A recent article and headline in the New York Times well illustrates the bias prevalent in the mainstream media when they cover abortion and religion. Both the headline and the content of the article "Christian Leaders Unite on Political Issues" by Laurie Goodstein imply a unity among Christian leaders which does not exist, especially on the issues which are the central topics of the article, abortion rights and gay rights.
Although many Catholic and evangelical Protestants find the common cause reported in the article, a great many Christian churches, Christian leaders, Christian theologians and lay Christians (including many Catholics and evangelicals) take -- and advocate -- very different perspectives on these issues. Their voices should be reflected in any article and any headline which implies directly or indirectly that it is reporting on some sort of consensus within the Christian community.
Instead, the only critical comment in the article come from an individual affiliated with an academic institution rather than a religious one, implicitly a secular intellectual rather than a believer. The casual reader would wrongly infer from this that the issues involve a divide between religion and academe, but would not be aware of the substantial disagreement within the Christian community itself, as well as the broader religious world.
A more accurate headline would have been "Some Catholic and Evangelical Leaders Unite on Abortion and Gay Rights Issues," or perhaps "Christian Leaders Lack Consensus on Political Issues." A more balanced article would have mentioned some of the prominent voices within the Christian community which favor abortion rights and gay marriage, or at least oppose entangling the state in such issues.
It is also worth noting that the article cites not a single woman on the issue of abortion; all the voices quoted or referenced are men. Curious.
And this is the New York Times, supposed bastion of the effete intellectual snobs of the left.
21 November 2009
19 November 2009
He's not me
A new, young colleague hurried to two older, more experienced ones and excitedly told them she had just seen John Bolton in the halls. They questioned her, and laughed. That's not him, replied one; that's this blog's author. The other quipped that there's nobody on staff less like Bolton, in fact.
I suppose I'm flattered by the second comment.
But still, I went home and trimmed the moustache.
I suppose I'm flattered by the second comment.
But still, I went home and trimmed the moustache.
16 November 2009
Response to a response
I received a comment from Jon-Roy Sloan on a posting of mine which suggested that Congress enact an increase in the federal gasoline tax to encourage drivers to conserve fuel, and thereby mitigate several problems facing our nation. The original posting came almost a year ago, when gasoline prices had declined so far that an additional dollar per gallon would have left prices well below what they had been even a few months before. Since the comment goes far beyond that rather narrow topic, I thought it merited a separate discussion.
Here's Sloan's comment, in full, with its native grammatical blemishes:
Why do want the government to regulate every portion of our lives? Do you seriously believe what you are saying? You want government to take even more of my hard earned money and give a rebate to low-income earners? I worked hard, school, military, grad school, to get where I am and you want to take it away because you believe the sky is falling? The weatherman can't accurately predict the weather for more than 24 hours out, and they have only been able to that for the past 8-10 years and you expect me to believe in Al Gore. Apparently your not from Tennessee, there is a reason Tennesseans didn't vote for him in 2000, he is a LIAR and a CHEAT!
I find his comment of considerable interest, particularly because much of what he says isn't at all related to the posting. I'll take his comments point by point.
I was not advocating that government "regulate every portion of our lives." Indeed, quite the contrary. I feel very strongly, for instance, that government should not regulate private behavior which does not adversely affect the interests of other people. For instance, I favor the right of loving couples to marry, regardless of the race or gender(s) of the couple; I favor the right of people to hold and voice the political views they favor regardless of whether their views offend others or even call into question the political and economic policies of the nation at large, I favor the right of individuals to write and publish and read whatever they choose, and I favor the right of all of us to live free from bigotry regardless of our ethnicity, gender, religiosity, or sexual orientation. I may be making an enormously incorrect assumption about Sloan's ideology, but I wonder if he feels the same way?
Yes, I do seriously believe what I am saying. I would not have wanted to take the effort of writing if I didn't, and I think it does little for the sake of discourse to doubt the seriousness with which others propound their opinions.
