A little back background, here.
I was reading a post (I think it was on the National Catholic Register) that mentioned that the latest Twilight flick (to call it a film is stretching it) was somewhat pro-life. One of the commenters on that article said she could never romanticize vampires after reading Bram Stoker's Dracula. Having never read it, I decided to see if I could find it on-line...I did at Literature.org. So I started it Sunday and finished it this morning.
I went through four years of honors level classes in high school and four years of college and never read Dracula. What a shame. I loved it. I loved it because it made me think. It is profoundly theological in its treatment of good and evil. It is profoundly social in it treatment of women. I can see why, unfortunately, it is not recommended fair for youngsters today.
I have a great many thoughts on the book, but this entry will focus on the character of the Vampire. There are six vampires that make an appearance is the text. All, save one, Dracula, have a similar characteristic: as they satiate their blood-lust, they become more and more beautiful. Stoker describes Lucy, who as she was dying, lost her beauty, but it seemed to regain itself after her death...only to be more pronounced when the vampire-Lucy was feeding on flesh: her lips become "voluptuous". Stoker describes the three female vampires that Jonathan Harker meets in the Castle Dracula as stunningly beautiful. None of these characters, however, can be romanticized: they exist to prey on the living, to feast on their blood, to kill them. They (well, at least Lucy does) entice young, innocent children into their confidence, and then prey on them. All of these female vampires had a more sensual, lusty beauty about them, as if to entice men into their snares. This is exactly what almost happened to Professor Van Helsing in the chapel of Castle Dracula: he was ensnared by the feminine beauty of the vampires, thinking that instead of destroying them, he should be protecting them. Had he delayed much longer, they would have been awoken by the sunset, and would have overpowered him.
While Dracula is not, shall we say, attractive, he is cunning, and like all evil, selfish and self-centered. This, I think, is the hallmark of evil. Consider the thought that Professor Van Helsing must put into Arthur before the confrontation with vampire-Lucy. In order to free Lucy, to allow her soul to fly into Heaven, Arthur must risk something. The thought is a self-less thought. Indeed, this is what makes the main, good characters good: their mission is to destroy Dracula in order to save Mina, but also to save others from falling into the same end. Theirs is a mission of self-sacrifice: they know that their fight risks death. Dracula's is a mission of self-indulgence: he knows that he will exist with or without his feasting on the blood of mortals, but he does so to keep him strong and powerful.
Reflecting on this then, we are shown the personification of evil in the characters of the vampires, Dracula first and foremost among them.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Why I am Catholic, Part I
Becoming Catholic is not like switching from Methodist to Christian Reformed. Despite percieved differences between Protestant groups, essentially, they all have the same underlying premise: it is the individual interpretation of Scripture that reigns supreme. When one finds that their interpretation is different from the group they frequent, they change groups, and generally, questions are not raised. The phrase "whatever floats your boat" comes to mind. More precisely, a quote from my mother is apt in expressing the Protestant mentality: "I'm glad you believe that so strongly, but that's not what I believe." That attitude doesn't fly when one becomes Catholic from another Christian group. For this reason, I'm embarking on a quest to explain my journey.
PART I: TRADITION
The human being is one of the only animals that is connected by a common, shared history. By that I mean that different groups of people are united in means apart from blood and necessity: they can communicate a shared history. For example, certain towns have traditions that connect the current residents with residents almost 100 years ago or more. Such traditions create a sense of community and solidarity with people long gone. Traditions could be such things as planned events (like county fairs), language (like certain words), or even architecture (common themes in certain buildings). One such example is the Passion Plays of Oberammergau, Germany (which were started during the 1350s, and still continue today). Tradition plays a huge role in our understanding of ourselves and our worldview. Tradition isn't just preserved in writings, it is preserved in actions, in buildings, in stories we tell our children, and in lessons we teach our children. When we break with our traditions, we lose not only our understanding of who and what we are, but we lose a bit of our identity in the process.
My parents would probably be shocked to know that my journey to the Catholic Church started in my confirmation class when I was in 8th grade. I've always loved history, and by that time, I was well aware that Christianity had existed for nearly 2000 years. We were taught the basics of the Methodist faith, that the two Wesley brothers and George Whitefield in the 1700s, and their focus was on a personal experience with Jesus. One thing caught my attention: Wesley and Whitefield were essentially breaking from an established tradition (the Anglican tradition). Of course, as a child of 14, this made sense, because the Anglican tradition wasn't exactly on fire with the Lord...at least not that I was aware of in my studies.
As I began to learn about the Reformation, it became apparent that there existed a tradition that was far older than any I was familiar with (Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, etc). In addition to that, one of my best friends in 8th grade was Orthodox (perhaps, more specifically, Coptic, seeing as his family was from Egypt), which I knew went back before the Middle Ages. Of course, I reasoned that this tradition must have been sick for new ones to form, but the complete abandonment of an ancient tradition (especially one that gave us such works of art as the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris, or the Sistene Chapel ceiling) didn't sit well with me.
My historical fascination has always been Europe from the fall of Rome to the onset of the Enlightenment. Because of that, I was forced to recognize the beauty that eminated from the Catholic tradition: the exquisite architecture of the great Cathedrals, the music of Monteverdi, Beethoven, Mozart, and Palestrina, the paintings of Leonardo da Vinci and all the art of Michelangelo. These great masterpieces didn't simply emerge out of nowhere. Michelangelo and da Vinci had visible signs of a tradition of beauty present in the great Cathedrals of Europe. There was also the intellectual tradition that eminated from the Church: Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, and Abelard all drew from the same wellspring. There were great moral figures that one could not ignore: Catherine of Sienna, Francis of Assisi and St. Benedict, whose lives helped shaped the fabric of all of Europe.
As my factual knowledge of European history grew, I could not deny that the Catholic Church existed before the Roman Empire fell. I could not deny that the sense of tradition that Augustine had for his forefathers in faith was the same that Aquinas had, because he used the same forefathers. I sensed an unbroken tradition that guided and shaped the course of Europe.
What struck me, in particular, was the tenacity with which the Church maintained that tradition. Sure, with all traditions, things gradually change over time, but with the Church it was different. Additional pious practices weren't simply added because they looked cool, or fit with some popular theology (to be fair, often popular practices emerged that could be considered dubious, but approved pious practices weren't added willy-nilly). Tradition was always a guide. To me, the Church, by insisting on using tradition as a guide, existed Universally: it would be the essentially the same in 500AD as it would in 1500AD, uniting all peoples, past, present, and future into One Faith.
The true breaking point, at least on the issue of tradition, was an essay I was writing for my Sophomore History class whilst in college. My professor posed the question: "Should there be a single interpreter for Scripture?" I struggled to answer that question. Initially, my response was a strong and resounding "NO!!" To stay on point, I will steer clear of my rationale, and illuminate ONE reason why I could not, in good conscience, turn that paper in (after all, at the end of my first draft, I found myself believing the affirmative, while answering in the negative): Tradition, with a capital T.
Up to this point, I have talked about tradition with a t, not Tradition with a T. I will summarize the difference: Tradition is that entire body of faith (doctrine and dogma) passed down from Christ to the Apostles, and through the Apostles and their successors, the rest of the world; tradition refers to the practices and belief structures (discipline) that have been maintained. Essentially, Tradition is the basis of tradition, and for this reason tradition is not easily thrown aside.
At some point in my attempt to answer the posed question in the negative, it dawned on me that the Catholic Church possessed an on-going understanding of Scripture, dating from before the time of Augustine (OK, confession time: at this point in my life, I was not ready to admit that the Catholic Church existed at the time of Pentacost...in fact, I had never really given it much thought. To me, Christian tradition essentially began with Augustine, essentially because he was the most well known Christian Father in my circle of acquaintances and family, so to say that there was a tradition dating from the time of Augustine is REALLY big). Above, I mentioned that to lose sight of tradition, to break with tradition is to lose sight of who we really are. As I struggled to vehemently oppose some tyrannical oppression of free-thought by wrong-headed Catholic Church, the importance of tradition (and by extension, Tradition) overwhelmed me. The Catholic Church possessed an ancient Tradition that brought with it wisdom and knowledge that individuals, on their own, lack. I knew that the great Christian thinkers I admired during this period, Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas were part of the Catholic hierarchy (Augustine and Anselm were bishops, whilst Aquinas was a priest), an thus part of that Tradition.
At the end of this particular academic exercise, the essential groundwork for my acceptance of Christ's Church had been laid. Truly the Holy Spirit works in amazing ways.
PART I: TRADITION
The human being is one of the only animals that is connected by a common, shared history. By that I mean that different groups of people are united in means apart from blood and necessity: they can communicate a shared history. For example, certain towns have traditions that connect the current residents with residents almost 100 years ago or more. Such traditions create a sense of community and solidarity with people long gone. Traditions could be such things as planned events (like county fairs), language (like certain words), or even architecture (common themes in certain buildings). One such example is the Passion Plays of Oberammergau, Germany (which were started during the 1350s, and still continue today). Tradition plays a huge role in our understanding of ourselves and our worldview. Tradition isn't just preserved in writings, it is preserved in actions, in buildings, in stories we tell our children, and in lessons we teach our children. When we break with our traditions, we lose not only our understanding of who and what we are, but we lose a bit of our identity in the process.
My parents would probably be shocked to know that my journey to the Catholic Church started in my confirmation class when I was in 8th grade. I've always loved history, and by that time, I was well aware that Christianity had existed for nearly 2000 years. We were taught the basics of the Methodist faith, that the two Wesley brothers and George Whitefield in the 1700s, and their focus was on a personal experience with Jesus. One thing caught my attention: Wesley and Whitefield were essentially breaking from an established tradition (the Anglican tradition). Of course, as a child of 14, this made sense, because the Anglican tradition wasn't exactly on fire with the Lord...at least not that I was aware of in my studies.
As I began to learn about the Reformation, it became apparent that there existed a tradition that was far older than any I was familiar with (Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, etc). In addition to that, one of my best friends in 8th grade was Orthodox (perhaps, more specifically, Coptic, seeing as his family was from Egypt), which I knew went back before the Middle Ages. Of course, I reasoned that this tradition must have been sick for new ones to form, but the complete abandonment of an ancient tradition (especially one that gave us such works of art as the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris, or the Sistene Chapel ceiling) didn't sit well with me.
My historical fascination has always been Europe from the fall of Rome to the onset of the Enlightenment. Because of that, I was forced to recognize the beauty that eminated from the Catholic tradition: the exquisite architecture of the great Cathedrals, the music of Monteverdi, Beethoven, Mozart, and Palestrina, the paintings of Leonardo da Vinci and all the art of Michelangelo. These great masterpieces didn't simply emerge out of nowhere. Michelangelo and da Vinci had visible signs of a tradition of beauty present in the great Cathedrals of Europe. There was also the intellectual tradition that eminated from the Church: Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, and Abelard all drew from the same wellspring. There were great moral figures that one could not ignore: Catherine of Sienna, Francis of Assisi and St. Benedict, whose lives helped shaped the fabric of all of Europe.
As my factual knowledge of European history grew, I could not deny that the Catholic Church existed before the Roman Empire fell. I could not deny that the sense of tradition that Augustine had for his forefathers in faith was the same that Aquinas had, because he used the same forefathers. I sensed an unbroken tradition that guided and shaped the course of Europe.
What struck me, in particular, was the tenacity with which the Church maintained that tradition. Sure, with all traditions, things gradually change over time, but with the Church it was different. Additional pious practices weren't simply added because they looked cool, or fit with some popular theology (to be fair, often popular practices emerged that could be considered dubious, but approved pious practices weren't added willy-nilly). Tradition was always a guide. To me, the Church, by insisting on using tradition as a guide, existed Universally: it would be the essentially the same in 500AD as it would in 1500AD, uniting all peoples, past, present, and future into One Faith.
The true breaking point, at least on the issue of tradition, was an essay I was writing for my Sophomore History class whilst in college. My professor posed the question: "Should there be a single interpreter for Scripture?" I struggled to answer that question. Initially, my response was a strong and resounding "NO!!" To stay on point, I will steer clear of my rationale, and illuminate ONE reason why I could not, in good conscience, turn that paper in (after all, at the end of my first draft, I found myself believing the affirmative, while answering in the negative): Tradition, with a capital T.
