A Little Light

Einstein, Obama, and the Guy Who's not Kagan (or Sotomayor)

2010-07-15T00:10:00.004-06:00

"The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn From Modern Physics."

This was this title of an article published by Lawrence H. Tribe in the 1989 Harvard Law Review, with an interesting shout-out in the front page footnote: a certain Barack Obama (then-student of Mr. Tribe's). [Author-written abstract of the article available here.]

While this is nothing unusual - throughout his career, the President either wrote or contributed to a good number of such works - what's interesting about this article is just how remarkably, ridiculously, nigh-unbelievably dumb its premise is.

In a nutshell: physics - specifically the leading 20th century (as-yet-unreconciled) theories of quantum physics and relativity - are, apparently, applicable to constitutional law. The universe is isolated and uncertain, so must our jurisprudence be likewise.

Holy cow. I'd think this was a joke if Alan Sokal hadn't already pulled that one off.

Admittedly, the conclusion might not be completely useless - it seems to essentially be the recognition that judicial rulings affect society. But the vehicle to deliver that point seems remarkably stretched (and the point itself feels rather...obvious).

Though I'm unsure how much input he would've had in the article, (almost certainly less than this article imagines he did), it's interesting that Tribe hasn't been tapped for either of the open SC seats in the last several months. As far as I've heard, his name hasn't even been floated around.

I guess we can take solace that, as unsavory as you may find Kagan (or even Sotomayor), just remember: it could be worse.

(Word of the Day, courtesy of the James Lewis article: pomotwaddle. As in "post-modern-twaddle." Fantastic! Feel free to classify my upcoming analysis of "Prime Numbers and the Battle of Normandy" as such.)

Breaking Things Down

2010-04-21T23:48:00.001-06:00

As far as we can tell, humans are the only creatures on the planet that categorize things. Rather than simply connect an idea to an object (like how my dog goes crazy at any cylinder-shaped object, thinking that it is a flashlight), we instead create abstract definitions of groups or standards that we then use to analyze things.

Consider the things in your pocket – you might organize them by size – wallet and cell phone in one pile, pennies and pieces of gum in another; value – again, wallet and cell phone, as opposed to scraps of paper or pencil stubs; or perhaps by frequency of use – the useful pens and scratch paper versus a flash drive or pocketknife. Our rational brains lead us to break down sensory information into smaller, compartmentalized groups that are easier to assess.

But this, sometimes, fails, as is evidenced by the genre categories at the used bookstore I was in this evening. While looking to see what translations of the Bible they had in stock (I’m trying to get some variety in my collection), I was surprised to see that their single copy (Revised Standard, if you’re interested) was in the strangely named “Inspirational” section, along with everything from Donald Miller’s books to the Left Behind series to A Purpose Driven Life!

My confusion was only compounded when I ventured over to the simply named “Philosophy” section to find another of Donald Miller’s books! I’ll spare the diatribe on that particular mis-categorization for now to share that, mixed in with the books on genuine philosophy, a number of odd titles and authors stood out – why were Christopher Hitchens and Elaine Pagels even shelved next to each other, let alone by Aristotle, Plato, or Nietzsche?

Clearly, by “Inspirational” the bookstore meant “these are the shelves where Christian things go, but we can’t use that word, so we’ll call them something more neutral and less offensive.” What a terrible shame! Rather than creating a special “Religious Studies” section (you wouldn’t even have to use the word “Christian,” folks!), the bookstore has allowed books on theology, spirituality, and Biblical criticism to infiltrate other categories. John Shelby Spong, for example, does NOT belong on the “Inspirational” shelf, nor does Pagels belong anywhere near philosophy!

What’s the harm in this: an unassuming reader may approach the shelf seeking “Philosophy” and come away with Searching for God Knows What – a self-described non-philosophical stream of thoughts! One can stand in the “Inspiration” section and find Consciousness and Survival: An Interdisciplinary Inquiry into the possibility of Life Beyond Biological Death – hardly a comforting tome. We assume that categories and their elements are both representative of each other – we can learn something about what philosophy is by reading a philosophy book and vice versa. So, people will assume that a book represents Philosophy if it comes off the philosophy shelf, even if such a description is far from accurate.