I gather Sloan opposes the concept of either progressive taxation or government expenditures which do not favor the wealthy, or both. I disagree. The existence, let alone the growth, of substantial income disparities weakens the fibers holding our nation together, yet ever since the so-called "Reagan revolution" that is exactly what has been happening. Income disparities are at their greatest level since such records began to be kept over a century ago. I'm not going to go into the specifics here, as there is a lot of commentary and data supporting this assertion; highly readable collections of resources for those interested can be found in the writings of folks such as Paul Krugman and Robert Reich. Indeed, I should think that even the very wealthy would be concerned, lest the disparities spark such political turmoil as could threaten their own privileged position. Reduction of those disparities would be of common interest for this reason, if no other. But there are other reasons. A broader sharing of the nation's wealth would promote the national interest by stimulating productivity, encouraging growth, and building a richer, stronger and more cohesive nation. (You'll notice I say nothing here about the ethical implications of such disparities, but I would argue that they are of even greater moment.)
In reply to Sloan's specific complaint about using federal tax policy to transfer some of the wealth of the very affluent to the very poor, I would say "yes." We saw during the Bush years how ineffective and unjust tax policies were when they served to transfer tax burden to the working poor and lower middle class from the very wealthy, and how little those policies did to benefit the nation at large (and here I am being generous). It is time to reverse that trend, and restore some economic justice to our tax system. Frankly, for starters, I'd be happy to see it revert to the level of progressivity we saw during the Reagan years.
What I'm guessing that Sloan is missing here is any understanding of how more equitable federal tax and expenditure policy can benefit the nation at large. Higher education provides one of the most obvious examples, as expenditure and tax policies which make college more affordable for students from less affluent families not only expand the horizons of those students, but enrich the nation at large by increasing our national intellectual capital. Or take the issue that seems to stir Sloan's ire. Higher gasoline prices encourage Americans to use less fuel, either by eliminating unnecessary driving, driving more fuel efficient vehicles, using mass transit more, or biking and walking more. Each of these alternatives provide multiple benefits, among them being a reduction of American reliance on foreign oil (which benefits the economy and national security), reduction in air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (which benefits our health, environment, and ability to deal with environmental degradation) and our quality of life (by leading to better exercise, less traffic congestion), while simultaneously providing motivation for our automobile manufacturers to become more globally competitive.
Sloan doesn't like the idea of tax rebates for the working poor, but he is ignoring (or is blind to) a basic question of equity. The working poor are the people least able to upgrade their automobile choices to more modern fuel efficient vehicles, and are most likely to be stuck with older, less efficient cars. A tax intended to dissuade people from driving gas hogs hits them the hardest, but a rebate of the tax they paid can mitigate that impact, and do so in a very productive way by further encouraging them to switch to more fuel efficient transportation.
Sloan also misses a key aspect of a rebate: the rebate of gas taxes paid by poor consumers to those same consumers is not a transfer of tax revenues from the affluent driver Sloan seems to favor, but a return to the working poor of taxes the working poor have paid out of their own funds.
He also misses the sad fact that many of the working poor work hard too. They just don't have the advantages Sloan presumably has (e.g., college education, including a graduate education), so their hard work doesn't provide them with the income Sloan's hard work provides. That's testimony to a difference in opportunity, not in effort or virtue.
Despite his good education, Sloan then segues into an ignorant dismissal of issues relating to global warming, confusing the uncertainties of short-term weather forecasting with the causes, nature and consequences of global warming. And no, I don't expect Sloan to "believe in Al Gore" (whatever that means) but I do expect any educated and informed human being to be impressed by the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community regarding global warming, and to participate in a serious discussion of the issues rather than retreat into silly ad hominem attacks on a single individual, especially ones based on personal anger over matters totally unrelated to the topic nominally at issue.
Here's Sloan's comment, in full, with its native grammatical blemishes:
Why do want the government to regulate every portion of our lives? Do you seriously believe what you are saying? You want government to take even more of my hard earned money and give a rebate to low-income earners? I worked hard, school, military, grad school, to get where I am and you want to take it away because you believe the sky is falling? The weatherman can't accurately predict the weather for more than 24 hours out, and they have only been able to that for the past 8-10 years and you expect me to believe in Al Gore. Apparently your not from Tennessee, there is a reason Tennesseans didn't vote for him in 2000, he is a LIAR and a CHEAT!