Up to this point, I have talked about tradition with a t, not Tradition with a T. I will summarize the difference: Tradition is that entire body of faith (doctrine and dogma) passed down from Christ to the Apostles, and through the Apostles and their successors, the rest of the world; tradition refers to the practices and belief structures (discipline) that have been maintained. Essentially, Tradition is the basis of tradition, and for this reason tradition is not easily thrown aside.
At some point in my attempt to answer the posed question in the negative, it dawned on me that the Catholic Church possessed an on-going understanding of Scripture, dating from before the time of Augustine (OK, confession time: at this point in my life, I was not ready to admit that the Catholic Church existed at the time of Pentacost...in fact, I had never really given it much thought. To me, Christian tradition essentially began with Augustine, essentially because he was the most well known Christian Father in my circle of acquaintances and family, so to say that there was a tradition dating from the time of Augustine is REALLY big). Above, I mentioned that to lose sight of tradition, to break with tradition is to lose sight of who we really are. As I struggled to vehemently oppose some tyrannical oppression of free-thought by wrong-headed Catholic Church, the importance of tradition (and by extension, Tradition) overwhelmed me. The Catholic Church possessed an ancient Tradition that brought with it wisdom and knowledge that individuals, on their own, lack. I knew that the great Christian thinkers I admired during this period, Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas were part of the Catholic hierarchy (Augustine and Anselm were bishops, whilst Aquinas was a priest), an thus part of that Tradition.
At the end of this particular academic exercise, the essential groundwork for my acceptance of Christ's Church had been laid. Truly the Holy Spirit works in amazing ways.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Living Biblically: My reflections
I just finished AJ Jacobs' The Year of Living Biblically. To summarize, Jacobs embarks on one of his wierd quests (he read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica in a year for a book), in this case, living how the Bible asks you to...literally. Jacobs is self-proclaimed agnostic Jew. He is secular, and only kind of celebrates his Jewish heritage. He is unfamiliar with the Bible when he starts off (in fact, the Bible he starts reading is his ex-girlfriends'; he doesn't even own one).
Here are my reflections/reactions to the book:
1) It was an enjoyable read, and entertaining...not a waste of my time.
2) It reinforced my opinion on sola scriptura that I made over at RottinApologist:
"Even more personally, however, infallibility is an affront to people's pride and their own arrogance. The United States is inherently a Protestant nation. The entire ethic of "rugged individualism" is based on the Protestant idea of individual interpretation of Scripture. We relish that, we thrive off that, we LOVE that. It gives us POWER, puts US in control."
It is clear, at least to me, that while Jacobs followed the letter of the Bible, it was only because he had to. Essentially, however, he rejected what tradition says about certain passages...because more "modern" interpretations fit his own percieved construct. For example, despite the immense volume of what Jewish and Christian Tradition says about the passages in the Bible about homosexuality (namely that homosexuality is a grave offense against God), Jacobs rejects them in favor of a more modern interpretation. He does the same thing with abortion (despite the fact that Jewish and Christian tradition clearly condemn abortion universally). Such facts are uncomfortable.
3) Jacobs never once mentioned talking to a Catholic or Orthodox cleric for his mission. Instead, the catholics he referrenced were (Fr) Richard McBrien and ex-nun Karen Armstrong. Calling them "heretical" would be an understatement.
4) Jacobs makes a very good point: religious belief frees us from the slavery of too many behavioral choices. At first, Jacobs likes that freedom. However, when it runs contrary to his secular beliefs, he is ready to backtrack on a dime.
Here are my reflections/reactions to the book:
1) It was an enjoyable read, and entertaining...not a waste of my time.
2) It reinforced my opinion on sola scriptura that I made over at RottinApologist:
"Even more personally, however, infallibility is an affront to people's pride and their own arrogance. The United States is inherently a Protestant nation. The entire ethic of "rugged individualism" is based on the Protestant idea of individual interpretation of Scripture. We relish that, we thrive off that, we LOVE that. It gives us POWER, puts US in control."
It is clear, at least to me, that while Jacobs followed the letter of the Bible, it was only because he had to. Essentially, however, he rejected what tradition says about certain passages...because more "modern" interpretations fit his own percieved construct. For example, despite the immense volume of what Jewish and Christian Tradition says about the passages in the Bible about homosexuality (namely that homosexuality is a grave offense against God), Jacobs rejects them in favor of a more modern interpretation. He does the same thing with abortion (despite the fact that Jewish and Christian tradition clearly condemn abortion universally). Such facts are uncomfortable.
3) Jacobs never once mentioned talking to a Catholic or Orthodox cleric for his mission. Instead, the catholics he referrenced were (Fr) Richard McBrien and ex-nun Karen Armstrong. Calling them "heretical" would be an understatement.
4) Jacobs makes a very good point: religious belief frees us from the slavery of too many behavioral choices. At first, Jacobs likes that freedom. However, when it runs contrary to his secular beliefs, he is ready to backtrack on a dime.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Unions and Catholic Social Teaching
In reading Bl. John Paul II's Centesimus annus, I came across a rather interesting statement: "Here we find the reason for the Church's defence and approval of the establishment of what are commonly called trade unions: certainly not because of ideological prejudices or in order to surrender to a class mentality, but because the righ of association is a natural right of the human being, which therefore proceeds his or her incorporation into political society. Indeed, the formation of unions "cannot...be prohibited by the State", because "the State is bound to protect natural rights, not to destroy them; and if it forbids its citizens to form associations, it contradicts the very principle of its own existence (Rerum novarum, 135)." (Centesimus annus, 7)
Why does the Church support trade unions or labor unions? Not because of their goals or what they are trying to accomplish. No, the Church supports simply their right to exist, because all humans have an inalienable right to form associations. In fact, Bl. John Paul II recognizes a fact it seems that many progressive Catholics conveniently ignore: "Later on, this movement [the labor movement] was dominated to a certain extent by the Marxist ideology against which Rerum novarum had spoken." This can be seen by the Goethe movement, as well as labor unions in the US, many of which are still overtly Marxist. Despite the evil these unions support (make no mistake, the Church has consipicuously stated that Marxism and Socialism are evil), the Church supports their existence because it is the right of their members to form such an association.
My conclusion: you don't have to support unions to be a disciple of the Social Teaching of the Church.
Why does the Church support trade unions or labor unions? Not because of their goals or what they are trying to accomplish. No, the Church supports simply their right to exist, because all humans have an inalienable right to form associations. In fact, Bl. John Paul II recognizes a fact it seems that many progressive Catholics conveniently ignore: "Later on, this movement [the labor movement] was dominated to a certain extent by the Marxist ideology against which Rerum novarum had spoken." This can be seen by the Goethe movement, as well as labor unions in the US, many of which are still overtly Marxist. Despite the evil these unions support (make no mistake, the Church has consipicuously stated that Marxism and Socialism are evil), the Church supports their existence because it is the right of their members to form such an association.
My conclusion: you don't have to support unions to be a disciple of the Social Teaching of the Church.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Catholic Social Teaching and the Welfare State
Found in Centesimus annus 48:
"Excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again, the principal of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activityies of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.
By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their cints, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and sarisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbors to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human mind."
"Excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again, the principal of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activityies of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.
By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their cints, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and sarisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbors to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human mind."
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Food, Human Nature, and Sex
A few months ago, I embarked on an exercise plan that focused on weight-training. In order to maximize the effects of the exercise, I have tried to eat more and more properly. I sought out advice from trusted exercise-nutrition sources and books, and was actually surprised by what I was reading.
To summarize, it is obvious that the human body is designed to consume animal products like raw milk, meat, and eggs. In addition, the human body is also designed to consume vegetables and fruits (mostly vegetables). What is becoming more clear is that the human body struggles with consuming too many grains (of which our government wants us to consume 7-10 servings a day!!). So, while our body can handle significant portions of animal products, we are told to limit animal products because they are "high in fat". In the meantime, even though too many grains cause our bodies many problems (not the least of these obesity), we are told a "healthy" diet is eating more grains than anything else.
In terms of anatomy and physiology, there are three macro-nutrients: carbohydrates (which provide energy in the form of the simple sugar glucose), proteins (which are responsible for cell-building), and fats (which help viscosity between organs, muscles and other soft tissues, and stores excess energy). Of the three, one is deitarily dispensible: carbohydrates. The body can break down proteins and fats into glucose, if there are no carbohydrates available. Sources of protein and fats are usually high in other nutrients that the body needs, while most available sources of carbohydrates lack essential nutrients (this is why we have "enriched" flour). Thus, an individual that consumes only fats and proteins with a significant amoung of vegetables, can be quite healthy and meet all their dietary needs.
Here we have "science" competing against itself. On the one hand, the local health-food store will rail against animal products and saturated fats and the like, but on the other, will admit that animal protein is the most complete and most readily used by the human body. Similarly, on the one hand, certain groups (okay, the breakfast cereal industry) decry eggs as heart-unhealthy, and deadly, while others will acknowledge that while eggs are high in cholesterol, it is not all bad cholesterol and eggs do have a significant amount of good cholesterol (HDL), thus making eggs a healthy choice.
I have never been known as a "health food junkie". Sure, both my parents (well, my mom actually), and my wife's parents cooked at the least low-fat foods regularly (my wife's parents more so than mine). In college, I wasn't as particular as I could have been, but I wasn't bad by any means. As a married man, and as a father, money constraints more than anything have limited not only what I ate but how much of it as well. Still, I have had my issues with food choices. I can say with complete honesty that I have made excuses for my proclivities, using whatever research or study or whatever to ensure that I could continue my chosen path for no other reason than I liked eating the foods I was eating. When I realized what I was doing, inspite of what it was doing to my health, I was able to see the following very clearly.
The situation is a simple one: we, as human beings, are gifted with an intellect, and FREE WILL. We choose to eat what we want, in light of (or inspite of) what our bodies are telling we can and cannot eat. We will even attach ourselves to eating styles/preferences that we know aren't really good for us, but man do they taste good. On the converse, we will attach ourselves to a movement which rejects anything stated to the contrary and is illogical, simply because we want it to be true (or we like the company we keep with others who believe the same thing).
This is a consequence of a human's innate FREE WILL and intellect. We are able choose our own actions, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. We are free to reject that which is good for that which is ill. We will defend our actions because we chose to do them, even when such a defense is illogical, false, or delusional.
Just has humans refuse to listen to their bodies when it comes to food, they will refuse to listen to their bodies when it comes to sex. Humans aren't born eating. They have to learn how to eat (babies learn how to nurse from their mothers...they don't just do it). As they get older, they choose when to eat, what to eat, and how much of it to eat. Eating becomes a matter of the will, and is subject to it. No man is going to eat that which he has decided he will not, nor is any man going to put down that which he has decided he doesn't want to. The same is true with sex. Sexual intercourse is a matter of the will, not instinct. Human beings consciously choose when and with whom to engage in intercourse.
In the world of human anatomy and physiology, the primary function of the sexual organs and their peripheral support systems is reproduction, which can only be done between a man and a woman. For men, climax is (normally) the release of sperm, which contain his half of the genetic code, hopefully to be united with an egg from the woman he is supposed to be with. For women, the stages of sexual arousal create a situation within her body to allow the man to enter easily and for most of the sperm to stay inside and increase the chances of her egg (if there is one) being fertilized. Climax for her actually creates a uterine situation that would push the sperm up further. At the same time, the body releases certain chemicals during climax for men and women that create a sort of chemical bond between the person they are with during their sexual experience. Sex, then is geared to procreating AND unifying the couple doing the procreating (seems like an ingenious way of getting the child's parents to stay together). Worth noting,though, is that not all sexual climaxes are pleasurable, so pleasure has nothing at all to do with the nature of sex. Climax, not pleasure, produces the "chemical bond" between partners, which is stronger than pleasuer. It doesn't matter who the person is with, why they are together, or what they do, the above is true regardless. All sexual acts have the same physiological goals: reproduction and unity.
Science, again, is competing against itself. On the one hand, many scientists want to say that a sexually liberated attitude is perfectly healthy. On the other, some psychologists are noticing a disturbing trend in depression and suicide rates among women who sleep around. Again, many scientists urge that homosexual relationships are normal and perfectly healthy. Yet, it is well known and documented that active homosexuals have more health problems, do not live as long, and have higher suicide and depression rates than their heterosexual counterparts.
