Two Observations on Thursday

As I scanned the news today, two stories stuck out to me. The following are some observations about each.

Story I:

China just recently announced that instead of attempting to compete in the world's gasoline powered automobile industry, it would skip this field and invest in becoming the world's leader in electric and hybrid powered cars. This is a brilliant manuver the likes of which Chairman Mao himself would love. (He's revolving in glee in his glass casket in the Forbidden City right now!) First, instead of wasting its capital on a dying industry that most Western countries are willing to support regardless of the consequences, China is saving its cash and letting GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc. strangle themselves. Secondly, by investing in the electric and hybrid powered car market, China is jumping the industrial gun on the next wave of comsumer demand. It is a little known secret that gas prices and environmentalism are quickly rendering the gas powered automobiles defunct. By investing now, before demand for alternatively-fueled cars materializes, China will have positioned itself to captolize. Third, such positioning not only creates jobs but will decrease China's reliance on fossil fuel, thus placing itself outside of the influence of Russia and the Middle East (the sources of the world's fuel).

See the following link for the full story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/global/02electric.html?hp

Story II:

As everyone and their mother knows, this week marks the meeting of the G20. To date, the meeting has accomplished a great deal. It has seen the world's largest 20 economies pledge $1.1 trillion in aid to developing nations as well as promise to increase their yearly gifts to the World Bank. Furthermore, in a radical change from tradition, this year's G20 has even gone as far as to see France and Germany get along! C'est increable, non? That said, the media's coverage of the G20 has been astounding for the following fact: one of the chief stories out of London is not how the G20 nations have united in action at an unprecedented level or how this marks Barack Obama's first step onto the world stage. No, that would not be hip enough. Instead, the media has been spending its resources on identifying the fact that Michelle Obama wore J Crew on the morning she arrived in London and that her fashion sense and grace have been stunning the British countryside in a very Jackie O type of way. While I will be the first to admit that Mrs. Obama's sense of style is one of the better things to happen to the White House recently , the fact that the media focuses solely on her fashion, poise, and ability to socialize has knocked 40 years off the feminist movement. I say this because Michelle Obama is a Harvard Law graduate with legal experience at some of the nation's finest law firms. She is, by herself, an intellectual powerhouse capable of (some would argue) doing her husband's job (minus the political experience of course). Why is it that this side of Michelle Obama gets pushed aside and ignored in favor of the media's desire to turn her into a silent, African-American version of Jackie 0.? That doesn't seem right to me.

Check this link out (especially the article entitled, "Is first lady our queen?"). http://today.msnbc.msn.com/

Reflections on Global Warming

According to the United Nations, the average terrestrial glacier has lost 38 feet of its thickness. Similarly, according to National Geographic, every glacier in Montana’s Glacier National Park will have either fully melted or fully receded into Canada by 2020. These facts irrefutably confirm that global warming is alive and well. While many Americans might not care about the disappearance of slow moving ice, it saddens me. Having just spent the past week in Colorado, I am reminded of Teddy Roosevelt’s thoughts about the American West: it is in the West that young Americans learn what it means to live the strenuous life. It is there that they can view the last vestiges of American’s wilderness and draw from them the correlative strength that only comes from living in untamed, challenged environs. Glaciers used to be a large part of the West. Every year like clockwork they would run through the Rockies bringing the West water and life. Now, it seems that our consumer-based craze for all things fossil fuel has beaten them back forever. We have become so concerned with production that we have irrevocable altered our environment. Who knows what the results may be? I can tell you this though: the effects of global warming will not stop with the loss of our country’s beautiful and unique glaciers. Consider these other, very real, and very quickly approaching possibilities.

1. El Niño will visit the West Coast every year bringing with it massive amounts of rainfall that will completely destroy California’s ecological balance, increase mudslides, and potentially trigger vast new rounds of earthquakes.
2. America’s favorite trees (e.g. Ash, Maple, Pine, etc.) will slowly die off as the low temperatures necessary to kill off the pests who prey on them disappear.
3. Grizzly bears, wolves, and other animals who rely on the change of seasons will no longer visit our northern lands because it is too warm. And let's not forget the plight of the polar bears too.
4. As global temperatures rise and the ice caps melt, Nevada and Pennsylvania will suddenly become beach states.
5. Finally, things will become so hot in the American southwest that firefighters will no longer be able to maintain its unnatural non-burning. Given that humans were not intended to live there in the first place (not enough water, too much natural tinder, etc.), when temperatures become so high that vegetation dries at a faster rate than normal, fires will proliferate at uncontrollable rates. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that the Southwest appears to be emerging from its 20 year abnormally-abundant rainy season which geologists call a climatological outlier.

The House Bonus Tax Bill

The House of Representatives just passed a bill that taxes bonuses on employees money making over $250,000 of companies that received TARP money. This move will prove to be counter-productive for the following reasons:

- The move will essentially forces firms like Morgan Stanley and J.P. Morgan to pay back the TARP money quickly because most of their significant employees make over $1 million. And, because banks still do not have access to capital, their ability to lend company will be diminished. With less lending, you have less economic activity. 

- For firms that are unable to pay back the TARP, the majority of their top talent will move to firms that do not have this tax. $250,000 on Wall Street is barely entry level so talent at almost every level will move quickly. In addition to losing talent, the prestige factor or TARP firms will drop quickly and in businesses like investment banking and trading, prestige is a crucial portion of their business strategy. 

- The net result of this bill will be to reduce bank lending and/or permanently ruin companies that the government has already investment billions of dollars. Politicians in Washington have once again shown themselves to be a significant threat to the economy. 

Barrack Obama should be a hero and veto this bill. 