I find his comment of considerable interest, particularly because much of what he says isn't at all related to the posting. I'll take his comments point by point.
I was not advocating that government "regulate every portion of our lives." Indeed, quite the contrary. I feel very strongly, for instance, that government should not regulate private behavior which does not adversely affect the interests of other people. For instance, I favor the right of loving couples to marry, regardless of the race or gender(s) of the couple; I favor the right of people to hold and voice the political views they favor regardless of whether their views offend others or even call into question the political and economic policies of the nation at large, I favor the right of individuals to write and publish and read whatever they choose, and I favor the right of all of us to live free from bigotry regardless of our ethnicity, gender, religiosity, or sexual orientation. I may be making an enormously incorrect assumption about Sloan's ideology, but I wonder if he feels the same way?
Yes, I do seriously believe what I am saying. I would not have wanted to take the effort of writing if I didn't, and I think it does little for the sake of discourse to doubt the seriousness with which others propound their opinions.
I gather Sloan opposes the concept of either progressive taxation or government expenditures which do not favor the wealthy, or both. I disagree. The existence, let alone the growth, of substantial income disparities weakens the fibers holding our nation together, yet ever since the so-called "Reagan revolution" that is exactly what has been happening. Income disparities are at their greatest level since such records began to be kept over a century ago. I'm not going to go into the specifics here, as there is a lot of commentary and data supporting this assertion; highly readable collections of resources for those interested can be found in the writings of folks such as Paul Krugman and Robert Reich. Indeed, I should think that even the very wealthy would be concerned, lest the disparities spark such political turmoil as could threaten their own privileged position. Reduction of those disparities would be of common interest for this reason, if no other. But there are other reasons. A broader sharing of the nation's wealth would promote the national interest by stimulating productivity, encouraging growth, and building a richer, stronger and more cohesive nation. (You'll notice I say nothing here about the ethical implications of such disparities, but I would argue that they are of even greater moment.)
In reply to Sloan's specific complaint about using federal tax policy to transfer some of the wealth of the very affluent to the very poor, I would say "yes." We saw during the Bush years how ineffective and unjust tax policies were when they served to transfer tax burden to the working poor and lower middle class from the very wealthy, and how little those policies did to benefit the nation at large (and here I am being generous). It is time to reverse that trend, and restore some economic justice to our tax system. Frankly, for starters, I'd be happy to see it revert to the level of progressivity we saw during the Reagan years.
What I'm guessing that Sloan is missing here is any understanding of how more equitable federal tax and expenditure policy can benefit the nation at large. Higher education provides one of the most obvious examples, as expenditure and tax policies which make college more affordable for students from less affluent families not only expand the horizons of those students, but enrich the nation at large by increasing our national intellectual capital. Or take the issue that seems to stir Sloan's ire. Higher gasoline prices encourage Americans to use less fuel, either by eliminating unnecessary driving, driving more fuel efficient vehicles, using mass transit more, or biking and walking more. Each of these alternatives provide multiple benefits, among them being a reduction of American reliance on foreign oil (which benefits the economy and national security), reduction in air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (which benefits our health, environment, and ability to deal with environmental degradation) and our quality of life (by leading to better exercise, less traffic congestion), while simultaneously providing motivation for our automobile manufacturers to become more globally competitive.
Sloan doesn't like the idea of tax rebates for the working poor, but he is ignoring (or is blind to) a basic question of equity. The working poor are the people least able to upgrade their automobile choices to more modern fuel efficient vehicles, and are most likely to be stuck with older, less efficient cars. A tax intended to dissuade people from driving gas hogs hits them the hardest, but a rebate of the tax they paid can mitigate that impact, and do so in a very productive way by further encouraging them to switch to more fuel efficient transportation.
Sloan also misses a key aspect of a rebate: the rebate of gas taxes paid by poor consumers to those same consumers is not a transfer of tax revenues from the affluent driver Sloan seems to favor, but a return to the working poor of taxes the working poor have paid out of their own funds.