Just like the situation with food, the situation is simple: humans are gifted with FREE WILL. It is this FREE WILL that allows us to engage is sex with whomever we want, when we want, why we want to. Like our apettite for food, we will often reject what we know to be true because it feels good for us. Like many people simply refuse to acknowledge that their dietary choices are influencing their health problems, many people also refuse to acknowledge their sexual choices are likewise detrimental. In ways similar to dietary partisans, sexual partisans will reject any and all facts that disprove their chosen appetite.
To summarize, it is obvious that the human body is designed to consume animal products like raw milk, meat, and eggs. In addition, the human body is also designed to consume vegetables and fruits (mostly vegetables). What is becoming more clear is that the human body struggles with consuming too many grains (of which our government wants us to consume 7-10 servings a day!!). So, while our body can handle significant portions of animal products, we are told to limit animal products because they are "high in fat". In the meantime, even though too many grains cause our bodies many problems (not the least of these obesity), we are told a "healthy" diet is eating more grains than anything else.
In terms of anatomy and physiology, there are three macro-nutrients: carbohydrates (which provide energy in the form of the simple sugar glucose), proteins (which are responsible for cell-building), and fats (which help viscosity between organs, muscles and other soft tissues, and stores excess energy). Of the three, one is deitarily dispensible: carbohydrates. The body can break down proteins and fats into glucose, if there are no carbohydrates available. Sources of protein and fats are usually high in other nutrients that the body needs, while most available sources of carbohydrates lack essential nutrients (this is why we have "enriched" flour). Thus, an individual that consumes only fats and proteins with a significant amoung of vegetables, can be quite healthy and meet all their dietary needs.
Here we have "science" competing against itself. On the one hand, the local health-food store will rail against animal products and saturated fats and the like, but on the other, will admit that animal protein is the most complete and most readily used by the human body. Similarly, on the one hand, certain groups (okay, the breakfast cereal industry) decry eggs as heart-unhealthy, and deadly, while others will acknowledge that while eggs are high in cholesterol, it is not all bad cholesterol and eggs do have a significant amount of good cholesterol (HDL), thus making eggs a healthy choice.
I have never been known as a "health food junkie". Sure, both my parents (well, my mom actually), and my wife's parents cooked at the least low-fat foods regularly (my wife's parents more so than mine). In college, I wasn't as particular as I could have been, but I wasn't bad by any means. As a married man, and as a father, money constraints more than anything have limited not only what I ate but how much of it as well. Still, I have had my issues with food choices. I can say with complete honesty that I have made excuses for my proclivities, using whatever research or study or whatever to ensure that I could continue my chosen path for no other reason than I liked eating the foods I was eating. When I realized what I was doing, inspite of what it was doing to my health, I was able to see the following very clearly.
The situation is a simple one: we, as human beings, are gifted with an intellect, and FREE WILL. We choose to eat what we want, in light of (or inspite of) what our bodies are telling we can and cannot eat. We will even attach ourselves to eating styles/preferences that we know aren't really good for us, but man do they taste good. On the converse, we will attach ourselves to a movement which rejects anything stated to the contrary and is illogical, simply because we want it to be true (or we like the company we keep with others who believe the same thing).
This is a consequence of a human's innate FREE WILL and intellect. We are able choose our own actions, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. We are free to reject that which is good for that which is ill. We will defend our actions because we chose to do them, even when such a defense is illogical, false, or delusional.
Just has humans refuse to listen to their bodies when it comes to food, they will refuse to listen to their bodies when it comes to sex. Humans aren't born eating. They have to learn how to eat (babies learn how to nurse from their mothers...they don't just do it). As they get older, they choose when to eat, what to eat, and how much of it to eat. Eating becomes a matter of the will, and is subject to it. No man is going to eat that which he has decided he will not, nor is any man going to put down that which he has decided he doesn't want to. The same is true with sex. Sexual intercourse is a matter of the will, not instinct. Human beings consciously choose when and with whom to engage in intercourse.
In the world of human anatomy and physiology, the primary function of the sexual organs and their peripheral support systems is reproduction, which can only be done between a man and a woman. For men, climax is (normally) the release of sperm, which contain his half of the genetic code, hopefully to be united with an egg from the woman he is supposed to be with. For women, the stages of sexual arousal create a situation within her body to allow the man to enter easily and for most of the sperm to stay inside and increase the chances of her egg (if there is one) being fertilized. Climax for her actually creates a uterine situation that would push the sperm up further. At the same time, the body releases certain chemicals during climax for men and women that create a sort of chemical bond between the person they are with during their sexual experience. Sex, then is geared to procreating AND unifying the couple doing the procreating (seems like an ingenious way of getting the child's parents to stay together). Worth noting,though, is that not all sexual climaxes are pleasurable, so pleasure has nothing at all to do with the nature of sex. Climax, not pleasure, produces the "chemical bond" between partners, which is stronger than pleasuer. It doesn't matter who the person is with, why they are together, or what they do, the above is true regardless. All sexual acts have the same physiological goals: reproduction and unity.
Science, again, is competing against itself. On the one hand, many scientists want to say that a sexually liberated attitude is perfectly healthy. On the other, some psychologists are noticing a disturbing trend in depression and suicide rates among women who sleep around. Again, many scientists urge that homosexual relationships are normal and perfectly healthy. Yet, it is well known and documented that active homosexuals have more health problems, do not live as long, and have higher suicide and depression rates than their heterosexual counterparts.
Just like the situation with food, the situation is simple: humans are gifted with FREE WILL. It is this FREE WILL that allows us to engage is sex with whomever we want, when we want, why we want to. Like our apettite for food, we will often reject what we know to be true because it feels good for us. Like many people simply refuse to acknowledge that their dietary choices are influencing their health problems, many people also refuse to acknowledge their sexual choices are likewise detrimental. In ways similar to dietary partisans, sexual partisans will reject any and all facts that disprove their chosen appetite.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
New Interest in Adam Smith
I was directed, a while back, to an article that discussed Pope Benedict's views on economics. It touched on Catholic social teaching, and was interesting to read. What struck me, though, was a commenter's rather uninformed quip that equated Adam Smith with modern capitalism. This quip can be forgiven, though, because most school textbooks call Smith the father of capitalism, and summarize his famous Wealth of Nations as basically calling for capitalism.
As I was reading this, a thought came to my mind: how does the Catholic social teaching compare with the writing of Adam Smith? I decided to undertake a rather daunting task: read Wealth of Nations and compare it with Magesterial writings based on and including Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical Rerum novarum.
As I was reading this, a thought came to my mind: how does the Catholic social teaching compare with the writing of Adam Smith? I decided to undertake a rather daunting task: read Wealth of Nations and compare it with Magesterial writings based on and including Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical Rerum novarum.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Confessions
I have recently been in a conversation with a coworker that has me thinking. I will post about the actual conversation piece over at RottinApologist, but I reflect on myself here.
I don't really know the true end result of this two day conversation. Suffice to say, this coworker, we'll call him "Chip", was baptized Catholic and lapsed over time, eventually being rebaptized LDS (but is currently not practicing). The conversation started when I said I was going to begin my reading. He asked if I had any entertainment software on my computer and I said "No, but that is okay, because for so many years, I've fallen behind on my reading." Then he wondered what my book was...I tried to give him a brief summary of how Eamon Duffy's Stripping of the Altars was a look at Catholicism in England prior to the Reformation. "Chip" wondered what I meant by Reformation, and by trying to explain that, I needed to explain a great deal about Catholicism. When "Chip" left today, he was interested in finding a priest, making a good confession, and getting confirmed.
I looked back on some past email, and I stumbled upon a correspondence with my father. I reflected on my tone and my attitude in that correspondence with the tone and attitude that was exhibited these past two days. I also reflected on my tone since embarking on my seeming obsession with learning more and more about the Catholic Faith. Since I stumbled on apologetics, and began learning more and more, I have had a passion to teach people what I have learned. Sometimes this "teaching" simply restating it to my wife...who while interested at first, conveniently would "forget to listen". Often I would find myself arrogantly starting arguments...knowing that I had answers (or better yet questions that revealed inconsistent answers). I was hoping that my "teaching" would plant seeds that would sprout interest, which would germinate into conversion.
I was mostly foolish, boorish, and arrogant. I see that now, because when "Chip" and I started this conversation, I wasn't out to prove anything or convert anyone...I was simply carrying out an act of spiritual mercy: informing the ignorant. I was trying to explain the Catholic Church with passion, with fervor, yet with compassion and not being pushy about it. It wasn't about me, it was about "Chip". He needed to learn, he needed to know this. Somehow, I knew that. Heck, I even bit my tongue when I could easily have butted in and skewered his poorly formed personal theologies...something I had done to people in the past...all because it was about him seeing the Truth, not me being right.
As a result of this two-day long discussion, I would like to state that I know full well that I can be boorish, pushy, persistant, arrogant, and inconsiderate. While I have always been that way, so much so that people have said I inherited those traits, I must apologize to all whom I have done this to. It is uncharitable and arrogant of me to do this. It is also a poor reflection upon God's Holy Church. I am truly sorry for those moments.
I don't really know the true end result of this two day conversation. Suffice to say, this coworker, we'll call him "Chip", was baptized Catholic and lapsed over time, eventually being rebaptized LDS (but is currently not practicing). The conversation started when I said I was going to begin my reading. He asked if I had any entertainment software on my computer and I said "No, but that is okay, because for so many years, I've fallen behind on my reading." Then he wondered what my book was...I tried to give him a brief summary of how Eamon Duffy's Stripping of the Altars was a look at Catholicism in England prior to the Reformation. "Chip" wondered what I meant by Reformation, and by trying to explain that, I needed to explain a great deal about Catholicism. When "Chip" left today, he was interested in finding a priest, making a good confession, and getting confirmed.
I looked back on some past email, and I stumbled upon a correspondence with my father. I reflected on my tone and my attitude in that correspondence with the tone and attitude that was exhibited these past two days. I also reflected on my tone since embarking on my seeming obsession with learning more and more about the Catholic Faith. Since I stumbled on apologetics, and began learning more and more, I have had a passion to teach people what I have learned. Sometimes this "teaching" simply restating it to my wife...who while interested at first, conveniently would "forget to listen". Often I would find myself arrogantly starting arguments...knowing that I had answers (or better yet questions that revealed inconsistent answers). I was hoping that my "teaching" would plant seeds that would sprout interest, which would germinate into conversion.
I was mostly foolish, boorish, and arrogant. I see that now, because when "Chip" and I started this conversation, I wasn't out to prove anything or convert anyone...I was simply carrying out an act of spiritual mercy: informing the ignorant. I was trying to explain the Catholic Church with passion, with fervor, yet with compassion and not being pushy about it. It wasn't about me, it was about "Chip". He needed to learn, he needed to know this. Somehow, I knew that. Heck, I even bit my tongue when I could easily have butted in and skewered his poorly formed personal theologies...something I had done to people in the past...all because it was about him seeing the Truth, not me being right.
As a result of this two-day long discussion, I would like to state that I know full well that I can be boorish, pushy, persistant, arrogant, and inconsiderate. While I have always been that way, so much so that people have said I inherited those traits, I must apologize to all whom I have done this to. It is uncharitable and arrogant of me to do this. It is also a poor reflection upon God's Holy Church. I am truly sorry for those moments.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Astounding thoughts from the 1400s...
I have been reading Eamon Duffy's pseudo-classic The Stripping of the Altars, which discusses "Traditional Religion in England 1400-1580". It is rife with some pretty amazing things concerning the Christian faith in England. For one, Duffy paints a picture of a populace, rich and poor, gentry and serf, that is relatively well-educated theologically. One thing is for sure, Catholicism in England's heartland was in no need of Reformation prior to Henry VIII's desire to legally have an heir with a woman not his wife. That, however, is not the "astounding thoughts" I am referring to.
Astounding Thought Number 1: Catholics didn't actually believe they were saved by works in any way shape or form...