Philosophy, Inspiration, and Religious Studies – at the very least, these are three separate categories that should be found at a bookstore. To be fair, “Christian Fiction” is a fourth (Francine Rivers does not write the same books as Eugene Peterson’s A Long Obedience in the Same Direction). Readers are in danger of having very mistaken ideas about very large categories instilled deep into their minds, later affecting their assumptions about what religion or philosophy really are. As flattering as it may appear to be, just because a book is somehow related to Christianity does not mean it is inspirational.

And the bookstore shouldn’t try to defend this based on “avoiding worldview intolerance” – their “Buddhism” section undercuts that argument.

Note: I am pleased to say that none of Dawkins’ books were in the so-called philosophy section, but were instead snuggled down into the “Science” section where they quite rightly belong.

Spitting into the wind

2010-03-15T21:57:00.006-06:00

I think that in the last two months I've begun writing three or four blogs about various current events - and then stopped half-way through when I have the same thought: "What does it matter?"

For example: I've been reading about the reconciliation process for congressional bills for the last half-hour, composing a post about how student loan programs will likely get shafted to pay for health-care reform (ironic? consider which group voted the Democrats in 2008: seniors or college students), but I simply cannot bring myself to finish it.

This weekend I saw an impressively-sized anti-health-care-reform demonstration on a street corner near our apartment and all I could wonder is: why? They're not changing anyone's mind with their flagrant declarations of their opinions. I'm all for speaking one's mind and coherently expressing reasons for your beliefs, but how is dressing in red, white, and blue and holding a sign that basically says "Honk if you agree with me" doing that? Shouldn't we intend to do more with our evangelistic efforts than merely display what we believe?

Expressing opinions merely for the sake of their expression seems like a remarkable waste of time when we might, instead, hold conversations with differently-minded people so as to either a) discover our mistakes and correct our thinking or b) point out their mistakes so that they can correct their thinking.

I do think that this budget reconciliation process will have remarkably detrimental effects for the college students that voted Obama into the Oval Office, but is my expression of those thoughts on this blog any more effective at dialoguing with someone than was the regiment from the old folks out in their wheelchairs on the corner last Saturday?

Or is this blog merely a cathartic well that I might yell my frustrations down into? If that's the case, it, like those demonstrations, seems like a remarkable waste of time.

Want to see a skinned wookie?

2010-03-03T18:54:00.002-07:00

I don't know who took these photos originally, but Totalfilm.com has collected 30 behind-the-scenes photographs from the sets of the original Star Wars trilogy.

Even only mild fans will enjoy this!

Fact: This is an excellent article

2010-02-23T22:06:00.003-07:00

Though I don't see eye-to-eye with Leonard Pitts on many issues, I wholeheartedly agree with his recent article decrying our culture rejection of factual knowledge.

Some favorite passages:

"To listen to talk radio, to watch TV pundits, to read a newspaper's online message board, is to realize that increasingly, we are a people estranged from critical thinking, divorced from logic, alienated from even objective truth."

"But objective reality does not change because you refuse to accept it. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge a wall does not change the fact that it's a wall."

Read this article and weep at its accuracy.

Yes, Comic Books!

2010-02-06T23:36:00.003-07:00

If there's one thing that's true about most comic book characters (besides the fact that they rarely design sensible costumes), it's that they really have trouble staying dead.

Indeed, it used to be said that only three men: Bucky, Jason Todd, and Uncle Ben managed to escape that ever-popular deus ex machina of non-zombie-related-returning-from-the-dead. In the last few years, we've seen that trio whittled down to only one (and that's only if you don't count Ben Parker's temporary resurrection during the House of M).

Well, true believers, it looks like this remix is getting remixed: Jean Grey, who has already died, been brought back to life, and since died again, is now being brought back to life. Again.

Or, at least it looks that way - Hope, the first baby showing signs of the mutant gene born since the Decimation, is being featured in a new promo wearing costumes that are surprisingly similar to both those of Phoenix and Dark Phoenix (á la Jean Grey). With Hope's red hair, green eyes, and Marvel's apparent lack of trying to care about being original, this spells one thing.

And we've already read it.

Am I excited? We'll see - it's clear that the unraveling of the Marvel universe that has been picking up speed with every new "Event" is coming to a head in the Siege. If the honchos down at the Bullpen really want to reboot the universe (as the upcoming "Age of Heroes" seems to indicate), then Jean Grey would certainly be an important character to have on hand. Still, why would they sacrifice Professor Xavier (again), if that's what they're going for?