He also misses the sad fact that many of the working poor work hard too. They just don't have the advantages Sloan presumably has (e.g., college education, including a graduate education), so their hard work doesn't provide them with the income Sloan's hard work provides. That's testimony to a difference in opportunity, not in effort or virtue.
Despite his good education, Sloan then segues into an ignorant dismissal of issues relating to global warming, confusing the uncertainties of short-term weather forecasting with the causes, nature and consequences of global warming. And no, I don't expect Sloan to "believe in Al Gore" (whatever that means) but I do expect any educated and informed human being to be impressed by the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community regarding global warming, and to participate in a serious discussion of the issues rather than retreat into silly ad hominem attacks on a single individual, especially ones based on personal anger over matters totally unrelated to the topic nominally at issue.
13 November 2009
The way it was
My cell phone died three weeks ago. Talked with Verizon - long story short, it doesn't make sense to get a new one until January 1. So I'm suddenly living back in 1 B.C. wondering how I can get in touch with this person or that company, or for same to get in touch with me. Not that I used it that much (he says defensively) but it's what I used.
I had fantasized about this moment ever since I got the thing, figuring that if it died I'd do fine. Would be liberating, even. Peaceful. Maybe even discontinue the service entirely.
Wrong.
Okay, maybe with time it could be. But then, maybe in time world peace will break out and hunger will be conquered.
I want my phone now!
I had fantasized about this moment ever since I got the thing, figuring that if it died I'd do fine. Would be liberating, even. Peaceful. Maybe even discontinue the service entirely.
Wrong.
Okay, maybe with time it could be. But then, maybe in time world peace will break out and hunger will be conquered.
I want my phone now!
09 November 2009
Ban them. Now.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who is struck by the tragic similarities between the murderous rampage at Ft. Hood last week, and the one at Virginia Tech last year. In both cases, innocent lives were shattered by unarticulated rage. In both cases, acts of courage, communities in shock, lingering questions about warning signs missed, of opportunities to stop the killer long before the killings occurred. And in both cases, calls for more effective ways of identifying and screening potential killers before their rage explodes.
But in both cases, there has been one glaring omission in the media coverage, in the cacophony of voices asking "how" and "why" on the morning after. Yes, it's appropriate to focus on the emotional demons that drove the murderer to kill. But shouldn't we be asking why we allow such deadly weapons to be available to them?
Both killers apparently used handguns guns capable of firing rapidly and often. And both of them appear to have legally acquired their murderous weapons. (In this most recent case, the alleged killer apparently bought an FN Herstal 5.7 mm. pistol at a local store called Guns Galore -- what a name! This particular model can handle a 30 round clip, and was unsuccessfully targeted for a federal ban in 2005.)
It should go without saying that they would have been far less effective killers if they did not have easy access to such weapons! Can anybody imagine that either killer would have been so murderously effective if he had been armed with a knife instead of a rapid-fire automatic?
This is crazy! We as a nation get all excited about killer spinach and tainted lettuce, but we freely allow our killers to buy guns. It is time -- way past time -- to stop this madness, reclaim the Second Amendment for the purpose the founders intended, and join the company of civilized nations which strictly control access to such deadly weapons.
But in both cases, there has been one glaring omission in the media coverage, in the cacophony of voices asking "how" and "why" on the morning after. Yes, it's appropriate to focus on the emotional demons that drove the murderer to kill. But shouldn't we be asking why we allow such deadly weapons to be available to them?
Both killers apparently used handguns guns capable of firing rapidly and often. And both of them appear to have legally acquired their murderous weapons. (In this most recent case, the alleged killer apparently bought an FN Herstal 5.7 mm. pistol at a local store called Guns Galore -- what a name! This particular model can handle a 30 round clip, and was unsuccessfully targeted for a federal ban in 2005.)
It should go without saying that they would have been far less effective killers if they did not have easy access to such weapons! Can anybody imagine that either killer would have been so murderously effective if he had been armed with a knife instead of a rapid-fire automatic?
This is crazy! We as a nation get all excited about killer spinach and tainted lettuce, but we freely allow our killers to buy guns. It is time -- way past time -- to stop this madness, reclaim the Second Amendment for the purpose the founders intended, and join the company of civilized nations which strictly control access to such deadly weapons.