I will admit that I have long thought that the Church in the early 1500s had some definite need for change. I used to say, and adamantly believe, that while the Church never taught salvation by works officially, that is what the people believed. Boy was I wrong. While the people may have striven to do good and avoid evil, and while the people may have correctly believed that works are a part of salvation (see James 2), to think that works=salvation is a huge myth...at least in England. Consider the preamble of a will from the century before the Reformation: "Lord I put the deth of oure lord Ihesu Crist betwene me and myn evil dedes, betwene me and thi Iugement", or what of Sir Roger Townsend (a successful lawyer who died in 1492), who was "besechyng him for the merytes of his bitter and gloriouse passion to have mercy oon me and to take me into his mercy which is above all workes..." Far from being rare among people's wills, this was the norm: to beseech God to consider the Cross of Christ when judging the person's works. For many, according to Duffy, the Crucifix was a huge consolation at the deathbed, for it helped remind them of Christ's Sacrifice, and warded off those dangerous thoughts that they were too great a sinner to be saved. This was far from being rare...this was the norm. In fact, instruction books for the clergy emphasized this, and the primers that the people used for private devotion (written in English and Latin in many cases), emphasized it as well. But what of the people who couldn't read, or couldn't afford a primer? Where did they learn it? From the Mass and the Liturgical Calendar, which focused on the Saving and Redeeming Sacrifice of Christ.
Astounding Thought Number 2: Parishes exhibited a sense of the Communion of Saints and Cloud of Witnesses through the charity of prayer for the dead...
People in the 1400s and 1500s were not all that different from people today: we all are afraid of being forgotten after we die. Many today attempt to build their legacy, to create some kind of memorable thing for them when they die: a charitable organization, some indellible mark on history, some major social or economic work, perhaps a physical monument, whatever. In Fifteen Century England, it was through requests for prayers for the deceased person's soul. See, despite the fact that we want to believe that all Christians are going to heaven, we seriously can't say that for sure. Jesus says in Matthew "Not everyone who says 'Lord! Lord!' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven." People then really understood that, and so petitioned God that in His Mercy, He would substitute the death of His Son for the soul of the deceased. In addition, Scripture says in Revelation that nothing impure will enter Heaven (and seriously, how can it? I mean to enter into the Presence, the Pure and Perfect, stainless, sinless, Presence of the Almighty is too awesome to consider, and you want to say that somehow we can do so with the stain of sin on our souls?), and seeing as we die with sin on our souls, we must be purified of the sin after death. The people would pray that the soul of the deceased would quickly be purged and enter into the Presence.
What does this have to do with the Communion of Saints and Cloud of Witnesses? Well, it was common for each parish to keep a "bede-roll", which contained the names of each and every person who ever donated time, money, goods, or talents to the parish. This bede-roll was read each and every Sunday and on Holy Days throughout the year. Thus, each and every donor/volunteer was remembered each week and their souls were prayed for each week as well. It was a principle way for the parish to remember its dead. However, Duffy explains a different, more subtle, and perhaps latent purpose: "It was also designed to present for imitation a pattern of piety, and to instill in the hearers a sense of the parish and its worship, as a continuing reality." In other words, such a practice encouraged othe parishioners not only to donate, but to participate in parish life. Also, later he says, "Here the parish community has become something more than the total of its past and future members: it has been set in the full perspective of eternity." How is this? Well, the individual's salvation becomes intertwined with the salvation of all who came before, and will come after, as they all continue to pray for each other. The hearers are drawn into eternity by constantly praying for those that came before and by knowing that those who come after will pray for them. There is an otherworldly sense of community.
So, why are these astounding thoughts?
1) How many people do we know who truly and honestly have any concern for their souls when they die? The idea that Christ's Sacrifice is the only thing that links us to God is not common for most people that we (actually I) meet. This orientation has nothing to do with us, but rather with God, His Mercy, and His Son. The thought is pretty astounding: no matter what, our sinful nature and our sinful deeds separate us from God. The Mass makes it painfully obvious: the Sacrificed Victim is presented to the Father in our stead: instead of our sins, our faults, and our failings, all the Father sees is His Sacrificed Son. Unfortunately, it appears that that blatant sign of the Mass was lost when, for no good reason, priests began to "turn their backs" on God. Christ is offered to us, not for us.
2) No matter where I've gone to church, Protestant or Catholic, there has been a lack of this sense of Communion of Saints. It is not as if we are in this together. As a Methodist, we had a church historian, an elderly woman who was a life-long member of the congregation. I remember reading of the church's history, but aside from the buildings, there was no palpable connection, no real, lasting unity...they weren't part of our communion. The same has been true in Catholic parishes I've been involved with. How else can you describe the constant battle for parishes to raise the necessary funds to function, or to bring forth holy priests? There is lacking a sense of an eternal community. The current members are not beholden to those who went before, and have no concern for those who will come after. Their individual salvations are not perceived as intertwined.
Now, I am not suggesting that we go back to those ancient practices of theological will-writing, or bede-rolls. But it is worth noting that the attitudes they presented are positive and should be encouraged.
Astounding Thought Number 1: Catholics didn't actually believe they were saved by works in any way shape or form...
I will admit that I have long thought that the Church in the early 1500s had some definite need for change. I used to say, and adamantly believe, that while the Church never taught salvation by works officially, that is what the people believed. Boy was I wrong. While the people may have striven to do good and avoid evil, and while the people may have correctly believed that works are a part of salvation (see James 2), to think that works=salvation is a huge myth...at least in England. Consider the preamble of a will from the century before the Reformation: "Lord I put the deth of oure lord Ihesu Crist betwene me and myn evil dedes, betwene me and thi Iugement", or what of Sir Roger Townsend (a successful lawyer who died in 1492), who was "besechyng him for the merytes of his bitter and gloriouse passion to have mercy oon me and to take me into his mercy which is above all workes..." Far from being rare among people's wills, this was the norm: to beseech God to consider the Cross of Christ when judging the person's works. For many, according to Duffy, the Crucifix was a huge consolation at the deathbed, for it helped remind them of Christ's Sacrifice, and warded off those dangerous thoughts that they were too great a sinner to be saved. This was far from being rare...this was the norm. In fact, instruction books for the clergy emphasized this, and the primers that the people used for private devotion (written in English and Latin in many cases), emphasized it as well. But what of the people who couldn't read, or couldn't afford a primer? Where did they learn it? From the Mass and the Liturgical Calendar, which focused on the Saving and Redeeming Sacrifice of Christ.
Astounding Thought Number 2: Parishes exhibited a sense of the Communion of Saints and Cloud of Witnesses through the charity of prayer for the dead...
People in the 1400s and 1500s were not all that different from people today: we all are afraid of being forgotten after we die. Many today attempt to build their legacy, to create some kind of memorable thing for them when they die: a charitable organization, some indellible mark on history, some major social or economic work, perhaps a physical monument, whatever. In Fifteen Century England, it was through requests for prayers for the deceased person's soul. See, despite the fact that we want to believe that all Christians are going to heaven, we seriously can't say that for sure. Jesus says in Matthew "Not everyone who says 'Lord! Lord!' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven." People then really understood that, and so petitioned God that in His Mercy, He would substitute the death of His Son for the soul of the deceased. In addition, Scripture says in Revelation that nothing impure will enter Heaven (and seriously, how can it? I mean to enter into the Presence, the Pure and Perfect, stainless, sinless, Presence of the Almighty is too awesome to consider, and you want to say that somehow we can do so with the stain of sin on our souls?), and seeing as we die with sin on our souls, we must be purified of the sin after death. The people would pray that the soul of the deceased would quickly be purged and enter into the Presence.
What does this have to do with the Communion of Saints and Cloud of Witnesses? Well, it was common for each parish to keep a "bede-roll", which contained the names of each and every person who ever donated time, money, goods, or talents to the parish. This bede-roll was read each and every Sunday and on Holy Days throughout the year. Thus, each and every donor/volunteer was remembered each week and their souls were prayed for each week as well. It was a principle way for the parish to remember its dead. However, Duffy explains a different, more subtle, and perhaps latent purpose: "It was also designed to present for imitation a pattern of piety, and to instill in the hearers a sense of the parish and its worship, as a continuing reality." In other words, such a practice encouraged othe parishioners not only to donate, but to participate in parish life. Also, later he says, "Here the parish community has become something more than the total of its past and future members: it has been set in the full perspective of eternity." How is this? Well, the individual's salvation becomes intertwined with the salvation of all who came before, and will come after, as they all continue to pray for each other. The hearers are drawn into eternity by constantly praying for those that came before and by knowing that those who come after will pray for them. There is an otherworldly sense of community.
So, why are these astounding thoughts?
1) How many people do we know who truly and honestly have any concern for their souls when they die? The idea that Christ's Sacrifice is the only thing that links us to God is not common for most people that we (actually I) meet. This orientation has nothing to do with us, but rather with God, His Mercy, and His Son. The thought is pretty astounding: no matter what, our sinful nature and our sinful deeds separate us from God. The Mass makes it painfully obvious: the Sacrificed Victim is presented to the Father in our stead: instead of our sins, our faults, and our failings, all the Father sees is His Sacrificed Son. Unfortunately, it appears that that blatant sign of the Mass was lost when, for no good reason, priests began to "turn their backs" on God. Christ is offered to us, not for us.
2) No matter where I've gone to church, Protestant or Catholic, there has been a lack of this sense of Communion of Saints. It is not as if we are in this together. As a Methodist, we had a church historian, an elderly woman who was a life-long member of the congregation. I remember reading of the church's history, but aside from the buildings, there was no palpable connection, no real, lasting unity...they weren't part of our communion. The same has been true in Catholic parishes I've been involved with. How else can you describe the constant battle for parishes to raise the necessary funds to function, or to bring forth holy priests? There is lacking a sense of an eternal community. The current members are not beholden to those who went before, and have no concern for those who will come after. Their individual salvations are not perceived as intertwined.
Now, I am not suggesting that we go back to those ancient practices of theological will-writing, or bede-rolls. But it is worth noting that the attitudes they presented are positive and should be encouraged.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
If there was any doubt...
Way back in 2006, Bob Casey, Jr. ran against incumbant Rick Santorum for Pennsylvania's Senate seat. Santorum was an outspoken supporter of the War on Terror, as well as the Pro-Life cause. The NYTimes even endorsed Santorum based on his record for helping the poor (over and above his pro-life stance and his support for the War on Terror) over Casey. Casey ran as the "I'm not a Republican" candidate, although in almost every meaningful way, he and Santorum supposedly were identical. Casey somewhat supported the War on Terror, and was the son of outspoken pro-life Democratic governor, Bob Casey, Sr. To the average Joe, because Casey and Santorum were somewhat interchangeable, and the Republican party wasn't high on people's list, Casey seemed fine. Of course, nationwide, Casey's election helped tip the balance of power to the Democratic Party in the Senate, but really, how are people going to anticipate that?
Many people were concerned that Casey would put aside his pro-life principles in favor of the party line. On the big things, Casey appeared to support Life, but it was the little votes that show the true Casey. For example, he voted along party lines when the Mexico City Policy vote came up. Bishop Martino, then Bishop of Scranton, Casey's hometown, called him on it. During the Obamacare debate, Casey sponsored an amendment that sounded good, but had no real meaning or point (it essentially was his way of sounding pro-life, but towing the party line).
When it became obvious that the Republican Party was going to attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, I wrote to Casey's office, urging him to support the legislation that would defund PP. This is what he wrote back:
"Dear Mr. Aukema:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me about family planning. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.
Access to family planning services is of paramount importance for women in America. As a public official, I have sought to support family planning as an essential means of preventing unintended pregnancies. Because reducing the number of unintended pregnancies reduces the number of abortions, I will continue to support programs that expand access to family planning services.
Increasing access to comprehensive health insurance is a critical first step to ensuring the health of more women and their families. As of 2008, 14 percent of women in the United States had no health insurance. On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the landmark Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Act”) into law. The Act will make significant changes to health coverage for woman, expanding health insurance coverage to an estimated 12.3 million additional women, and guaranteeing greater access to recommended preventive health benefits.
The expansion of Medicaid family planning programs in the Act presents an opportunity to improve low income women’s access to contraceptive services. Following passage of the Act, states are now able to expand their state Medicaid family planning programs without first obtaining federal approval. The Act also makes important progress toward ending insurance companies’ discriminatory coverage policies, such as treating pregnancy as a pre-existing condition.