If Jean is back, she'd better stick around this time - people are going to stop taking her funerals seriously if this keeps up.

Leading Winsome Lives

2010-02-06T23:17:00.003-07:00

I am no stranger to 1 Peter 3:15 - with the resurgence of interest in Christian apologetics in many contemporary churches, this verse, and it's point-blank call to logically defend the Christian faith, has likewise grown in popularity. This weekend, I learned something new about it.

Here is the verse, embedded in some context:

Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. "Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened." But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. [1 Peter 3: 13-17, NIV]

As Dr. Douglas Groothuis, professor of philosophy at Denver Seminary, pointed out at Universanity, a small conference sponsored by a number of churches and Christian organizations in the Fort Collins area, this verse calls us specifically to answer questions about our faith - naturally, this means that people should be asking us those questions.

While Christian apologetics, the rational defense of our faith, can certainly be utilized in an expressly evangelistic context (as this verse is often cited as a command to that end), our very patterns of daily life as Christians need to present the gospel naturally and organically through basic interaction with others. We need to be unusual and question-provoking - being in the world, but not of it so that others might ask us "why are/aren't you [blank]?"

And then we must speak the truth in love. [Eph. 4:15]

Not that it will matter...

2010-02-03T09:46:00.003-07:00

Abstinence-only sex-ed programs show evidence of effectiveness.

Like a number of other programs that have been tangentially linked to various religions (*coughintelligentdesigncough*), the very concept of Abstinence-only sex-ed is typically written off as laughable before even being considered as a viable alternative to "real" sex-ed (because everyone knows that if it's "religious" it must be wrong).

Something tells me that this study won't change many people's minds. Why is better to simply give up hope that teenagers can control themselves, so we provide them with an "educational class" that is basically simply free promotion for various condom-making companies?

Thirty Years Later...

2010-01-07T02:09:00.005-07:00

Recently, Jenni and I were talking tonight about how fads or fashions tend to repeat themselves in our culture - Jenni pointed out that they rotate in roughly 30-year cycles.

With that in mind, consider the following quote from a ground-breaking exposé published in 1992 about the once-famous Christian comedian Mike Warnke:

"But as with nearly all revivals, there were problems with the newly revived. The mix of uncritical acceptance plus emphasis on experience was easily taken too far. It opened the door for various cults among the Jesus People; it also opened the door for those with fascinating though unprovable conversion stories."

The Jesus Movement (consisting of self-proclaimed "Jesus Freaks") was the product of the mass conversion and rededication of previous participants of the hippie-counterculture lifestyle. Beginning in the late 1960's and stretching into the 70's, the Jesus People sparked lasting changes in the face of modern Christianity and can be credited with much of the relaxation of many traditional characteristics of so-called "proper church behavior." Contemporary Christian music, including genres like “Christian rock” or “Christian metal,” can also trace its origins to the ideas that grew out of this group.

Basically, the nature of the Jesus movement was simply a grassroots evangelism campaign that spread like wildfire across the country - it was a decentralized, counter-culture movement that offered "a new perspective" on Christianity and faith that focused less on "religion" (in the sense of the generally expected structure of formal services with dress codes and old hymns) and more on "relationships" (bringing the truth of God's word to the lost people in a community).

While the lasting effects of the movement can largely be described as beneficial (a number of prominent church denominations and organizations were founded, the church achieved a considerably greater level of connection to the larger American culture, not to mention the uncounted number of redeemed souls saved by its evangelistic efforts), the movement also experienced a number of difficulties in its own time.

As the above excerpt points out, when a movement is decentralized by nature, focused primarily on member acceptance based on personal testimony, and gives little to no consideration to the discipleship, education, or further formative edification of its members, then it runs the risk of degenerating into a mere social group without any true direction. Rather than being a large, singular group of believers all "high on Jesus," sharing the same beliefs, the Jesus People became characterized by its most extravagant, eccentric members; people who self-identified as Christians or "Jesus Freaks," but produced no evidence (or fruit: Gal. 5:22) of their faith – they were more interested in the passing fad of Jesus than in Jesus Himself.