- John P

AIG: Kill Me Now (In the Metaphorical Sense)

Yesterday we learned that AIG handed out/plans to hand out $165 million in bonuses to its financial products branch, the branch of its company responsible for the acquisition and trade of the toxic assets that plunged our economy into turmoil. As of today we learned that AIG plans to ask the recipients of its bonuses to give back half of the money they are due. (What a sweet, sweet gesture. How generous.) Edward Liddy, AIG’s CEO who at the request of the US government came out of retirement in exchange for a $1 per year salary, claims that the bonuses are necessary (1) to retain AIG’s best and brightest and (2) because AIG contracted to give them out long before the recession hit.

This situation bothers me to no end. First, how in the world can AIG justify giving bonuses to the men and women responsible for blowing a hole in the side of our sinking-ship economy? And, to make matters worse, how can AIG justify using taxpayer money? Second, if it’s as Barney Frank (NY Congressman) says – the government owns 80% of all AIG stock – how could Timothy Geithner & Co. have let this go down? Weren’t they in a position not only as the executives responsible for monitoring the federal stimulus packages but also as the acting owners of AIG to intervene? Finally, where was Ben Bernanke, our fearless Federal Reserve Chairman? If Liddy is right and Geithner knew about the bonuses the entire time, wouldn’t it have made sense to say something to someone? Either warn the President or warn the public so when the news hit stocks would not plummet again?

What is going on in Washington? The government is handing taxpayer money to crooks – companies who so negligently handled money in the past that they single-handedly drove the world’s greatest economy into a meltdown. Wouldn’t common sense dictate that we watch these people? Are our Congressmen and women so inept, so desperate to get voted out of office, or so in love with Barrack Obama that when they passed the various stimulus packages they just closed there eyes and let the President/special interest groups dictate the terms of the packages?

I am no Washington insider and I am certainly no economist, but it seems to me like everyone thinks that if we throw enough money at something, it will go where it needs to go and fix the economy. False. We are where we are because of greed and laziness. Until we reprogram the moral compasses of financiers and bankers and implement actual Congressional regulation that disregards special interests and pork we won’t get anywhere.

The "E" Word

Let’s talk about evolution. Since the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, Christians have waged war upon what they consider the unholy spawn of Satan. Claiming that the Bible absolutely states that God created the earth in six days, Christians have generally proclaimed that the Earth is less than 6,000 years old, that dinosaurs existed, were awesome, and then disappeared in a matter of decades in which man partook, and that volumes of plate tectonics theory, zoological evidence, and archaeological finds documenting micro- and macro-evolution are tenuous at best, and at worst the result of a liberal conspiracy to kill God.

Most Christians assume that evolution and faith are waging a cosmic battle for legitimacy – that they cannot co-exist. I disagree. While I will not bother discussing all the evidence that impartial scientific studies have generated proving the existence of evolution or proclaim how a brief visit to the zoo confirms most of Darwin’s thoughts, I here present one theory that blends Genesis with Origin of Species that permits God to have used evolution to create our world. Take or leave it, just please don’t shoot me.

Dr. John Walton, an Old Testament professor at Wheaton College (Il.), and a few of his Ivy League colleagues who just happen to be experts in Ancient Near Eastern ontology literature came up with the theory of Temple Ontology a few years ago. It argues that modern Western Christians must read the Genesis creation story in light of the socio-literary context of the Ancient Near East. The rationale behind this is that the Old Testament Israelites, specifically the ancient generation for whom Moses penned the first five books of the Bible, functioned as a part of the Ancient Near East. (Abraham was a Sumerian. His sons and grandson interacted with proto-Hittites and proto-Babylonians. Their descendants lived for years as Egypt’s slaves.) This means that the ancient Israelites were cut from the same cloth as the peoples who surrounded them. In other words, while Israel’s religious beliefs may have differed from their neighbors’, all Ancient Near Easterners, Israelites included, probably shared the same literally stylisms, artistic expressions, knowledge of nature, and views of the afterlife. It is in this context, Temple Ontology Theory argues, that we must read the first chapters of Genesis.

According to Walton and his theory the Ancient Near East (Israel included) believed that things did not officially exist until they were “named” or “created.” For Ancient Near Easterners this meant that something did not exist until it was either given a purpose or its purpose became evident. This process of receiving/discovering purpose was called “creating” in ancient Hebrew. Here’s an example: Israelites did not think that the wilderness existed. They could see it, touch it, and – heaven help us – taste it if they wanted to, but to them it simply did not exist (i.e. it was not created) because it served no purpose whatsoever.

This example sets up my point about evolution and Genesis. According to Genesis, God “created the heavens and the earth” and day and night on the first day. On the second He formed the continents and brought forth plants. On the third day God created the sun, moon, and the stars. On the fifth day He created fish and birds. And finally on the sixth day God created animals and mankind. If we apply Walton’s theory to this timeline it fits perfectly within evolution and its sister theory, plate tectonic theory. Essentially, Walton argues that as the world’s development progressed over billions of years from the primordial days of Pangaea to the world as we know it (the continents formed and plant and animal life emerged in the seas and later spread to the land), each time something in His creation developed or evolved to the point at which it finally became what God intended it to be, He named it (i.e. He “created” it or gave it significance). Such a reading implies that as evolution ran its course God waited for the species to culminate. When they did (despite their existence for millions of years prior to that point), they officially came into being. When this happened God “created” them.

To summarize, evolution fits Genesis 1 perfectly in that after the continents became firm and capable of supporting life, life crawled out of the seas and took hold on the land. Once there it changed and developed until it became what God wanted it to be in its final form. When viewed in this light it is possible to see how either each day could be considered an era or epoch in billions of years of terrestrial history without offended anyone’s view of Genesis 1 or that God picked 7 special days over the course of billions of years of terrestrial history to create/act.