The Act also includes a new program, the Pregnancy Assistance Fund, based on legislation I introduced. The Pregnancy Assistance Fund will reduce the number of abortions by providing support for pregnant women, including funding for programs that help pregnant or parenting teens and young women stay in school; funding for colleges and universities to provide pregnancy and parenting resources for their students; and assistance to states to provide intervention services, accompaniment and supportive social services for pregnant victims of domestic violence, sexual violence or stalking. This amendment was included in the Act and received $250 million in appropriated funds. Pilot programs are currently being implemented in 17 different states to address the needs of these young women.
At my urging, the Act also extends and increases funding for adoption by $1.2 billion over two years, by extending and increasing the Adoption Tax Credit. The recently-enacted Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 extended the tax credit as it existed before the Act for another year, through 2012.
I have also consistently supported funding for the Title X national family planning program to provide contraceptive services and other health care to low income women. As a pro-life Senator, I believe family planning reduces the number of unintended pregnancies, and thereby reduces the number of abortions.
I voted against H.R. 1, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, which would have eliminated funding for Title X and barred Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funds for non-abortion related health care. Providers are statutorily prohibited by the Hyde Amendment from using federal funds for abortion. Title X funding also supports well-woman and preventive health care like annual gynecological exams and gynecological cancer screenings.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.
If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov/. I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.
Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator"
It is obvious from this that Bishop Martino was right in calling Casey to account: he is not pro-life in any way, shape or form. If you are from Pennsylvania, and pro-life, don't vote Casey in 2012. He lied and babies died.
Many people were concerned that Casey would put aside his pro-life principles in favor of the party line. On the big things, Casey appeared to support Life, but it was the little votes that show the true Casey. For example, he voted along party lines when the Mexico City Policy vote came up. Bishop Martino, then Bishop of Scranton, Casey's hometown, called him on it. During the Obamacare debate, Casey sponsored an amendment that sounded good, but had no real meaning or point (it essentially was his way of sounding pro-life, but towing the party line).
When it became obvious that the Republican Party was going to attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, I wrote to Casey's office, urging him to support the legislation that would defund PP. This is what he wrote back:
"Dear Mr. Aukema:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me about family planning. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.
Access to family planning services is of paramount importance for women in America. As a public official, I have sought to support family planning as an essential means of preventing unintended pregnancies. Because reducing the number of unintended pregnancies reduces the number of abortions, I will continue to support programs that expand access to family planning services.
Increasing access to comprehensive health insurance is a critical first step to ensuring the health of more women and their families. As of 2008, 14 percent of women in the United States had no health insurance. On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the landmark Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Act”) into law. The Act will make significant changes to health coverage for woman, expanding health insurance coverage to an estimated 12.3 million additional women, and guaranteeing greater access to recommended preventive health benefits.
The expansion of Medicaid family planning programs in the Act presents an opportunity to improve low income women’s access to contraceptive services. Following passage of the Act, states are now able to expand their state Medicaid family planning programs without first obtaining federal approval. The Act also makes important progress toward ending insurance companies’ discriminatory coverage policies, such as treating pregnancy as a pre-existing condition.
The Act also includes a new program, the Pregnancy Assistance Fund, based on legislation I introduced. The Pregnancy Assistance Fund will reduce the number of abortions by providing support for pregnant women, including funding for programs that help pregnant or parenting teens and young women stay in school; funding for colleges and universities to provide pregnancy and parenting resources for their students; and assistance to states to provide intervention services, accompaniment and supportive social services for pregnant victims of domestic violence, sexual violence or stalking. This amendment was included in the Act and received $250 million in appropriated funds. Pilot programs are currently being implemented in 17 different states to address the needs of these young women.
At my urging, the Act also extends and increases funding for adoption by $1.2 billion over two years, by extending and increasing the Adoption Tax Credit. The recently-enacted Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 extended the tax credit as it existed before the Act for another year, through 2012.
I have also consistently supported funding for the Title X national family planning program to provide contraceptive services and other health care to low income women. As a pro-life Senator, I believe family planning reduces the number of unintended pregnancies, and thereby reduces the number of abortions.
I voted against H.R. 1, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, which would have eliminated funding for Title X and barred Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funds for non-abortion related health care. Providers are statutorily prohibited by the Hyde Amendment from using federal funds for abortion. Title X funding also supports well-woman and preventive health care like annual gynecological exams and gynecological cancer screenings.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.
If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov/. I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.
Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator"
It is obvious from this that Bishop Martino was right in calling Casey to account: he is not pro-life in any way, shape or form. If you are from Pennsylvania, and pro-life, don't vote Casey in 2012. He lied and babies died.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Family update!!!
Christina admited last night that me losing my job was a blessing, if for any other reason than it forced us to homeschool. We were planning on sending Maura to school in Pre-K 4, although she'd be 5, because her birthday was after school started. Likewise, we were going to send Nolan to Pre-K 3.
In retrospect, that would have been horrible. Although Maura likes to play, and would have had fun at school, when it came time to learn, she'd be bored out of her mind. Currently, she is reading books, mostly on her own, at a second or third grade reading level. This is what she loves to do. She will read to Nolan sometimes as well. She is in her first grade math program. With math, she's not as motivated. She is bored by the busy work, which is what it appears to her to be, and likes the learning sessions. This is not to say she's not as bright, she'd just rather be reading. She is really taking to her end-of-the-day journal, and this seems to help her synthesize some of what she learned or did that day. Maura is very mature. Its hard to believe she's only 5. She looks and acts like a 7 year old (and reads like one too),
Nolan is a bundle of energy. At home, he can mostly be bouncing around and yet learn. I'm not so sure that would happen in a school. Maura is on level 4 for reading, while Nolan is on level 2. He enjoys reading, but enjoys being read to much more (he likes the attention). In math, it is another story. He is only a few lessons behind Maura. According to Christina, he'll ask for help for the first problem on a page, and once he knows how to do that, will do the rest on his own. His handwriting is a bit more advanced than a "normal" 4 year-old, and it is one of the only things that clues you that the kid is only 4 years old. He speaks at a level much higher than a 4 year old, and he remembers extremely well. Besides his habit of saying wierd things ("Mommy, why are you a bat that was swallowed by your hand?"), it almost impossible to tell he's only 4.
Little Colleen isn't saying much, but she's a smart little bugger. While Nolan had a vocabulary of like 20 words by 15 months, Colleen says "No, no, no!" and "How!" (from Peter Pan). I think she's saying other things, but its hard to say. However, she doesn't need to be verbal, because she's picking things up left and right. She helps unload the dishwasher, and helps put toys away on her own. She also is learning to join in with Maura and Nolan in their play (they might not understand it, but it is clear that she is attempting to join them). Oh, and she loves all our pets: Maggie, our three gerbils, and our fish. She's particularly fond of pulling Maggie's tail and staring at the gerbils.
In retrospect, that would have been horrible. Although Maura likes to play, and would have had fun at school, when it came time to learn, she'd be bored out of her mind. Currently, she is reading books, mostly on her own, at a second or third grade reading level. This is what she loves to do. She will read to Nolan sometimes as well. She is in her first grade math program. With math, she's not as motivated. She is bored by the busy work, which is what it appears to her to be, and likes the learning sessions. This is not to say she's not as bright, she'd just rather be reading. She is really taking to her end-of-the-day journal, and this seems to help her synthesize some of what she learned or did that day. Maura is very mature. Its hard to believe she's only 5. She looks and acts like a 7 year old (and reads like one too),
Nolan is a bundle of energy. At home, he can mostly be bouncing around and yet learn. I'm not so sure that would happen in a school. Maura is on level 4 for reading, while Nolan is on level 2. He enjoys reading, but enjoys being read to much more (he likes the attention). In math, it is another story. He is only a few lessons behind Maura. According to Christina, he'll ask for help for the first problem on a page, and once he knows how to do that, will do the rest on his own. His handwriting is a bit more advanced than a "normal" 4 year-old, and it is one of the only things that clues you that the kid is only 4 years old. He speaks at a level much higher than a 4 year old, and he remembers extremely well. Besides his habit of saying wierd things ("Mommy, why are you a bat that was swallowed by your hand?"), it almost impossible to tell he's only 4.
Little Colleen isn't saying much, but she's a smart little bugger. While Nolan had a vocabulary of like 20 words by 15 months, Colleen says "No, no, no!" and "How!" (from Peter Pan). I think she's saying other things, but its hard to say. However, she doesn't need to be verbal, because she's picking things up left and right. She helps unload the dishwasher, and helps put toys away on her own. She also is learning to join in with Maura and Nolan in their play (they might not understand it, but it is clear that she is attempting to join them). Oh, and she loves all our pets: Maggie, our three gerbils, and our fish. She's particularly fond of pulling Maggie's tail and staring at the gerbils.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
The Sanctity of Marriage: Abraham and Sarah
I normally devote my other blog to matters religious, but I decided to break with protocol tonight.
It has been a while since I read the OT so I decided to refresh my memory. Tonight, I read about the account of Abraham and Sarah in the land of Gerara, where Abimelech saw Sarah and took her as his wife (although he already had at least one). Scripture tells us that God appeared to Abimelech in a dream, and warned him not to touch Sarah, for she was already married. Now Abimelech didn't know this, and so God warned him about it, giving him a chance to do the right thing. What does this account tell us about marriage?
First, let us consider Abraham's request of Sarah: "Say, therefore, I pray thee, that thou art my sister: that I may be well used for thee, and my soul shall live for thy sake." This is from his exhortation when the went to Egypt, but he used the same ploy when they went to Abimelech. It seems to me that Abraham values his life over the sanctity of his marriage to Sarah. In fact, what is Sarah to him that he is willing to have her treated as a concubine to serve at the whims of a king (two kings, in fact)? Abraham is not the only one at fault here. Sarah agrees, both times, to be used for another man's pleasure so her husband can live. Now, I can see the whole life and death thing, to be sure. Having one's life threatened is a pretty serious thing. But what of this "that I may be well used for thee" thing Abraham says? What does the Bible say about that? "And they used Abram well for her sake. And he had sheep and oxen, and he asses and she asses, and menservants and maidservants, and camels." He wasn't just trying to save his own life, he said "that I may be used well for thee", meaning he meant to profit from her beauty!
It should be clear that Abraham and Sarah either A) didn't understand the whole "man shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" thing, and B) if they did, they valued life and property over each other. Enter God.
We know God is Unchanging. Because God is unchanging, so are His Laws. The decree against adultery wasn't Revealed until the Decalogue was given over 500 years after Abraham. This doesn't mean that adultery wasn't sinful, just because it wasn't revealed. God punishes Pharoah for this action, causing Pharoah to suspect that Sarai is Abram's wife. Consider the words God uses with Abimelech: "Lo, thou shalt die for the woman thou hast taken: for she hath a husband." God is willing to punish Abimelech with death for his adultery, which, coincidentally, is the same punishment for adultery in Leviticus. There is more, however. Abimelech professes not to have know that Sarah was married, and so acted innocently. God responds: "And I know that thou didst it with a sincere heart: and therefore I withheld thee from sinning against me, and I suffered thee not to touch her."
God is acting to prevent an innocent man from sinning so greviously against Him, such is His His forceful adherence to the concept that the marriage bond is sacred. He would not let Abraham and Sarah's marriage bond be desecrated. What is even more interesting in this is that God wouldn't let Sarah or Abraham commit this act of adultery, although they were perfectly willing to do so. To me, this indicates 1) the importance of the marriage bond to God, and 2) God's tremendous mercy.
St. Paul talks about Christ and the Church in terms of a Bridegroom and Bride, clearly indicating that participating in Holy Matrimony is partaking, in a veiled way, the Life of Christ. God retrofits that sanctity, that meaning in Genesis by preventing Sarah from violating her marriage bond with Abraham. He protects the Sacrament even before His Son assumes Human Nature and becomes True God and True Man, even before the Sacrament is instituted on Earth. This is huge.
God's infinite mercy is also at play here. He acts to prevent His prophet and his wife from gravely sinning. Not only that, but He prevents two Heathens from greatly offending Him, as well. This is also huge.