It was only with the eventual passing of the fad (the movement only lasted about ten years) that the true fruit of the Jesus movement became clear; inevitably, it was those groups that focused on the edification of the body (Heb. 5:13-14) that survived its collapse. Those people who were just looking for a fun time or an emotional high moved on to the next social fad, while the true believers continued to grow in their faith.

Now, here we are just over thirty years later, and the so-called Emerging Church movement is growing steadily in the U.S. Interestingly, it too is, by nature, decentralized, counter-culture, and focuses on “conversations” about “relationships” while condemning “religion.” Under this seeker-sensitive atmosphere, emotion and personal feelings are given primacy and tolerance is generally more important than doctrine. Often, such churches consider a ministry’s success is evident by a high headcount, rather than by a knowledgeable and faithful body of believers; emotional conversion is the focus, while spiritual growth is largely ignored.

If history tends to repeat itself, then the Emerging Church should actually find itself in dire straits in the coming decade; already an outcry for apologetic and intellectual education is growing in Christian circles. As more people realize the need for a strong foundation in our faith (Luke 10:27), the warm and fuzzy promises of postmodern Christianity will gradually be revealed to be a house built on sand (Matt. 7:24-29).

The Jesus People produced several important, lasting effects that changed Christian culture for the better; only time will tell if the Emergent Church will do the same, or if it will simply lead many of our generation away from Jesus into their own imagined worlds of “spirituality.”

Merry Christmas

2009-12-25T11:22:00.004-07:00

Hello!

Well, these last few months have been rather hectic and busy - but I can now proudly say that both Jenni and I are college graduates! I'll post something later about our plans for the next few months, but for now we are going to focus on relaxing, doing some volunteer work, and paying off my student loans.

Consequently, I'll have a considerably greater amount of time to devote to projects such as this one! With that in mind, and given the holiday and recent developments on Capitol Hill, please check out this post on Redstate.com.

Despite the passage of the cloture vote in the Senate on this monstrosity of a health care bill, the story is not over yet! Thanks to a number of factors (not the least of which is the typical bone-headedness of the American people in general that is especially concentrated in our representatives), there are a number of nigh-impassable hurdles for the House and Senate bills to clear before anything even comes close to the President's desk.

Over the course of the last year, number of Congresspeople swore not to approve a plan with/without: a public option, that supported/did not support (the atrocity of) publicly funded abortion, individual mandates for coverage, employer mandates for coverage, any kind of universal coverage in general, and more. A good number of our Representatives and Senators are going to have to swallow their promises in order for any kind of consensus to appear - and that doesn't even touch the issue of whether any of these people are voting on their principles (Senators Lieberman and Nelson, I'm looking at you...).

But how long do principles or promises actually last in Washington?

We've still got a while yet before the latest statist attack on our Constitution and economy coheres. Merry Christmas!

I've Been Published!

2009-09-29T17:57:00.002-06:00

A local newspaper, The Coloradoan, has published the following letter I wrote concerning Jesus' supposed sponsorship of a universalized health care system.

Approach health care carefully as a Christian

Perhaps Candice Saltonstall simply misunderstood what the "Tea Baggers" she referred to in her Sept. 4 letter to the editor were saying (much like she misunderstood the remarkably inappropriate name she gave to the Tea Partiers by, I'm sure, a simple mistake). She cited bits of Matthew's gospel as supposed evidence that good Christians must support her view that universalized health care is the best way to provide for those in need.

However, I must disagree with this idea - as a Christian, I am called to personally assist those in need, not to pay a tax that supports a program to do such a thing in my place. This is the point the verses Saltonstall chose gets at; Jesus said I am supposed to give a drink to the thirsty or clothes to the naked, not the government. The Good Samaritan (Luke, Chapter 10) personally picked up the wounded traveler, carried him to safety and paid for his treatment - he did not summon the local government officials, file a claim and then wait for Uncle Sam to step in and save the day.

But what of those who would deny "a lending hand and other Christian giving?" We can only ever offer to help - we cannot force those in need to accept it.

Christians do need to approach this issue carefully; we must decide whether we want to live as Jesus instructed or whether to pay a tax to let a government program do so for us.

This is the link to my letter - it has elicited quite a few responses! (My favorite thus far comes from 'UnsafeAlpine' who is apparently going to mail me all of his/her medical bills from here on out!)

Here is the letter I was responding to.