Economic Activity, Shakespeare, and Britney

Congress recently authorized a $787 billion stimulus package. The package, amongst other things, dedicates $116.2 billion to individual tax cuts, $87.1 billion to fund State portions of Medicare, $69.8 billion to forgiving the alternative minimum tax, $53.6 billion to funding teacher salaries and job training, $35.8 billion to unemployment benefits, $27.5 billion to transportation-based infrastructure projects, and $20.9 billion to increased food assistance. All of these causes are worthy and might actually provide us with the money, aid, and opportunities they need to get back onto our feet. Even though I do not blame Congress for passing the $787 billion stimulus package – given Obama’s victory, the social mandate granted Congress by the recent round of overwhelming Democratic victories, and the fact that without sudden and massive action every Congressman in America would lose his or her job at the next election if Congress did not act – I do not like its implications.

To date, Congress has authorized more bailout and stimulus packages than FDR created aid agencies during the New Deal. Each of these packages has leveraged our future to the hilt. While Democrats are not quick to mention this, Americans have a dark future ahead when it comes to debt. Before the economic crisis each of us and our children were responsible covering $30,000 of the national debt at some point in the future (most likely to China, yay!). It now hurts even more to think that we will be paying back every cent borrowed from ourselves this year at some indefinite point down the road. If such borrowing helped, it might be justified. However, I question its efficacy in the face of continual bank failures and irresponsibility (that’s right we’re about to grant AIG another “loan”) and the practices that the bailout and stimulus packages attempt to inspire.

Take these facts into account. The current crisis began because greed blinded the housing market and just like Gloucester, it tried to throw itself off the proverbial Cliffs of Dover and drown in an English Channel of bottomless, never-ending profits. Unfortunately, unlike Gloucester, no one was there to stop it. It recklessly plunged in head first and found that the waters were not a place of sanctuary. Instead, they offered only pain, suffering, and the heart of the American economy on a platter. The point? We’re in this mess because we’re greedy.

Next, isn’t it grand that 8% of the mortgage-bound population is causing the other 92% of the mortgage-bound population to suffer so greatly? That’s right. Of all the mortgages in America, only 8% are poisonous. This means that 92% of Americans with mortgages, those folks who work hard and pay on time, not only have to cover for the other 8% but now might lose their own homes because their brokers are desperate and are calling in debts. Whatever happened to the promise of individually pursuing happiness? When did I start needing to cover for the errant and blindingly dumb mistakes of others? I know that may sound harsh and I apologize, but I’m pretty sure that I hit the nail on the head.

Finally, allow me to provide an example of the brilliance of the government’s recent response to the economic crisis. According to a really, really smart accountant that I know, there is a bailout program that offers first time home buyers assistance with their downpayments so that they can buy homes. Instead of giving them money to do this or to secure a low interest rate, the government is offering them this money and forcing them to pay it back within 15 years. So what exactly does this encourage? Let me tell you. It will go something like this:

Homebuyer (Husband): Hey honey, I heard that Barack Obama is giving out money to buy a new home. You’ve always wanted a house with a yard and a huge lawn in the suburbs! Let’s do it!

Homebuyer (Wife): Is he really? What a great man! I knew Barack would pay for our home! That’s why I voted for him! Do you think we could move into a neighborhood where everyone makes 100% more than we do? I’ve heard Greenwich is gorgeous this time of year!

Homebuyer (Husband): Of course! Because if something happens and we can’t pay our mortgage even after the subsidy-thingy, Barack will pay for that too!

Homebuyer (Wife): Booyah! Let’s stop by the Honda store and get a Prius too while we’re on the way! Do you have the new Britney Spears album? I love her! Womanizer, womanizer…

Sorry about the satire but it seems to me as if America, Congress, and the Executive Branch are either (a) ignoring or (b) missing the implications of their actions. While throwing money at the economic crisis might feel good and generate massive “public” support, it will ultimately saddle us with more debt that we can handle. This short-sightedness rankles me because it ignores the fact that we put ourselves into this position. Unregulated banking and business transactions (imposed by Clinton by the way) undercut the stability of our markets and Americans intent on aggrandizing their collective wealth closed their eyes, turned off their brains, and permitted this to happen. If we took more individual responsibility for our personal finances, avoided buying things we could not afford, and invested wisely, maybe we wouldn’t be in meltdown mode right now.

Unfortunately, it is human nature to naively and foolishly disengage from reality. Americans no longer take pride in participating in the political or economic process that is America. Instead, we sit idly by worried only about feeling good, looking good, and our next material acquisition. If we reengaged with the world around us and shrugged off our intellectual lethargy we might have stopped ourselves from going King Midas. Oh well. Maybe next time.

"Taken," Starring Liam Neeson (Don't Take your Mother to This One)

“Taken” is a movie about a former CIA operative (a “preventer”) who ransacks Paris in order to find his daughter, a 17-year-old American girl abducted into the sex trade by Eastern Europeans. Directed by Pierre Morel and starring Liam Neeson, “Taken” blends Bourne-esque intrigue and European settings with the very, very, very efficient violence of well-trained and highly vengeful father. Nieson surprised me in this role. Not only does he convincingly play a humbled man trying his best to reconnect with his daughter after years of lonely field work, but he adeptly pulls off the role of a former CIA man, backing it with flair, wit, and the American indifference we expect of anyone senselessly killing whoever hurt his daughter.

Do not go into this movie expecting loads of character development or stunning dialogue because like all recent George Lucas films you will get neither. However, if you are a fan of action, violent catharsis (Neeson literally kills everyone to was involved in the plot to kidnap his daughter), and an American who destroys as much of Paris as he can, then this movie is for you. Overall, I must admit that I like it. It is entertaining and believable. I found myself rooting for Nieson’s character the entire time.

How I Met Your Mother (TV)

How I Met Your Mother is a show that has been around for several seasons but hasn't receive as much attention as it deserves. It is very funny while still injecting serious themes that help make the show both entertaining and meaningful (but not THAT meaningful, it's still TV).

The show's main character Ted (Josh Radnor) is searching for a wife because his best friend Marshall (Jason Segel) just proposed to his long-time wife Lilly(Alyson Hannigan). The search is made interesting by his friends Barney's (Neil Harris) unique dating philosophy and approach to life.