It has been a while since I read the OT so I decided to refresh my memory. Tonight, I read about the account of Abraham and Sarah in the land of Gerara, where Abimelech saw Sarah and took her as his wife (although he already had at least one). Scripture tells us that God appeared to Abimelech in a dream, and warned him not to touch Sarah, for she was already married. Now Abimelech didn't know this, and so God warned him about it, giving him a chance to do the right thing. What does this account tell us about marriage?
First, let us consider Abraham's request of Sarah: "Say, therefore, I pray thee, that thou art my sister: that I may be well used for thee, and my soul shall live for thy sake." This is from his exhortation when the went to Egypt, but he used the same ploy when they went to Abimelech. It seems to me that Abraham values his life over the sanctity of his marriage to Sarah. In fact, what is Sarah to him that he is willing to have her treated as a concubine to serve at the whims of a king (two kings, in fact)? Abraham is not the only one at fault here. Sarah agrees, both times, to be used for another man's pleasure so her husband can live. Now, I can see the whole life and death thing, to be sure. Having one's life threatened is a pretty serious thing. But what of this "that I may be well used for thee" thing Abraham says? What does the Bible say about that? "And they used Abram well for her sake. And he had sheep and oxen, and he asses and she asses, and menservants and maidservants, and camels." He wasn't just trying to save his own life, he said "that I may be used well for thee", meaning he meant to profit from her beauty!
It should be clear that Abraham and Sarah either A) didn't understand the whole "man shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" thing, and B) if they did, they valued life and property over each other. Enter God.
We know God is Unchanging. Because God is unchanging, so are His Laws. The decree against adultery wasn't Revealed until the Decalogue was given over 500 years after Abraham. This doesn't mean that adultery wasn't sinful, just because it wasn't revealed. God punishes Pharoah for this action, causing Pharoah to suspect that Sarai is Abram's wife. Consider the words God uses with Abimelech: "Lo, thou shalt die for the woman thou hast taken: for she hath a husband." God is willing to punish Abimelech with death for his adultery, which, coincidentally, is the same punishment for adultery in Leviticus. There is more, however. Abimelech professes not to have know that Sarah was married, and so acted innocently. God responds: "And I know that thou didst it with a sincere heart: and therefore I withheld thee from sinning against me, and I suffered thee not to touch her."
God is acting to prevent an innocent man from sinning so greviously against Him, such is His His forceful adherence to the concept that the marriage bond is sacred. He would not let Abraham and Sarah's marriage bond be desecrated. What is even more interesting in this is that God wouldn't let Sarah or Abraham commit this act of adultery, although they were perfectly willing to do so. To me, this indicates 1) the importance of the marriage bond to God, and 2) God's tremendous mercy.
St. Paul talks about Christ and the Church in terms of a Bridegroom and Bride, clearly indicating that participating in Holy Matrimony is partaking, in a veiled way, the Life of Christ. God retrofits that sanctity, that meaning in Genesis by preventing Sarah from violating her marriage bond with Abraham. He protects the Sacrament even before His Son assumes Human Nature and becomes True God and True Man, even before the Sacrament is instituted on Earth. This is huge.
God's infinite mercy is also at play here. He acts to prevent His prophet and his wife from gravely sinning. Not only that, but He prevents two Heathens from greatly offending Him, as well. This is also huge.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Libya, Iraq, and Just War
By now, the partisans in the country will be lining up either the comparisons between Iraq in 2003 and Libya today. I will attempt to look at the situation from a Just War perspective. I have prepared a chart to help with the discussion:
A couple of points about the Just War criteria.
1) Lasting, grave, certain damage: The Twin Towers are gone, and over 3000 Americans are dead...that is lasting, grave damage. We are morally certain al Qaeda committed this act (moral certitude is perhaps the best we can get in today's day and age, especially with no one--or everyone--claiming responsibility for certain things). Just like a moral certainty is sufficient for who committed the acts, likewise a moral certainty that a grave act of aggression will occur is sufficient. In this case, one could argue that the Iraq War met this criteria. I don't think there is any case in which active engagement, that is actively and directly causing injury or death to people who did us no harm, can meet this criteria. Advantage Iraq.
2) Last resort: People use the phrase "in the run up to the Iraq War", as if that period was only a few weeks long. It goes back much, much longer than that; it goes back to the cease-fire agreement between Iraq and NATO in 1992. Since that ceasefire agreement and the re-outbreak of hostilities in 2003, about 200 American servicemen lost their lives enforcing the no-fly zone over parts of Iraq, as Saddam violated the cease-fire agreement. Iraq faced numerous sanctions, and ongoing weapons inspections, which it was famously secretive about. In addition, Saddam was able to twist a humanitarian oil-for-food program into a corrupt cash-grab between French and Russian officials and Saddam. In the end, intelligence gathered by the US (both Democratic and Republican administrations) and Great Britain showed the Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction (it should be noted that while an advanced nuclear program was never found, UN-banned WMD programs like the SCUD missile were found, as well as evidence of chemical weapons depots). In addition, Saddam never curbed his pro-terrorist rhetoric. Contrast that with Libya and Gaddafi. After 1988's Lockerbie bombing, Gaddafi all but fell of the US foreign policy map. The only news we heard about him was him abandoning his nuclear program after Iraq was invaded. Again, one could conceivably argue that all other methods were attempted to no avail with Iraq. Nothing else but humming and hawing was done in regards to Gaddafi's treatment of his own people, not Americans or Europeans did a single thing to help them. Advantage Iraq.
3) Serious prospects of success: Getting rid of Saddam was foregone conclusion. After the Persian Gulf War of 1990-1991, the Iraqi air-force was all but eliminated. In addition, the only loyal troops were Saddam's Republican Guard, the rest were drafted citizens. Iraqi equipment wasn't much newer than what they used during the Gulf War, whereas the US and its allies were using state-of-the-art military equipment. In that regard, success against Saddam's Iraq was never really in doubt. In this case, the Iraq War meets this criteria, hands down. However, if one expands this criteria to mean the post-war Iraq, there was a reason why the Secretary of State James Baker urged George H.W. Bush NOT to push on to Baghdad: a post-Saddam Iraq would be unstable and unpredictable. The current conflict with Libya is nothing like the Iraq War at all. We are not invading a country, we are bombing strategic installations to stop Gaddafi's forces from pounding the rebels (at least that is what a no-fly-zone is supposed to be). We are assuming that with the Libyan air-force out of the picture, the rebels will defeat Gaddafi. Everyone knew Saddam would topple because he was facing the might of the US and its allies. The same cannot be said of the Libyan situation. Advantage Iraq.
4) Use of arms must not produce greater evils than that which are to be eliminated: James Baker knew a few things about the Iraq and the Middle East that apparently George W Bush and Dick Cheney forgot: Saddam stabilized Iraq and politics in the Middle East. While Saddam was not a benevolent dictator, it was clear that his malevolence was for his opponents, Sunni, Shiite, Kurd, or Christian. He had all but eliminated partisan conflict (except the Kurds) and at the least the Christian community in Iraq was without hostility. Since the overthrow of Saddam's regime, partisan conflict has resumed. The body count of the post-Saddam Iraq turmoil is hard to get, and thus it will be nearly impossible to compare the carnage of Saddam's despotism with the aftermath of his overthrow. Still, it is hard to say that the carnage of a post-Saddam Iraq would equal an Iraqi sponsored and facilitated terror attack against the US. However, none of this could be known for certain by the Bush Administration or the generals planning the entire operation. Who could have foreseen the regular infantry deserting their posts en masse and then resurfacing as militant "terrorists" trying to make a buck (these same infantrymen were targeted by the US command to be trained as a police force and national guard type force to keep the peace)? Who could have anticipated the ineptitude of the American ambassadors and leaders of the rebuilding effort? I don't think we can blame Bush for these failing when he made the decision to go to war (note, however, that when things were going really bad in the aftermath, he switched personnel and switch strategies, so at least he tried). On the contrary, President Obama has history as his guide. He's seen what happened when two despots in Arab/Muslim countries are deposed (Saddam in Iraq and Mubarak in Egypt): partisan strife, increase in militant, anti-American sentiments, support for al Qaeda, etc. His decision to participate in the round-about removal of another despot of an Arab/Muslim nation means that his guilt is greater than Bush's. Advantage Iraq...kind of.
Be aware, that I am not making a moral judgement on Iraq one way of the other. The arguments for Iraq not being a Just War are compelling, as are the arguments for Iraq being a Just War are compelling. All I am saying is that while one could legitimately and rationally make the case for Iraq to be a Just War, I don't think that is possible with Libya.
UPDATE:
It appears that the USCCB has decided that while Iraq was not a good thing and did not support it, this Libyan "kinetic military action", to them, "seems to meet the criteria of a just war". They simply have "reservations" concerning it, while they criticized outright the war in Iraq. I mean, Iraq had been actively and overtly harming Americans since the end of hostilities in 1991, and even supported Al Qaeda with money (and who knows what else). In addition, we clearly stated at the beginning, that our mission's intent was the overthrow of Saddam ("Operation Iraqi Freedom"). We don't even know what the point of this excursion is ("Operation Odyssey Dawn"), and it seems to change every day ( and now it appears we want to arm the rebels, which have numbers of Al Qaeda operatives in them. Smart.), and yet they only have reservations?
The Bishops derided Bush's decision to invade Iraq as "unilateral" (even then-Cardinal Ratzinger had the same concern), despite the wide spread support of his decision among the international community (49 nations actively supporting the war effort). France and Russia both critics of the move, it was found out later, had backroom deals with Saddam in the oil-for-food program scandal. Obama gets a pass because the UN votes for involvement (with Germany and Russia, among others, abstaining), however he actually has less international support than Bush did. Still, Bush acted unilaterally, while Obama is acting justly.
Just War Criteria | Iraq | Libya |
1) Lasting, grave, certain damage inflicted by the aggressor | Saddam had supported terrorists before, paid the families of Palestinian terrorists, and asked Osama bin Laden to settle al Qaeda in Iraq. In addition, he was openly anti-American, and had openly sought weapons of mass destruction. Also, he violated UN cease-fire agreements, and violated UN weapons agreements. If anyone was morally certain to be a potential deadly threat to the United States either directly (using WMD himself) or indirectly (selling WMD to terrorists), it was Saddam. | Ghaddafi is supposed to have personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing in 1988. Since then, Ghaddafi, or Libya, has done nothing to the United States or any of its Allies. The only thing Ghaddafi has done is use relentless force to curb rebels in his own country. |
2) Last resort: all other options have played themselves out | Saddam had flouted UN and cease-fire agreements for nearly 20 years. He turned the oil-for-food program into a way to line his own pockets, and sanctions did little to curb his policies. No-fly zones and cease-fire agreements resulted in nearly 200 American soldiers dead, since the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. | Libya paid a monetary compensation for Lockerbie in 2002. If the problem is Ghaddafi’s treatment of his own people, then the aggression is not against the US or any other nation. Supporting the rebels or even sending peace-keeping forces in early in the situation were never tried or considered. |
3) Serious prospects of success | Defeating Saddam was not the issue, it was when. The Iraqi military had no airforce of which to speak, and only its Republican Guard had any real loyalty to Saddam. The real question was how to establish peace and stability once Saddam was toppled. | The current situation in Libya is almost a full scale civil-war. Who is the enemy, though? Certainly Ghaddafi’s forces, but how are we to know the rebels are friendly to the United States? Will the rebels even defeat Ghaddafi with our help? |
4) Use of arms must not produce greater evils than that which are to be eliminated | Although the numbers differ depending on who is doing the counting, the aftermath of the invasion isn’t pretty. Say what you want about Saddam and his sons, at the very least, the country was stable. Now, inter-tribal and inter party conflict is on the rise. Christians are persecuted now more than ever. It is nearly impossible to judge how many people could potentially have died from a WMD Iraq sold to al Qaeda or used itself, but we do know that Saddam and his sons had no problem gassing their own countrymen, or torturing people for the fun of it. Perhaps, just perhaps, Saddam’s death total equals that of the post-war aftermath. I don’t know if we’ll ever know for certain, though. | Libya’s different tribes are held together by Ghaddafi. The rebels, much like the Afghan rebels against the Taliban, are allied only against Ghaddafi. Once he falls, what will happen? Hard to say. We could be looking at another Iraq. If Iraq and Egypt are bell-weathers, expect a sharia-based constitution with Islamist and jihadist leanings. Then expect open season on Christians, much like Egypt and Iraq. |
A couple of points about the Just War criteria.