Lastly, this is another letter written in response to the same article that I completely support; had I the space, I would have loved to include some of these same ideas.

A PSA to Prevent You from PS-ing Me Off

2009-09-18T12:34:00.004-06:00

“You are going to die. The evil H1N1 virus is lurking right outside your door (and in your showerhead), just waiting for its chance to jump down your throat and drag you into the grave.”

Is that what you want to hear? Because it seems like the news networks are under the impression that you do. Everywhere we turn we see warnings and updates on the devastation wrought by this terrible ‘new’ disease.

Please, Do Not Panic. I cannot stress this enough.

The fact of the matter is that it is not unlikely that you will get sick this winter, but that is no different from any other year. It is undeniable that cases of illness rise when the temperature drops and our immune systems are put under more stress than in the warmer summer months. Also, many of us are back in school, where we are under more stress (that also strains our bodies) and are around more people (a.k.a. “potential vectors for disease transmission”).

What do we normally do? We need to remember what our mothers taught us: eat right, sleep well, and wash our hands. Don’t forget to cover your mouth when you sneeze, especially if you are already feeling sick, and remember to take your vitamins. This is not new information; if we can place an emphasis on maintaining our immune system and preventing contamination to the best of our ability, then we reduce our chances of getting sick. Regardless of what disease we are talking about, these basic steps are an important factor of how we should handle any situation.

I understand that a lot of people are worried about the Swine Flu/H1N1 (whatever you call it, I don’t care – just don’t think you’re more intelligent solely because you use the second choice), and I don’t want to say that it is something to be completely ignored – but we are not dealing with Armageddon here. Take a breath and look at some facts.

From the CDC’s website:
“Illness with the new H1N1 virus has ranged from mild to severe. While most people who have been sick have recovered without needing medical treatment, hospitalizations and deaths from infection with this virus have occurred.”

Most people have recovered without medical treatment. In fact, to this point, the unfortunate victims who have died as a result of contracting this strain of flu have almost exclusively carried pre-existing medical conditions that contributed to their poor health (I say ‘almost exclusively’ for the sake of fairness, despite that I could not find a report of an otherwise healthy individual dying from this flu).

In fact, in a September 16th report from Reuters, experts in infectious diseases are now saying that the death rate from the swine flu is comparable to the seasonal flu we deal with every year. Globally, this is an issue that needs to be addressed, but in your life, with your generally guaranteed food supply, warm bed to sleep, and access to medical attention/medication if needed, you need not worry as much as other people without those amenities.

Feeling better yet?

We need to remember that we have all been sick at some point and that we know how to get through it. We don’t need to run to the doctor at the first sign of a sneeze; in fact, doing so only prevents those who are seriously sick from getting the attention they need (and exposes you to God-know-what-else while you’re in the waiting room). Judge your symptoms calmly and certainly seek medical attention as necessary, but that does not mean ‘immediately.’

As far as the vaccine goes, it is NOT available yet – it only got FDA approval this week – but as soon as it is released, EVERYONE will tell you, I’m sure. Don’t assume that your local pharmacy will carry it, though – not enough information has been released about it yet and it is perfectly possible that only certain facilities will be dispensing the vaccine. We don’t know what it will cost, so please stop asking us.

That being said – I am not going to be in line when the vaccine is released (nor will I get a seasonal flu shot). Stayed tuned next time to find out why!

The basic point here is that we need to be calm and thoughtful about this, and every, flu season. Turn off the television and buy some more hand sanitizer/vitamin C. I’ll say it again: we have all been sick, and we all pulled through it. This flu season will be no different.

Remember: Don’t Panic.

• (I am obligated to inform you that the views and positions expressed above do not necessarily represent those of Walgreen's, the company I work for, and are entirely of my own opinion. All references are of my own choosing. In fact, their views about that second-to-last paragraph are quite the opposite of mine.)

Light Reading

2009-08-21T19:43:00.005-06:00

John Davis Lewis, a professor at Duke University, has written a fantastic article that you absolutely must read. It is not lengthy and is mostly comprised of summary bullet-points.

A lot of claims are being made about the actual content of H.R. 3200, the proposed health-care reform legislation in the House of Representatives. Dr. Lewis waded through this 1,017 page behemoth and located several of the key sections that reveal the answers to many of the current debates, such as:

#1)How it proposes that health care will be rationed (for example, by denying readmission to a hospital until "x" number of people have be discharged from that same hospital for the same reason - look at Sec. 1151).

