a dollar slide and a stock market sell-off?Kevin Drum characterizes this as hawkish buffoonery and counters: In any case, I suspect Ferguson has it exactly backwards. Spare pumping capacity is so low right now that any serious disruption in oil supply could indeed send prices skyrocketing -- and unfortunately, there are plenty of possible disruption scenarios. But while some of these scenarios are either unrelated to Iraq or related to our departure, even more of them, I think, are related to our staying.This is a seductive line of thought, but my fears about our withdrawal will not be allayed until I have some sense of the relative degree of disruption staying will have. Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:13 PM | Comments (5) 'Reproductive Rights' for Men?For a generation, the abortion debate has centered on the conflict between a woman's right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term and the unborn child's right to life. Men have been at most a secondary consideration--the "good ones" are noble allies to a cause, and the "bad ones" are either predators who pressure women into abortions to escape the conseuqences of their actions, or troglodytes who seek to turn pregnancy into a punishment for female sexuality. But consider the legal situation that exists today when a conception takes place (particularly outside of wedlock). The father has no legal say in the matter--what happens next is determined solely by the mother. A Salon.com article published in 2000 is still very relevant today: Many men, and some women, see a very different situation -- one in which women have rights and choices while men have responsibilities and are expected to support any choice a woman makes. "If she wants an abortion, he's supposed to shut down all of his emotional bonding to the child," says Fred Hayward, founder of the Sacramento, Calif., group Men's Rights Inc. "Then, if she changes her mind and decides to have the baby, he's supposed to turn it all back on and be a father." The article goes on to tell the story of a man who was overjoyed when his fiancee became pregnant, and devastated when she had an abortion without telling him. There must be scores of cases like this every year, but they are never discussed because the abortion debate centers exclusively around women. And beyond the emotional consequences of abortion, there are the financial obligations of parenthood. If a woman decides she's not ready for motherhood, she can avoid it by aborting the child. However, if the woman wants to keep the child even though the man has no interest in it, she can nevertheless collect financial support from him. This has led some to propose the concept of a "paper abortion"--a means by which a man could cut off all his paternal rights and obligations regarding the child he conceived. As a pro-lifer, I favor the rights of the unborn child over the rights of the adults (in most cases) who conceived it. A law giving a man the right to a "paper abortion" would almost certainly lead to more babies being aborted. Yet it's hard to deny the fact that current law addressing "reproductive rights" creates more unjust situations for men than it does for women. For anyone interested in the abortion debate, I highly recommend reading the entire Salon.com article. Posted by Eric Seymour at 09:51 AM | Comments (15) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rev. Jerry Falwell, who died today in his office at Liberty University, was no mainstream Christian. Indeed, his religious and political views were typically, as he himself described for much of his life, fundamentalist. As such he was out of step with most American Christians, including those who described themselves as evangelical. Although later in life Falwell dropped the "Baptist fundamentalism" label in favor of "evangelical," his religious and political views remained far more fundamentalist than anything. It's no surprise then that Falwell called Billy Graham, "the chief servant of Satan in America."
When the City of Boston wet themselves over brightly-lit cartoons four months ago, Wired Magazine's 
In the past I have expressed 
I don't care to offer much commentary on the first GOP debate of the 2008 election which was held tonight. It was a pathetic, frustrating, and at times, infuriating, spectacle to watch. The clear winner in the debate tonight was Fred Thompson (hint: he wasn't in it).|
------ ADVERTISEMENTS ------
|