1) Lasting, grave, certain damage: The Twin Towers are gone, and over 3000 Americans are dead...that is lasting, grave damage. We are morally certain al Qaeda committed this act (moral certitude is perhaps the best we can get in today's day and age, especially with no one--or everyone--claiming responsibility for certain things). Just like a moral certainty is sufficient for who committed the acts, likewise a moral certainty that a grave act of aggression will occur is sufficient. In this case, one could argue that the Iraq War met this criteria. I don't think there is any case in which active engagement, that is actively and directly causing injury or death to people who did us no harm, can meet this criteria. Advantage Iraq.
2) Last resort: People use the phrase "in the run up to the Iraq War", as if that period was only a few weeks long. It goes back much, much longer than that; it goes back to the cease-fire agreement between Iraq and NATO in 1992. Since that ceasefire agreement and the re-outbreak of hostilities in 2003, about 200 American servicemen lost their lives enforcing the no-fly zone over parts of Iraq, as Saddam violated the cease-fire agreement. Iraq faced numerous sanctions, and ongoing weapons inspections, which it was famously secretive about. In addition, Saddam was able to twist a humanitarian oil-for-food program into a corrupt cash-grab between French and Russian officials and Saddam. In the end, intelligence gathered by the US (both Democratic and Republican administrations) and Great Britain showed the Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction (it should be noted that while an advanced nuclear program was never found, UN-banned WMD programs like the SCUD missile were found, as well as evidence of chemical weapons depots). In addition, Saddam never curbed his pro-terrorist rhetoric. Contrast that with Libya and Gaddafi. After 1988's Lockerbie bombing, Gaddafi all but fell of the US foreign policy map. The only news we heard about him was him abandoning his nuclear program after Iraq was invaded. Again, one could conceivably argue that all other methods were attempted to no avail with Iraq. Nothing else but humming and hawing was done in regards to Gaddafi's treatment of his own people, not Americans or Europeans did a single thing to help them. Advantage Iraq.
3) Serious prospects of success: Getting rid of Saddam was foregone conclusion. After the Persian Gulf War of 1990-1991, the Iraqi air-force was all but eliminated. In addition, the only loyal troops were Saddam's Republican Guard, the rest were drafted citizens. Iraqi equipment wasn't much newer than what they used during the Gulf War, whereas the US and its allies were using state-of-the-art military equipment. In that regard, success against Saddam's Iraq was never really in doubt. In this case, the Iraq War meets this criteria, hands down. However, if one expands this criteria to mean the post-war Iraq, there was a reason why the Secretary of State James Baker urged George H.W. Bush NOT to push on to Baghdad: a post-Saddam Iraq would be unstable and unpredictable. The current conflict with Libya is nothing like the Iraq War at all. We are not invading a country, we are bombing strategic installations to stop Gaddafi's forces from pounding the rebels (at least that is what a no-fly-zone is supposed to be). We are assuming that with the Libyan air-force out of the picture, the rebels will defeat Gaddafi. Everyone knew Saddam would topple because he was facing the might of the US and its allies. The same cannot be said of the Libyan situation. Advantage Iraq.
4) Use of arms must not produce greater evils than that which are to be eliminated: James Baker knew a few things about the Iraq and the Middle East that apparently George W Bush and Dick Cheney forgot: Saddam stabilized Iraq and politics in the Middle East. While Saddam was not a benevolent dictator, it was clear that his malevolence was for his opponents, Sunni, Shiite, Kurd, or Christian. He had all but eliminated partisan conflict (except the Kurds) and at the least the Christian community in Iraq was without hostility. Since the overthrow of Saddam's regime, partisan conflict has resumed. The body count of the post-Saddam Iraq turmoil is hard to get, and thus it will be nearly impossible to compare the carnage of Saddam's despotism with the aftermath of his overthrow. Still, it is hard to say that the carnage of a post-Saddam Iraq would equal an Iraqi sponsored and facilitated terror attack against the US. However, none of this could be known for certain by the Bush Administration or the generals planning the entire operation. Who could have foreseen the regular infantry deserting their posts en masse and then resurfacing as militant "terrorists" trying to make a buck (these same infantrymen were targeted by the US command to be trained as a police force and national guard type force to keep the peace)? Who could have anticipated the ineptitude of the American ambassadors and leaders of the rebuilding effort? I don't think we can blame Bush for these failing when he made the decision to go to war (note, however, that when things were going really bad in the aftermath, he switched personnel and switch strategies, so at least he tried). On the contrary, President Obama has history as his guide. He's seen what happened when two despots in Arab/Muslim countries are deposed (Saddam in Iraq and Mubarak in Egypt): partisan strife, increase in militant, anti-American sentiments, support for al Qaeda, etc. His decision to participate in the round-about removal of another despot of an Arab/Muslim nation means that his guilt is greater than Bush's. Advantage Iraq...kind of.
Be aware, that I am not making a moral judgement on Iraq one way of the other. The arguments for Iraq not being a Just War are compelling, as are the arguments for Iraq being a Just War are compelling. All I am saying is that while one could legitimately and rationally make the case for Iraq to be a Just War, I don't think that is possible with Libya.
UPDATE:
It appears that the USCCB has decided that while Iraq was not a good thing and did not support it, this Libyan "kinetic military action", to them, "seems to meet the criteria of a just war". They simply have "reservations" concerning it, while they criticized outright the war in Iraq. I mean, Iraq had been actively and overtly harming Americans since the end of hostilities in 1991, and even supported Al Qaeda with money (and who knows what else). In addition, we clearly stated at the beginning, that our mission's intent was the overthrow of Saddam ("Operation Iraqi Freedom"). We don't even know what the point of this excursion is ("Operation Odyssey Dawn"), and it seems to change every day ( and now it appears we want to arm the rebels, which have numbers of Al Qaeda operatives in them. Smart.), and yet they only have reservations?
The Bishops derided Bush's decision to invade Iraq as "unilateral" (even then-Cardinal Ratzinger had the same concern), despite the wide spread support of his decision among the international community (49 nations actively supporting the war effort). France and Russia both critics of the move, it was found out later, had backroom deals with Saddam in the oil-for-food program scandal. Obama gets a pass because the UN votes for involvement (with Germany and Russia, among others, abstaining), however he actually has less international support than Bush did. Still, Bush acted unilaterally, while Obama is acting justly.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
I was directed to this piece earlier, and I had to comment on one phrase that struck me: "Granted, neither the War on Poverty nor Title X fell under McNamara’s purview. Yet both domestic undertakings were inconceivable apart from the mentality that the Whiz Kid from Ford personified, an attitude which presumes that there are no social, political, or economic problems that the discipline of public policy, when rationally pursued and applied by the best and brightest, cannot fix."
When I was teaching sociology, the topic of socialism came up. I knew that at least one student would be supportive of socialism, and I was right...one was. I was, however, unprepared for his illogical arguments. I mentioned that the motives of certain socialist programs were noble, but history shows that governments cannot be trusted to care for its citizenry; such endeavors always lead to great suffering by the citizenry. The student, we'll call him Ethan, responded, "But it doesn't have to be that way."
I responded, "How so?"
"If you have the best and the brightest plan it out, it will work fine."
"And what happens when those 'best and brightest' die, or are replaced? What happens when the 'best and brightest' create themselves out of a nice cushy government job and don't want to leave it? What happens when the politicians in power realize they have created an entire class of citizens entirely dependent upon them? Will it work fine then?"
"Probably not, but those things don't have to happen."
"But in every single case in which the government has taken it upon itself to care for the people, it has happened. In the issue of chances it will happen, the percentages tell us that 100% of the time, it will happen."
"But it doesn't have to."
Such an attitude is clearly illogical and not rational. It may sound great to have the "best and brightest" in government to solve problems, but not everything can be solved by fiat, by force, by law, with money, or with influence. Often what is needed is love. Government is incapable of showing love. Government can only deal with statistics, not individuals. A government program is evaluated by the percentages that a problem has gone down by their handouts; a charitable program is evaluated by how many people were truly helped. Government creates/mandates homeless shelters, but charities find them clothes, provide health care, and make them feel human again. Poverty cannot be defeated with redistributionism, or socialism, or communism. As God Himself says, "There will always be the poor." Perhaps we should treat the poor as our neighbors and friends, rather than statistics.
When I was teaching sociology, the topic of socialism came up. I knew that at least one student would be supportive of socialism, and I was right...one was. I was, however, unprepared for his illogical arguments. I mentioned that the motives of certain socialist programs were noble, but history shows that governments cannot be trusted to care for its citizenry; such endeavors always lead to great suffering by the citizenry. The student, we'll call him Ethan, responded, "But it doesn't have to be that way."
I responded, "How so?"
"If you have the best and the brightest plan it out, it will work fine."
"And what happens when those 'best and brightest' die, or are replaced? What happens when the 'best and brightest' create themselves out of a nice cushy government job and don't want to leave it? What happens when the politicians in power realize they have created an entire class of citizens entirely dependent upon them? Will it work fine then?"
"Probably not, but those things don't have to happen."
"But in every single case in which the government has taken it upon itself to care for the people, it has happened. In the issue of chances it will happen, the percentages tell us that 100% of the time, it will happen."
"But it doesn't have to."
Such an attitude is clearly illogical and not rational. It may sound great to have the "best and brightest" in government to solve problems, but not everything can be solved by fiat, by force, by law, with money, or with influence. Often what is needed is love. Government is incapable of showing love. Government can only deal with statistics, not individuals. A government program is evaluated by the percentages that a problem has gone down by their handouts; a charitable program is evaluated by how many people were truly helped. Government creates/mandates homeless shelters, but charities find them clothes, provide health care, and make them feel human again. Poverty cannot be defeated with redistributionism, or socialism, or communism. As God Himself says, "There will always be the poor." Perhaps we should treat the poor as our neighbors and friends, rather than statistics.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Quick Reflections on "Two Gentlemen of Verona"
I have completed reading Shakespeare's Two Gentlemen of Verona, and here are some quick reflections on it:
1) What do you mean Julia accepted Proteus back? What on earth was she thinking? She heard with her own hears him lie about her death, forswear his love for her, and even try to give away her ring. Then, she witnesses him threaten to rape Silvia! And in the end, she accepts the cur back. What gives?
2) Silvia is an awesome character...as is Valentine. Proteus, the Duke, and Julia, not so much.
3) Speed and Launce are indeed funny. I laughed aloud while reading their nonsensical back-and-forths.
4) Despite critics discussions concerning the play's immaturity, I think it displays a remarkable depth of thought in exploring the concepts of eros and philia.
1) What do you mean Julia accepted Proteus back? What on earth was she thinking? She heard with her own hears him lie about her death, forswear his love for her, and even try to give away her ring. Then, she witnesses him threaten to rape Silvia! And in the end, she accepts the cur back. What gives?
2) Silvia is an awesome character...as is Valentine. Proteus, the Duke, and Julia, not so much.
3) Speed and Launce are indeed funny. I laughed aloud while reading their nonsensical back-and-forths.
4) Despite critics discussions concerning the play's immaturity, I think it displays a remarkable depth of thought in exploring the concepts of eros and philia.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Why I love Father Z.
I have been following What Does the Prayer Really Say for several years. I started before I knew anything about traditional Catholicism, and mostly out of a love for the Faith, and to gain some insight to be used for apologetics. Why did I start following him? Lines like these:
[concerning the young man who refused to wrestle a girl at a state tournement]:
"Inter-sex wrestling should only be private and after the marriage is witnessed by the Church."
[concerning a priest who answered a cell phone during Mass]:
"If you have feather pillows, place them on a horse drawn cart. Then, carefully lifting the pot of tar onto the back of the cart, light your torches and heft your pitchforks.
But seriously… we don’t know the reason for the call. Perhaps he was waiting to hear if he had won the lottery, or had perhaps been chosen to appear on American Idol. Perhaps he was waiting for notice about an indictment or a stock deal. It might have been really important!"