In some way this show compares to Friends but with a younger cast and a narrower theme. And, unlike Friends, there are scenes (though not the norm) that are almost brilliant and the non-brilliant content is is generally very enjoyable. See a good scene below:

Why So Wastefull?

Economists for decades have warned against the dangers of big government but the closed-minded liberal establishment still fails to see the futility of increasing the size of government as a means for economic growth. The reason? They do not want to see the truth. Liberals depend on government spending to feed their constituents who in tern support them politically.

Take labor unions. Protectionism is without question one of the worst things for any economy yet the Democratic party for years has pushed for higher trade tariffs and fight free trade agreements. They do this because in elections, unions uniformly vote, fund raise and campaign for Democrats.

Politicians, like private economics actors, seek their self-interest. The Republicans are no exception to this. However, the Republicans economic policies ignore special interest because they have no hope of gaining labor union and other groups support. Instead, they support bills that increase the common good for the U.S. economy (with the exception of many Bush spending bills, Bush was a liberal).

I fully admit to be a Republican but that does not discredit my argument. The Democrat's economic policy are narrow and wasteful while the Republicans economic agenda is designed to benefit the country as a whole.

Need proof? Read the current Senate or House version of the "economic stimulus" bill and decide how much of it will actually fix the economy.

Springsteen at the Superbowl

I feel like a spurned lover.

Last night Bruce Springsteen played the Superbowl halftime show. He played "10th Avenue Freeze Out," "Born to Run," "Working on a Dream," and "Glory Days." While filled with the Boss's signature energy and stage magic (including an awkward slide into the stage camera), the performance might have represented the end of era for Bruce Springsteen: the era of independent, Man-fighting rock n' roll righteousness. To see him on television axing for a nation that only knows three of his songs broke my heart. The Superbowl has come to represent all things popular, yuppie, and middle/upper class. Why, oh why, would the voice of rock n' roll purity, the man who gave soul to the working class in the 1970s and true coolness in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, play a venue that will encourage 14 year-old girls to download his ringtone today? It seems as if instead of remembering his core fans (the men and women of America's hardknock cities and towns; think Cleveland, Newark, Detroit, etc.), he has opted to give his music filled with words for those born in "deadman's town[s]" to folks who will think that losing their 401K or their Jaguar equate to life kicking them in the junk.

Some might say that by agreeing to perform in the Superbowl in America's hour of need he has reached out to an America hurting the way it was when his "Born to Run" and "Born in the USA" albums debuted. Maybe these folks will say that by playing at the Superbowl, Springsteen garnered a pulpit for himself that reached the maximum number of his core fans. If that is true, then answer me this: why have Springsteen's ticket prices ($139 a pop) risen to the point where they now exclude those folks who made him great?

I apologize if my words are out of line. But I speak as a Cleveland native who grew up hearing from friends, family, and the ever-present radio that true freedom lies in living life with the abandon that Springsteen's music represents. Hopefully the Boss's night hooking up with pop culture is just a one night stand. Hopefully he will press on and continue to produce music that speaks to the soulful wanderer in all of us - the teenager deep down inside who wants to grab his motorcycle and leather jacket and ride through the chilly summer air.

From the Vatican: Science and Human Life

In September of 2008, the Holy Catholic Church released a document entitled Dignitas Personae, or The Dignity of the Person in English. (To read it, follow this link: http://www.usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/Dignitas_Personae.pdf.) This document provides the Church’s moral assessments of recent trends in the science of human procreation. Addressing everything from in vitro fertilization, freezing embryos, and Introcyptoplasmic Sperm Implantation (ICSI) (when doctors inject a single, pre-selected and highly evaluated sperm into one egg in a laboratory) to gene therapy, cloning, and the use of stem cells, Dignitas Personae categorically affirms the Church’s dedication to preserving human dignity in the face of science.

According to the document, humans comprise a human and divine element. Humanly, we physically symbolize the Trinity. As such, our mere existence presupposes and reflects the relationship that God the Father shares with his Son and the Holy Spirit: a relationship based upon love that produces incomprehensible wonders. Spiritually, we exist to commune with God. Granted souls, God means us to live for and eternally worship Him. When these two purposes meet, according to the Church, they provide all forms of human life with a dignity that none can deny. In other words, as God’s children made specifically to reflect and worship Him, all stages of human life have been specifically designed by God to best meet his purposes for us.

The document confirms this by observing that the Incarnation gives every stage of human life – from the pre-nascent period of gestation to the honorable stoicisms of old age – meaning. This implies that because Christ gestated in his mother’s womb, God intended all life to gestate in their mother’s womb. Two implications rise from this. First, going through the human process – i.e. being conceived and developed in the womb – is an inherent part of the human process and is therefore inherent to what it means to be a human and made in God’s image. Secondly, God’s plan and means for conception are the only way to procreate honorably and with dignity. It is this with this second implication that Dignitas Personae struggles for the majority of its text.

The Vatican makes it terribly clear that unless a scientific procedure aids procreation via the act of sexual intercourse between a man and wife, it is morally prohibited. It says this because God intends procreation to only occur within the realm of marriage and via an act that represents Christ’s love for the Church and His promise that through this love it will grow and prosper. Because the physical acts of procreation represent something so sacred, the Church concludes that to permit procreation through any other means than the physical act of intercourse would be to offend God’s intentions for human life in general. While the Church acknowledges the painful realities inherent to this decree for the men and women of this world who cannot physically make their own child, it states that this is why adoption exists.

To put this ruling into plain terms, here is an example. When it comes to fertility assistance the Church states that men and women may undergo any treatments they want that will either increase their virility or increase their chances of conception via sex. Unless the physical act of sex occurs and creates life, any medical action, whether it be in vitro, artificial insemination, etc., is prohibited. This is a stark ruling, but the Church believes in it wholeheartedly.