#2) How the bill will punish those who choose to opt out (by levying extra taxes - Sec. 401).

#4) How, in practice, the bill destroys private health insurance (by making it much more cost effective for businesses to cease offering their own plans in favor of the public option - Sec's. 313 and 115).

#5) How the bill does, in fact, include a provision to redistribute wealth (Sec. 441).

#6) How the bill defines that the government is the only party who will determine what things will cost (Sec. 223).

#9) How none of this will be subject to any judicial review (Sec. 223).

And that's only half of it (clearly, I skipped a few of the professor's points).

This is beyond troubling - how can anyone debate that these things are what will soon be law, when all one has to do is read the proposed legislation to find them? Lewis wasn't just creatively writing fiction; everything he says includes the related excerpts from bill 3200.

What you find is a shocking mish-mash of socialist principles with misleading trickery that, at best, is a remarkable violation of the separation of powers (the lack of review concerns me greatly). At worst, it means a serious loss of money over the course of the next decade.

This bill is a joke, as is anyone who defends it blindly without recognizing what it actually says.

H.R. 3200, in its entirety, can be found here. You might note that, as of this posting, only 19% of respondents support this beast.

Tetrapyloctomy, or "Is Independence Important?"

2009-08-19T22:12:00.007-06:00

In terms of political parties, I mean.

I would argue yes - there is value in disassociating yourself from the herd, as it were, even if it seems like you might belong within the ranks of a particular group.

For example, though many people would assume that I am a member of the Republican party (because of the fact that I am a strong fiscal conservative [and, among other things, do not support universalized health care], I do not agree with the practice of abortion or with homosexual marriage, and I do generally agree with the need for reinforcement of border security and existing laws concerning illegal immigration), I am not a Republican.

My rationale is partially because of policy concerns - I do have several reservations concerning the implementation of the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as the initial arguments for deployment to both regions), I disagree with certain points of their policies on education, and the general Republican stance on environmentalism, among other things.

However, I also have a problem with some of the cultural factors that have been spun around the Republican party; undoubtedly the largest of these being that it is perceived as the "Christian vote."

If nothing else, it is certainly a moral victory - it may not matter in my daily life that I am an Independent, and I may not even be recognized as such, but I can take solace in the fact that I am not supporting a system that I do not agree with. Political parties, by their very nature, do more to support their own interests than the best interests of the people. To this I can simply post (an, admittedly, lengthy) quote from George Washington's Farewell Address, first published in 1796.

"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Personally, I can't ever remember being asked whether or not I was a Republican - for, initially when I first registered to vote, I was - but even now that I am not, I still am assumed to be one. I've never been directly labeled as such, but people have assumed what my position is on certain issues, based on other positions that I have taken to completely unrelated topics.

So, since the Republican and Democratic parties have become so deeply entrenched in our culture, is it practically pointless to remain outside the party system? If I am going to be labeled as a full-out Republican because I have a conservative perspective on many of the current 'hot topics' out there today, is it useless to say, for example, "I agree with you that we should not socialize health care, but I am not a Republican”?

Privately, however, I can sleep better knowing that, if nothing else, I am trying to stand up for my own beliefs, regardless of their pragmatic futility.

“Tetrapyloctomy: (v.) the act of splitting a hair four ways.”
Is this the foundation of political un-affiliation?

An analogy

2009-08-14T18:06:00.003-06:00

Government is like a small child: it should be watched closely, given responsibility when it shows that it can be responsible, granted an allowance (and when it runs out of money, then it gets to play with what it's already bought), and it should never be placed in charge of a business.

Thoughts?

Half of My Job is Working with Insurance Companies

2009-08-10T23:40:00.006-06:00

...and correcting misconceptions in my customers' minds about how insurance companies actually work.

Here's a tip: your doctor can write you a prescription for a cheeseburger, but your insurance does NOT have to pay for it. All of these companies are...well, they're companies - as in "businesses." That means that they care more about your interests as a shareholder than as a policyholder. That doesn't make them terrible people - that simply makes them good (or, at least, properly focused) businessmen and women who work to keep their companies alive and profitable (which allows them to continue to provide coverage to their customers).