08 November 2009
The owners are naked; I hope they freeze
A friend e-mailed me this morning to say she didn't understand why the Angels didn't play better defense in last night's American League Championship game.
Look to corporate baseball's greed, and their slavish deference to the Great God, Television.
Last night's game might be counted as an exciting game, but it wasn't a championship game -- not by any stretch of the imagination. And why? Because the game shouldn't have been played at all, and certainly shouldn't have been extended into the late innings. Infielders should never have to wear balaclavas ... especially when they interfere with their ability to hear a team-mate calling them on or off a pop-fly. Batters should never have to face inside fastballs when their hands are too cold to get around on a swing. Fielders should never lose a popfly because rain is lashing their eyes when they look up for the ball. Fielders should never have to take the time to make sure they're gripping the ball by the seams before throwing to make a close play. Pitchers should never have to forgo particular pitches because it's too cold for them to control the ball as well as they're able. It was cold, it was wet, and it was raining -- too cold, wet and rainy for baseball, but the game went on.
The question is, why did the game go on? Because it "had" to be played, and played to its finish. Baseball owners have tied their bank accounts to the dictates of television -- play on the date and times scheduled for the convenience of television, and players, fans and the very quality of the game be damned.
Angels' defense? How about the Yankees' defense? It wasn't just Izturis's error in the 13th; Jeter erred in the 8th, and Cano in the 13th. Beyond that, the play was sloppy on both sides. Why? Not because the players are sloppy players -- far from it! Those are championship-quality players, all of them. It was because of the rain, and the cold. That wasn't a championship game; it was a game of errors, sloppy defense, sloppy pitching, sloppy batting, and sloppy baserunning -- all because the game should never have been played in those conditions. Never.
Why not play in the afternoon, when it was marginally warmer? Because of television -- God forbid they should conflict with televised college football games. Why won't today's Dodgers/Phillies game be played in the afternoon, when it will be warmer? God forbid they should run afoul of NFL viewership!
And they'll be playing into November anyway. That's a travesty, especially if the World Series is between New York and Philadelphia -- not because I have anything against New York (okay, maybe I do) or Philadelphia, but because November in the northeast is much too late for baseball, especially night baseball. And not just the northeast -- look at the ridiculous conditions the Phillies and Rockies faced in Denver.
A radical proposal: baseball should be played in warm weather, or covered stadiums. I mean, why do we call them the "Boys of Summer"? Baseball should be played in dry conditions. There's a reason games used to be postponed because of rain. But no, you can't postpone a playoff game, or call it in mid-game to be continued on a better day, because television won't permit it.
In my estimation, no game should be played in rain, no game should be played in temperatures more appropriate to ice hockey, and no game should be played in November ... unless the World Series is permanently moved to Puerto Rico.
If baseball insists on early winter playoff games, they should all be scheduled in sun-belt cities, regardless of the teams involved. And if corporate baseball doesn't want to do that, they should shorten the season -- either by reducing the number of games or bringing back the old doubleheader ... but heaven forfend; they'd lose revenue!
I'm not upset at my friend for her question; I'm upset at baseball owners, and the media commentators who won't report the emperor's nudity.
Bah, humbug!
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 18 October 2009
Look to corporate baseball's greed, and their slavish deference to the Great God, Television.
Last night's game might be counted as an exciting game, but it wasn't a championship game -- not by any stretch of the imagination. And why? Because the game shouldn't have been played at all, and certainly shouldn't have been extended into the late innings. Infielders should never have to wear balaclavas ... especially when they interfere with their ability to hear a team-mate calling them on or off a pop-fly. Batters should never have to face inside fastballs when their hands are too cold to get around on a swing. Fielders should never lose a popfly because rain is lashing their eyes when they look up for the ball. Fielders should never have to take the time to make sure they're gripping the ball by the seams before throwing to make a close play. Pitchers should never have to forgo particular pitches because it's too cold for them to control the ball as well as they're able. It was cold, it was wet, and it was raining -- too cold, wet and rainy for baseball, but the game went on.