The Church rules the way it does because of fear. It concludes (rightly so) that the vast majority of scientific fertility aids lead more to the destruction of life than its creation. Take embryo freezing or in vitro for example. What do you think happens to all the fertilized eggs that doctors do not place in the mothers? They are either destroyed or permanently frozen, sentenced to eternity on pause. The Church concludes that such procedures are neither fair nor moral. It continues and states that by permitting such actions, we have inadvertently opened the door to eugenics. Why not, it asks, permit mothers to then select the best traits in their child if they are already in a test tube under a microscope? Why not use the “best” sperm, the one that will make their child taller, faster, or stronger? The Church finds such propositions disgusting. God did not give us the right to engineer humans. How do we actually know what characteristics are best? Maybe eugenics will simply be another avenue to strip God of His sovereignty over our lives in the pursuit of physical materialism as manifested by our children.

I write all of this not to question the policies in Dignitas Personae (because, honestly, some of them need to be questioned), but to point out two things: (1) the Church, in its role as God’s voice, has undertaken a daunting challenge in taking on the liberal, scientific establishment that views human life as merely another play toy and (2) it does not condemn anyone. Instead, it merely asks all of us to evaluate our reproductive behaviors to see whether or not they coincide with God’s intentions. Morality is ultimately an individual choice. Unless we begin to choose life, we will undermine everything it means to be human. Christ called us to live for Him. It is time that we began doing that in all things – even in situations where it might break our hearts to acknowledge that we might not be able to have children. They are not a right. They are a privilege.

A Sad Day For Women In the Workforce

Obama sign into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act today, a law that reverses a Supreme Court decision that made it harder for women to sue for pay discrimination.

The big losers here are women because the law increases the probability of a law suit. Law suits cost money. Companies don't like to pay money when they don't need to. Thus, it is possible now for less qualified man to get a job over a women simply because there is a zero percent chance that he will sue for gender discrimination. Men 1, women 0. And, if both are equally qualified, forget about it.

The U.S. economy is another big loser as a result of this bill. Increasing the cost of labor for close to half of the work force is not a good thing. In fact, this bill makes layoffs more likely. Potential lawsuits increase the liability associated with a female employee and thus the margin declines. So, when little kids ask you, "where do layoffs come from?" You can say, among other things, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. (Just say Obama if there under 7)

Nothing here is open for dispute. Economic reality is fairly simple here. Proponents of this bill will say it is worth the cost because it makes everyone equal under the law.

False.

It gives women unequal protection. Consider this. If a man feels he is under paid he can a) ask for more money, b) find a new job where he gets paid what he things he's worth. A women now has a third option, suing. And, like stock options, legal options have value. Therefore, women have more value under the law. This value is not free. They now have additional costs. Companies like to cut costs, especially in a recession.

The Abortion Issue and the Public Debate

The question here is not religious but rather philosophical (because religion informs but not dictates our laws). In addition, it is not about the women's right to choose. After all, no one believes women have the right to kill. Therefore, the primary question is ow do you define a human?

You cannot require independence. Consider a baby 5 minutes into life. It can barely open its eyes. And, if someone is in a coma, they are totally dependent, yet still a human.
For the same reasons, you cannot require the ability to communicate or perform any functions.

The only difference between the unborn and the rest of humanity is their location inside another human. Therefore, in order to strip the unborn of their humanity, you have to conclude location plays a roll in being a human.

Being human transcends location and our laws should reflect that fact.

Flight of the Conchords

Flight of the Conchords kicks off its second season and is faced with very high expections. Season one (clips seen below) was very entertaining and original. The show speaks for itself:

Clip 1: The Humans Are Dead; Clip 2: Band Meeting Clip 3: Lord of the Rings

Why don't Presidents sound like this anymore?

"It seems to me that, for the nation as for the individual, what is most important is to insist on the vital need of combining certain sets of qualities, which separately are common enough, and, alas, useless enough. Practical efficiency is common, and lofty idealism not uncommon; it is the combination which is necessary, and the combination is rare. Love of peace is common among weak, short-sighted, timid, and lazy persons; and on the other hand courage is found among many men of evil temper and bad character. Neither quality shall by itself avail. Justice among the nations of mankind, and the uplifting of humanity, can be brought about only by those strong and daring mean who with wisdom love peace, but who love righteousness more than peace. Facing the immense complexity of modern social and industrial conditions, there is need to use freely and unhestitatingly the collective power of all of us; and yet no exercise of collective power will ever avail if the average individual does not keep his or her sense of personal duty, initiative, and responsibility. There is need to develop all the virtues that have the state for their sphere of action; but these virtues are as dust in a windy street unless back of them lie the strong and tender virtues of a family life based on the love of the one man for the love of the one woman and on their joyous and fearless acceptance of their common obligation to the children that are theirs. There must be the keenest sense of duty, and with it must go the joy of living. There must be shame at the thought of shirking the hard work of the world, and at the same time delight in the many-sided beauty of life. With soul of flame and temper of steel we must act as our coolest judgment bids us. We must exercise the largest charity towards the wrong-doer that is compatible with relentless war against the wrong-doing. We must be just to others, generous to others, and yet we must realize that it is a shameful and wicked thing not to withstand oppression with high heart and ready hand. With gentleness and tenderness there must go dauntlessness bravery and grim acceptance of labor and hardship and peril. All for each, and each for all, is a good motto; but only on condition that each works with might and main to maintain himself as not to be a burden on others."

Theodore Roosevelt (Forward to "An Autobiography," Sagamore Hill, NY, 9/1/1913)

Close Guantanamo, Keep The Principle

Guantanamo Bay is a prison created to hold individuals deemed by the military as "enemy combatants." Human rights groups oppose the prison because they say it violates the civil liberties of the alleged terrorists. The situation has come to head because Barrack Obama takes office on January 20th and has called for the its closing. However, the situation has been complicated by the Pentagon's report that as many as 61 ex-Guantanamo inmates that were released returned to terrorism.