"Also, pray to the priest’s guardian angel to brick his phone if he ever does it again.
After that, perhaps you could have a little project with your kids. Make signs with those NO PHONES symbols on them to hold up during Mass.
Then sit in the front pew.
Just kidding."
Those were what drew me in. Along the way I learned a great deal about theology, especially how the prayers of Holy Mass are theologicall dense, and are supposed to help us focus on our Faith, as well as history, art, music, and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
[concerning the young man who refused to wrestle a girl at a state tournement]:
"Inter-sex wrestling should only be private and after the marriage is witnessed by the Church."
[concerning a priest who answered a cell phone during Mass]:
"If you have feather pillows, place them on a horse drawn cart. Then, carefully lifting the pot of tar onto the back of the cart, light your torches and heft your pitchforks.
But seriously… we don’t know the reason for the call. Perhaps he was waiting to hear if he had won the lottery, or had perhaps been chosen to appear on American Idol. Perhaps he was waiting for notice about an indictment or a stock deal. It might have been really important!"
"Also, pray to the priest’s guardian angel to brick his phone if he ever does it again.
After that, perhaps you could have a little project with your kids. Make signs with those NO PHONES symbols on them to hold up during Mass.
Then sit in the front pew.
Just kidding."
Those were what drew me in. Along the way I learned a great deal about theology, especially how the prayers of Holy Mass are theologicall dense, and are supposed to help us focus on our Faith, as well as history, art, music, and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
The Hallmark of a Good Teacher
Years back, a colleague interested in weight training told me about a particular website. Seeing as the entire site is not entirely kosher, I will not post it here. Needless to say, I checked it out and continue to do so because the training information on the site is intensely amazing. Contributors include up-to-date research, and when discussing training methods, there are always scientific data to back up their claims. One contributor, CT, is a strength and conditioning coach. Being an in-the-trenches coach, he is constantly providing insight on training technique, exercise science, and such to the readers (who mostly want to get big and strong). Here is what a reader commented concerning CT:
"" It's my pleasure and I really mean that" Your passion for this stuff is contagious. Some years back I did a couple of triathlons because my wife challenged me to one. I joined a beginner triathlete forum and I've since been promoted to a moderator on the strength training sub-forum. I always want to answer everyone's questions, which are usually pretty basic so even a stupid guy like me can handle them. And it's all your fault! The knowledge you have shared so freely has made me feel like I need to pay it forward."
What the commenter mentions is THE hallmark of a good teacher. Trust me when I say this, but CT puts his passion into everything he rights or produces. He practices what he preaches. This is contagious. When I read his stuff, I can't wait to try it out. Why? Because of the passion he has for his subject. This is what a good teacher/mentor MUST have: a passion for what they teach. When I was let go from my previous assignment for no apparent reason whatsoever, some of my students, when I saw them, would tell that they missed me tremendously. Why?, I'd ask. "Well," they'd say, "she's nice, and she kinda knows what she's doing, but you LOVED what you did. You brought passion to the class, you challenged us." One student even wrote me a thank-you card: "I never knew what a treasure my Faith was. Thank you."
When I was in college, one of my teachers made it a point to say that the best teachers are those whose students surpass them. Why is this true? Because those teachers brought passion, which encouraged the students to go above and beyond. The best teachers are anonymous, while their students shine. It would be wonderful if it were the parents that were these anonymous teachers. Alas, we have decided that parents can't do their job. Rather, we must have our kids raised in state schools, learning state-approved things. Is there any reason why youth today lack a passion for knowledge?
"" It's my pleasure and I really mean that" Your passion for this stuff is contagious. Some years back I did a couple of triathlons because my wife challenged me to one. I joined a beginner triathlete forum and I've since been promoted to a moderator on the strength training sub-forum. I always want to answer everyone's questions, which are usually pretty basic so even a stupid guy like me can handle them. And it's all your fault! The knowledge you have shared so freely has made me feel like I need to pay it forward."
What the commenter mentions is THE hallmark of a good teacher. Trust me when I say this, but CT puts his passion into everything he rights or produces. He practices what he preaches. This is contagious. When I read his stuff, I can't wait to try it out. Why? Because of the passion he has for his subject. This is what a good teacher/mentor MUST have: a passion for what they teach. When I was let go from my previous assignment for no apparent reason whatsoever, some of my students, when I saw them, would tell that they missed me tremendously. Why?, I'd ask. "Well," they'd say, "she's nice, and she kinda knows what she's doing, but you LOVED what you did. You brought passion to the class, you challenged us." One student even wrote me a thank-you card: "I never knew what a treasure my Faith was. Thank you."
When I was in college, one of my teachers made it a point to say that the best teachers are those whose students surpass them. Why is this true? Because those teachers brought passion, which encouraged the students to go above and beyond. The best teachers are anonymous, while their students shine. It would be wonderful if it were the parents that were these anonymous teachers. Alas, we have decided that parents can't do their job. Rather, we must have our kids raised in state schools, learning state-approved things. Is there any reason why youth today lack a passion for knowledge?
Monday, February 14, 2011
Hiatus: Taking a Nap from Adam Smith
Wealth of Nations is not an easy read. I've put it down for a nap for a bit. When I pick it up again, I'll start writing on it again.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Adam Smith on Wages
Reflecting on Adam Smith's treatment of wages, it is important to begin with a base assumption. First, it must be established that according to Adam Smith, price is determined by several factors: demand--the more demand there is for a good or service, the higher the price; supply--the more there is of a good or service, the lower the price; value--despite the supply or demand, an item that is deemed valuable or important will have a higher price. That being said, we can now progress on to wages, more specifically, what wages actually are: the price of labor.
Smith is operating under the definition of wages as the price paid for labor, labor being a service provided by the laborer.With this definition of wages, a number of conclusions can thus be drawn. First, wages, like price, are subject to fluctuations due to demand, supply, and value. Second, just like price manipulation is bad, so too is wage manipulation by both employers and laborers. These two conclusions are the focus on this reflection on Wealth of Nations.
Just like the price of objects is determined by their scarcity, the demand for them, and their perceived value, so too are wages. In places and industries where labor is scarce (supply is short), laborers are rewarded with higher wages. Consider physicians. The amount of schooling, training, interning, and practice that goes into preparing a physician to enter into the medical field diminishes the supply of doctors. Following the laws of price, physicians, therefore, will get high wages. Contrast that with most factory workers. Such positions require little training and skill, so there is a high supply of laborers and thus wages are lower. This pattern is not only true for the macro-economy, but for the micro-economy. For example, within a certain region, say Silicon Valley, the demand for highly skilled computer technician is much higher than say, Cleveland. Thus, even though there may be a large amoung of computer technicians in Cleveland in a certain year, wages for computer technicians in Cleveland will not be as high as Silicon Valley.
If wages are governed by the same principles as prices, then if price manipulations are detrimental to an area's economy, so are wage manipulations. Smith mentions two types of wage manipulations. The first is the secretive collusion between employers within a certain industry to set wage ranges within that industry. Smith seems disgusted by this action, but admits that while we may not know it, it certainly goes on. The next sort of wage manipulation is on the part of the laborers, when they strike or demonstrate. Smith is likewise against such behavior (although he recognizes such behavior as the result of desparation: "they are desperate and act with the folly and extravagence of desperate men, who must either starve or frighten their masters into an immediate compliance with their demands.")
When price is controlled for any length of time, it destroys the labor markets. Say a monopoly causes prices to rise above their natural levels. This unnatural increase in price goes against the natural demand curve for that good or service, so less people will purchase the item, which utlimately causes the monopoly to lose profit, which causes them to limit overhead spending by virtue of the labor market. What happens when "masters" and laborers enter into collusion to set prices of labor? When laborers get together to set the prices of their labor (read: Unions and "collective bargaining agreements"), a common result is what is happening in state public education pension plans and at General Motors. In both cases, the unions have demanded certain things, which the employers have agreed upon. Now, many states' pensions will be bankrupt because of these demands, and GM's failings have a lot to do with the outrageous demands of the UAW. However, the collusion to keep wages down (or even not to raise wages appropriately) creates a cash shortage that ultimately leads to a downward spiral.
Smith is operating under the definition of wages as the price paid for labor, labor being a service provided by the laborer.With this definition of wages, a number of conclusions can thus be drawn. First, wages, like price, are subject to fluctuations due to demand, supply, and value. Second, just like price manipulation is bad, so too is wage manipulation by both employers and laborers. These two conclusions are the focus on this reflection on Wealth of Nations.
Just like the price of objects is determined by their scarcity, the demand for them, and their perceived value, so too are wages. In places and industries where labor is scarce (supply is short), laborers are rewarded with higher wages. Consider physicians. The amount of schooling, training, interning, and practice that goes into preparing a physician to enter into the medical field diminishes the supply of doctors. Following the laws of price, physicians, therefore, will get high wages. Contrast that with most factory workers. Such positions require little training and skill, so there is a high supply of laborers and thus wages are lower. This pattern is not only true for the macro-economy, but for the micro-economy. For example, within a certain region, say Silicon Valley, the demand for highly skilled computer technician is much higher than say, Cleveland. Thus, even though there may be a large amoung of computer technicians in Cleveland in a certain year, wages for computer technicians in Cleveland will not be as high as Silicon Valley.
If wages are governed by the same principles as prices, then if price manipulations are detrimental to an area's economy, so are wage manipulations. Smith mentions two types of wage manipulations. The first is the secretive collusion between employers within a certain industry to set wage ranges within that industry. Smith seems disgusted by this action, but admits that while we may not know it, it certainly goes on. The next sort of wage manipulation is on the part of the laborers, when they strike or demonstrate. Smith is likewise against such behavior (although he recognizes such behavior as the result of desparation: "they are desperate and act with the folly and extravagence of desperate men, who must either starve or frighten their masters into an immediate compliance with their demands.")
When price is controlled for any length of time, it destroys the labor markets. Say a monopoly causes prices to rise above their natural levels. This unnatural increase in price goes against the natural demand curve for that good or service, so less people will purchase the item, which utlimately causes the monopoly to lose profit, which causes them to limit overhead spending by virtue of the labor market. What happens when "masters" and laborers enter into collusion to set prices of labor? When laborers get together to set the prices of their labor (read: Unions and "collective bargaining agreements"), a common result is what is happening in state public education pension plans and at General Motors. In both cases, the unions have demanded certain things, which the employers have agreed upon. Now, many states' pensions will be bankrupt because of these demands, and GM's failings have a lot to do with the outrageous demands of the UAW. However, the collusion to keep wages down (or even not to raise wages appropriately) creates a cash shortage that ultimately leads to a downward spiral.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Texas is different, Part II
So I'm having a conversation with previously-new boss...we'll call him Dan. Somehow we got to talking about the restrictions on drilling and the efforts to get the non-gas producing regions (read: Philly) in on the cash. He wonders out loud how PA voters allowed themselves to get in such a mess.
After some thought, I responded, "Have you ever been to NJ? Spent time in NY state? Its easy to vote with the idea: at least that idea isn't as bad as NJ or NY!" As NY and NJ get progressively worse ($7 just to enter a state park? What's up with that), so too will PA, as voters consistently say "At least we're not as bad as NJ or NY". He agreed. I then resolved that perhaps getting more Texans up here isn't a bad thing: perhaps after they register to vote, they can help change some of what is going on up here. I for one, would love to eliminate the state income tax.
After some thought, I responded, "Have you ever been to NJ? Spent time in NY state? Its easy to vote with the idea: at least that idea isn't as bad as NJ or NY!" As NY and NJ get progressively worse ($7 just to enter a state park? What's up with that), so too will PA, as voters consistently say "At least we're not as bad as NJ or NY". He agreed. I then resolved that perhaps getting more Texans up here isn't a bad thing: perhaps after they register to vote, they can help change some of what is going on up here. I for one, would love to eliminate the state income tax.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Wealth of Nations: Wages-Introduction
Smith's treatment of the wages of labor in Chapter VIII of Book I has several aspects that cannot be discussed or reflected in a single post. As a result, I will focus on these aspects:
1) forced wage limits
2) fair wages and just wages
3) unions
1) forced wage limits
2) fair wages and just wages
3) unions
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)