The question is, why did the game go on? Because it "had" to be played, and played to its finish. Baseball owners have tied their bank accounts to the dictates of television -- play on the date and times scheduled for the convenience of television, and players, fans and the very quality of the game be damned.
Angels' defense? How about the Yankees' defense? It wasn't just Izturis's error in the 13th; Jeter erred in the 8th, and Cano in the 13th. Beyond that, the play was sloppy on both sides. Why? Not because the players are sloppy players -- far from it! Those are championship-quality players, all of them. It was because of the rain, and the cold. That wasn't a championship game; it was a game of errors, sloppy defense, sloppy pitching, sloppy batting, and sloppy baserunning -- all because the game should never have been played in those conditions. Never.
Why not play in the afternoon, when it was marginally warmer? Because of television -- God forbid they should conflict with televised college football games. Why won't today's Dodgers/Phillies game be played in the afternoon, when it will be warmer? God forbid they should run afoul of NFL viewership!
And they'll be playing into November anyway. That's a travesty, especially if the World Series is between New York and Philadelphia -- not because I have anything against New York (okay, maybe I do) or Philadelphia, but because November in the northeast is much too late for baseball, especially night baseball. And not just the northeast -- look at the ridiculous conditions the Phillies and Rockies faced in Denver.
A radical proposal: baseball should be played in warm weather, or covered stadiums. I mean, why do we call them the "Boys of Summer"? Baseball should be played in dry conditions. There's a reason games used to be postponed because of rain. But no, you can't postpone a playoff game, or call it in mid-game to be continued on a better day, because television won't permit it.
In my estimation, no game should be played in rain, no game should be played in temperatures more appropriate to ice hockey, and no game should be played in November ... unless the World Series is permanently moved to Puerto Rico.
If baseball insists on early winter playoff games, they should all be scheduled in sun-belt cities, regardless of the teams involved. And if corporate baseball doesn't want to do that, they should shorten the season -- either by reducing the number of games or bringing back the old doubleheader ... but heaven forfend; they'd lose revenue!
I'm not upset at my friend for her question; I'm upset at baseball owners, and the media commentators who won't report the emperor's nudity.
Bah, humbug!
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 18 October 2009
Casey's bummed
Good news. The Orioles just officially announced that they traded their 27 year old ace, Eric Bedard, for 5 players.
Let's see, Bedard was 13-5 last year, with 221 strikeouts and a 3.16 ERA. Despite his shortened season, he tied Roy Halladay, Johan Santana and Justin Verlander in the Cy Young voting last year. Here's what they got for him:
George Sherrill, a pretty good 30 year-old reliever who went 2-0 with 3 saves and a 2.36 ERA for Seattle.
Adam Jones, a pretty good 22 year-old Class AAA minor league outfielder with a .314 average at Tacoma last year.
Chris Tillman, a 19 year-old Class A pitcher with a 4.84 ERA and a 7-11 record last year.
Kam Mickolio, a 23 year old minor league reliever with a 2.68 ERA at Class AA and AAA ball last year.
Tony Butler, a 20 year old minor league pitcher with a 4.75 ERA and a 4-7 record in Class A ball.
I'm impressed. Bet the Red Sox are worried.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 10 February 2008
Let's see, Bedard was 13-5 last year, with 221 strikeouts and a 3.16 ERA. Despite his shortened season, he tied Roy Halladay, Johan Santana and Justin Verlander in the Cy Young voting last year. Here's what they got for him:
George Sherrill, a pretty good 30 year-old reliever who went 2-0 with 3 saves and a 2.36 ERA for Seattle.
Adam Jones, a pretty good 22 year-old Class AAA minor league outfielder with a .314 average at Tacoma last year.
Chris Tillman, a 19 year-old Class A pitcher with a 4.84 ERA and a 7-11 record last year.
Kam Mickolio, a 23 year old minor league reliever with a 2.68 ERA at Class AA and AAA ball last year.
Tony Butler, a 20 year old minor league pitcher with a 4.75 ERA and a 4-7 record in Class A ball.
I'm impressed. Bet the Red Sox are worried.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 10 February 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