The same human rights groups calling for the closing of the prison immediately released statements claiming the Pentagon's statements are false. It is interesting to note that these groups did not investigate these claims before making these statements.

The legal challenge to Guantanamo claims that holding terrorists as "enemy combatants" allows the Pentagon to indefinitely detain people because the "war or terror" is not expected to end in the same way conventional wars do. The alternative offered is to bring the alleged terrorists to the United States and try them specially created courts. These courts would be able to handle the sensitive information that would be released in a trial and be given special jurisdiction in the country where the combatant came from. A more extreme view is to grant the combatants full Constitutional rights and thereby guarantee them a trial in a U.S. court. (Which would not have jurisdiction) This is an absurd position which will likely receive little consideration in the Obama administration.

Guantanamo Bay needs to be closed for PR reasons alone however the combatants must not be given Constitutional rights. The solution to this problem must not prevent the military from taking prisoners who they deem enemy combatants. If each person they capture is guaranteed a U.S. court, they have no reason to divulge potential life saving information. In addition, the military must have the benefit of secrecy because in many cases, it is crucial that the combatants have no communication with the outside world. Many people do not trust the military in this matter which is odd because they trust the military to drop 5 ton bombs.

On January 20th, Barrack Obama will be responsible for defending the United States. Putting hundreds of people deemed enemey combatents on the path to freedom would not be a good start. Trust the military to do there job.

Looking at Guantanamo

President-elect Barak Obama has vowed to issue an executive order on his first day that begins the process of closing the US military base/prison located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/politics/13gitmo.html?scp=1&sq=obama,%20guantanamo&st=cse

Even though I feel that the US needs some type of prison facility for terrorists that we capture here at home and abroad, the symbolism inherent to the decision to close Gitmo could not please me more. Since the beginning of the War on Terror, Gitmo has been a black hole for men and their rights. At the beginning of the war, our government treated Gitmo as a repository, a place where we sent terrorists (regardless of their citizenship) to indefinitely sit in teeny-tiny little cells complete with yellow painted arrows on the floor pointing toward Mecca. We imprisoned these terrorist without any promise of ever bringing any charges against them (i.e. revoked their right to habeas corpus) and denied them contact with friends, family, and, in general, counsel. Imagine that – being locked indefinitely in a cell, thousands of miles from home, without any inkling of whether or not you’ll ever see the light of day again. Doesn’t sound too American does it? Now, I acknowledge that the fact that our government does not randomly or lightly imprison men in Gitmo must temper my views. Most likely, the government imprisoned the men there because they committed a criminal or terrorist act. Unfortunately, regardless of their dangerousness and the utility of keeping terrorists off the streets, I do not think it is right to revoke the ability to seek counsel and address the charges arrayed against them. The war in which we are engaged is a limited war. It is not being fought on our shores and it has not incapacitated our courts. While some Gitmo residents may rightfully be considered “enemy combatants,” I see nothing against the US permitting them to face the charges arrayed against them.

The US Supreme Court agrees with me. In three recent cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that not only is Guantanamo legally considered American soil and thus under the jurisdiction of its Constitution and Courts (Rasul v. Bush), but that the trials held at Gitmo by military tribunals were illegal (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) and that prisoners there have habeas corpus rights and the right to access American courts (Boumediane v. Bush). These cases knell the death toll of what it is we have tried to accomplish at Gitmo. Hopefully they will usher in a new era in the War on Terror that stops us from torturing and denying our enemies their basic human rights (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/us/14gitmo.html?_r=1&ref=us). By closing Gitmo, Obama seems to be sending this message. Its almost as if he is stating that America is done treating its enemies they way they are treating us; that we, regardless of their hatreds, will honor their humanity and treat them with basic human respect.

Rasul v. Bush (2004): http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_334/

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006): http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_05_184/

Boumediane v. Bush (2008): http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf

US Supreme Court to the Rescue! (Think Old-School Batman Music Playing in the Background)

If you are a Law & Order buff like me, you'll appreciate this. Today, in a 5-4 decision (Herring v. US), the US Supreme Court officially declared that in certain instances where the police have mistakenly assumed that they have the authority to arrest someone and do and then later discover their mistake, they are no longer required to simply free the arrestee. Instead, if their mistake was isolated, innocent, and not the result of "systematic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements," their arrest stands. If not, the typical exclusionary rules apply. This decision excites me as a Law & Order fan. Not only will the show's detectives now be able to defend erroneous arrests that they mistakenly and in good faith make, but the show's prosecutors (e.g. Alana De La Garza) will be able to fashion arguments that make all police mistakes things of serendipidous beauty. Can't wait! No more will despicable criminals get released. No more will Jack have to stare in a intensly peeved manner at opposing council's blatant disregard for his moral convictions! Law & Order has been given a gift. Hopefully it will use it responsibly. If you want to read the opinion please go to: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-513.pdf

Woody's Story

Years ago, my mother gave me a bullet..a bullet, and I put it in my breast pocket. Two years after that, I was walking down the street, when a berserk evanglelist heaved a Gideon bible out a hotel room window, hitting me in the chest. Bible would have gone through my heart if it wasn't for that bullet.

- Woody Allen

Obama Economics

Barack Obama will start his first day as President facing one of if not the deepest recessions in U.S. economic history. Obama's first action as President-elect on this issue was to appoint Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary. The move was slammed by liberals because Geithner is seen as being too close to Wall Street (currently the President of the New York Fed) and to conservative in his economic philosophy.

Obama also appointed Geithner's mentor and Clinton's Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers as his national economic advisor. Criticism of this pick from the left was muted because of his connection to Clinton while many conservatives were relieved to see an economic moderate be appointed to this crucial post.

Obama's economic address on Thursday revealed view specifics but reflected the moderate economic philosophy of his top economic advisers. While mentioning the importance of the government sector in economic recoveries, Obama state, "the overwhelming majority of the jobs will be created in the private sector." In addition, Obama has increased the size of the tax cut he is offering to "middle class" Americans and has apparently dropped plans to increase taxes on the wealthy.

Response to the speech was mixed.and on the left, NYTs columnist Paul Krugman wrote that Obama's proposed stimulus is not enough. Krugman claims that the domestic output shortfall is $2 trillion and Obama's roughly $850 billion proposal comes up short. Krugman's irresponsible response should come as no surprise considering what he has been writing for decades. He represents the now completely neglected far left side of the economic spectrum.

David Brooks responded to Obama's speech with economic research that shows fiscal (tax cuts, government spending) do not have a major roll in economic recoveries. The obvious problem with this study is that it can only measure what happened and cannot draw conclusions about what would have happened without fiscal stimulation. Brooks concludes that monetary policy (lower interest rates, quantitative easing (printing money)) is the best way to stimulate the economy.

No one would disagree that monetary policy is an important part of pulling an economy out of a recovery. However, with interest rates at close to zero and trillions in new money supply, there is much left to do. And, stimulating economic output by increasing the supply of money only works if the velocity of money is either constant of rising. (Velocity refers to how fast people spend money) Fiscal policy that gives consumers and businesses more money to spend will certainly do that.

Obama's plans for the economy are important, however, as Obama said in his speech, the most important source of economic growth will come from the private sector and the best way to help the private sector is to lower marginal tax rates across the board and improve education. Obama's advisers believe this and I hope Obama chooses to listen.

History: An Apologetic

Modern events are the echoes of past realities. How many of us Westerners realize, for example, that Allied actions act the end of World War II created many of the problems facing the Middle East today? Before World War II, Muslims in the Middle East organized themselves into political units based upon religious, tribal, and/or ethnic identity. They did not see themselves as Iraqis or Saudis or Egyptians but instead as Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Persians, Arabs, Tauregs, etc. This is why when the Allies chopped the Middle East up into a series of nations populated by peoples who had never associated with each other and who lacked religious, ethnic, and tribal homogeneity, they inadvertently created a region of nation-states whose people had no historic reason to want to live and function together. Look at Iraq. Instead of permitting Iraq’s Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites to function as parts of the Middle East’s greater Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite communities, the Allies severed them from their historic associations and threw them into one nation expecting them to get along and abandon their historic animosities for the good of a country some white people thought looked nice on a map.

I bring this up not only to point out that the actions of one generation explain the trials of the next, but also to note that a little understanding might go a long way. I am not suggesting that we do away with borders in the Middle East and revert to the theocratic, ethnic, or tribal “governments” of the past. Instead, I want to suggest that if we interact with Middle Eastern nations with the understanding their people still see themselves as members of organic social communities based upon tribe or ethnicity, we might be able to better understand their motives and the ideological and political frameworks within which they function.

This example expresses why the study of history is so important. Without an understanding of what happened in the past, we cannot address present realities. It’s like doctors say: it’s no good treating symptoms; you’ve got to treat the disease. In line with the example above, this means that instead of trying to force democracy down the throats of the Middle Easterners, maybe we should try to find a way to help them create representative governments based upon theocratic rules that work for them. Or, even better, instead of assuming that Iran’s nuclear program has an evil intent (which it might), we remember that (1) in the past, whenever Iran has tried to become politically or energy self-sufficient, the West has undermined those efforts and that (2) maybe its current efforts to go nuclear are really defensive attempts to stand against a West that has always hindered its development. If the West approached Middle Easterners with this type of perspective (and humility?), then it is possible that they would be more willing to dialog with us.

The study of history is also important because mankind is made in the image of God. As such this means that a little bit of his divine nature resides in every human being ever made regardless of era or civilization. To me, the study of history not only provides explanations about why the world is the way it is, but it also functions as a search for the wonder of God. I believe that because we are made in the image of God, that image has manifested itself in every civilization since the beginning of time. This means that regardless of the behaviors or beliefs of the civilization in question, students of history can find some glimmer of God, his truth, or the potential he placed in all of us in it. This explains the pyramids of Egypt, the Great Wall of China, the technological innovations of the Indus River Valley civilization, and the art work of the Classical Greeks. While the Church considers these peoples heathens, their accomplishments reflect God’s image – the divine spark he placed in all of us that enables us to go forth and do amazing, earth-stopping things. History captures all such feats and shows that all humans, regardless of what we think of them, are all endowed with wondrous, heroic abilities that reflect the God inside all of us even if we don’t know or honor Him.

Slumdog Millionaire - 5 stars out of 5

Slumdog Millionaire, directed by Danny Boyle and Loveleen Tandan, is currently the odds on favorite for winning the Best Picture award at the Oscars. However, given the movie is still under the radar for most casual movie goers despite substantial critical acclaim, the goal of this review is to urge those have not heard of this movie to see it. (disclaimer)

The movie tells an incredible story about a child's journey to adulthood in a rapidly developing India. The movie is incredibly funny at times, startling at others, and ultimately incredibly uplifting.

Based on Rottentomatoes.com, 94% of reviewers from around the country give it a positive review. Praise from movie critiques obviously need to be taken lightly however given their tendency to praise well-crafted but ultimately boring films. In this case, I can assure you Slumdog Millionaire will appeal to movie goers with even the shortest attention spans.

In summary, this film is a masterpiece with universal appeal.

The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Breaking News (1/3/09)
Israeli tanks and troops launch an attack on Gaza.
Israel: 'lengthy operation'
Hamas: 'Gaza will be a cemetery for Israeli soilders'
EU president: Israel ground op in Gaza 'defensive not offensive'
Obama: (nothing yet)

Quick take: Israel wants to find the rockets Hamas is shooting at their civilians.
Outlook: Israel will find them but it will take months

Update

Israel recently rejected a 48-hour proposal from international negotiators while commenting that it was open to ways of increasing humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians. Clearly, as in any war where one side has superior resources and fire power, the more powerful side will not give the weaker opponent a chance to regroup. Going forward, the big question will be whether Israel elects to launch a ground invasion.

World Response

Response from Europe has generally been hostile towards Israel and riots with signs labeling Israel a terrorist state are commonly seen. This emotional response reflects a high level of anti-Semitism across Europe given that there is no evidence that Israel is or has ever targeting civilians in their military attacks. And, in addition to launching rockets and suicide bombers at Israeli civilians, Hamas deliberately places women and children in military targets in an effort to sway international opinion against Israel.Iran, like much of the Middle East, has condemned Israel and continues to deny their right to exist. Iran's view is of Israel is extremely important considering they may have nuclear weapons in the near future.

Obama's First Move

Barack Obama takes office January 20th and clearly has a difficult situation to deal with. The first option traditionally has been to bring both parties to the table and try to negotiate a peace treaty. But, this has not worked and will not work because Israel and Palestine have irreconcilable differences. Without the ability to negotiate, Obama has a limited number of options. First, Obama will publicly reiterate the United States support of Israel. Second, he will privately encourage Israel to scale back the air strikes and ask them not to launch a ground assault. In exchange for this concession from Israel, Obama will likely reassure them that the US will help and/or fully support strikes on Iran in the event they acquire nuclear weapon capabilities. Obviously, the United States would help Israel even without the agreement, but Obama has a considerable amount of goodwill and Israel may take the chance to affirm their alliance.

Outlook

Because Hamas either has no desire to or cannot suppress terrorist elements within its society, they have little home of being part of an peace treaty in the near future because treaties depend on the belief that both sides will hold to their side of the bargain. And, Israel has and will continue to have the support of the United States, allowing it to launch fierce counter-strikes on Palestine. This conflict represents a chronic problem that can only be treated and not cured. We should pray that Obama can help lessen the currently painful symptoms in the Middle East.

Israeli/Palestinian Conflict: A Historical View of Palestine

The last I checked, the most recent round of Israeli air strikes has killed 375 Palestinians, injured over 1,600 more, and severely damaged wide swaths of Gaza including portions of the Presidential Palace and Palestinian universities. This attack is a response to a series of 250 Palestinian rockets fired into southern Israel that recently killed one, injured six more, and damaged two buildings. To make the situation worse, yesterday an Israeli patrol vessel "accidentally" ran into a Gibraltar-based boat intent on providing medical aid to the Palestinians. In light of this situation, I thought it might be helpful to provide historical perspective that clarifies why the pesky Palestinians just won't leave the Holy Land.

In AD 135, fed up with continual Jewish revolts, the Romans sacked Jerusalem, exiled the Jews from all of their traditional territories outside of a bare-bones settlement near Galilee, and renamed Israel "Palestina." This was when the Jews formed the Diaspora.

For roughly the next 500 years, the Romans and then the Byzantines excluded the Jews from Palestina and turned it over to its original Arabic inhabitants (think Palestinians), Christians, and the pagans who the Romans and Byzantines settled there to pacify the region. The Jews were forced to look on from afar as the Christians, under the patronage of Constantine the Great and his mother, Helena, "Christianized" Jerusalem.

In the 7th century the Muslims (who by this point included Palestine's Arabic inhabitants – the Palestinians) conquered Palestina. While they were generally more inclusive than the Romans and Christians in that they permitted some Jews to return to portions of former Israel, they seized Palestina as a Muslim holy land because Muhammad named its capitol (Jerusalem) one of Islam's three sacred cities and because Palestina was once the home of one of Islam's patriarchs (Abraham).

From the 7th century on, Muslims (the Seljuks, Fatmids, Mameluks, and Ottomans) controlled Palestina uninterrupted except for a brief period from 1099 to 1187 when European Crusaders conquered and held Jerusalem and the territories immediately surrounding it. By the late 1800s only 24,000 Jews lived in Ottoman occupied Palestina. While this number seems significant it pales in comparison to the millions who lived elsewhere.

World War I broke out in 1914. After the Allies defeated the combined forces of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire, Palestina reverted to British control. Because a Muslim government no longer controlled their Holy Land, Jews began returning to Palestina a at a rate not seen for 900 years. The Palestinian majority did not like the returns and began to riot and kill the Jews. The Jews responded by organizing themselves and fighting back. The Palestinians would have destroyed the vastly outnumbered Jews but for British intervention.

The Jews remained a marginal political body in the Middle East until the outbreak of World War II and the Holocaust. Galvanized by Hitler's acts, the world decided that it was time to return to Jews to their homeland en mass instead of through a previously arranged piecemeal 15,000 Jew per year immigration limit established by the British and the Palestinians. In 1948, the UN acknowledged the creation of the nation of Israel, carving out a small portion of Palestina for the Israelis. In 1967, the Six Day War broke out and the Israelis captured the West Bank and Gaza. Between the creation of Israel and the subsequent wars shoring up its borders, the Israelis and their actions forced over 4 million Palestinians out of their homes and out of the land that their ancestors had held since the Romans forced the Jews of Israel over 1,000 years earlier.

I write all this to ask the following questions:

1. Given that the land that we know as Israel belonged to the Palestinians for over 1,000 years and because that land is just as sacred to them as it is to the Jews, is it really surprising or wrong that the Palestinians want it back?

2. Should Israel be allowed to fight back against Palestinian aggression/terrorism with appallingly disproportionate means while denying Palestinians the basic respite of foreign assistance?

3. How can we balance the need for a Jewish democratic homeland and God's covenantal promise with the fact that by this point the only options we may have to assure that the Jews keep Israel are to either (1) allow the Jews to eradicate the Palestinians, (2) permit them to enforce a highly oppressive military rule upon the Palestinians, or (3) look the other way as the Middle East does what it wishes with Israel? Does a realistic fourth option exist?