This is a fantastic article written by Robert Tracinski that hits the nail on the head: people don't want health insurance (i.e. something to help cover unexpected costs) they just want someone else to pay their bills. There is a difference here - insurance is a cushion to help break your financial fall during a hard time, but it is NOT a free gift to push you up out of the hole.

How did this come about? I wholeheartedly support that we all have a right to live, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start knocking on your door, demanding that you feed me dinner (since, without it, I might die). Medicine and medical procedures cost money - that is not the fault of the insurance companies, so why are they being painted up as the devils here?

Proponents of the proposed health-care overhaul going through Washington have latched on to this idea, though, and have vilified the "Big Mean Insurance Companies" into heartless bureaucrats who will probably kick your puppy if they could get a dime out of it. Private insurance is spoken of like some disease that no one should truly want to have - hence the proposed "public option" (because, surely the government has my personal best interests at heart...). Insurance companies do not set the prices, they merely contend with the bills; but somehow the fact that they frequently don't cover preexisting conditions comes from the fact that their CEOs actually hate their fellow man (From the article: "Health insurance companies refuse to cover pre-existing conditions for the same reason that you can't insure your automobile after you crash it.")

I suppose it's just easier for our politicians to defame a relatively small collective of businesses that can't vote instead of the hordes of health-care professionals who have names and faces that could potentially threaten a bid for re-election. (What was that about my best interests, again...?)

And if you really think that the President is looking into curbing the source of high medical costs (like pharmaceutical companies releasing brand name medications at ridiculously high prices), then, please, shut up.

Don't Call Me a "Birther"

2009-07-30T16:05:00.004-06:00

Because I'm not.

While the issue of a person's citizenship might be a credible factor to debate during a campaign, it is the definition of beating a dead horse to continue to focus on it once the person in question is elected (even moreso when they hold the post for more than 9 months).

However, I am very tired of being stuck on the same side of the fence as these single-minded nitwits. Considering the fact that President Obama has spent more of the country's money in nine months than has been spent by several presidents in the last several wars put together, is actively working to inject government control into multiple private enterprises, presents an unprofessional, disorganized facade whenever he is without his speech notes, and generally acts more like a celebrity than any kind of leader, why are you people focusing so intently on an issue that is so very very trivial?! Is there honestly a vain hope that some soccer mom in Delaware is going to uncover this "great conspiracy" to place a charismatic citizen of some other country into the Oval Office, thereby leading to him getting a pink slip?

Do these "birthers" really think that they're going to get a new President if they yell loud enough?

That being said, I must admit that I can see one very easy way to make this issue evaporate quickly: give the people what they want.

This whole ordeal has been akin to when I tell you that I have in my possession a 100 dollar bill. I may go on and on, describing it in detail and swearing on my mother's life that I am the proud owner of this $100. We can go down to the bank and the teller who gave me the bill can vouch for me, and the bank manager might even provide documents showing that I did recieve a $100 dollar bill from that bank earlier that day.

But why can't I simply reach into my pocket and pull out that $100 bill? Isn't that much harder to argue with than a pile of promises and smile that fills a T.V. screen?

If (since?) President Obama has nothing to hide, why is his birth certificate being hidden? I stress again that I do not believe that this is because he is hiding his "non-citizenship," but simply producing that document would shut up these people who are focusing on this, the most inane of all possible criticisms of our President.

Oh wait - silly me - I forgot how easy it is to pull magic tricks out of your left sleeve while the audience is so intently focused on the sparks flying out of your right hand. As long as Obama's critics are worried about the "issue" of his citizenship, they will not be taken seriously - which leaves the President and his party free to act as they will, without serious competition. If Republican congressmen and women support the birther movement, then they'll be labeled as crazy. If they condemn the idea, then they risk alienating their constituents - neither is an great choice from where these career politicians are concerned.

Meanwhile, people who are raising legitimate questions about the administration's policies are all but ignored - everyone would much rather watch another housewife scream at her congressman during a town hall meeting about an issue that should have been put to rest back in November.

Image is everything these days, and Obama has allowed this great distraction to run rampant in such a way that any of his critics are stuck on the same side of the fence as these "birthers," regardless of how stupid we may think that their complaint (singular) is as well.

Touché, Mr. President - you win this round. But your masterful skill at manipulating media imagery can only get you so far.

Something Tells Me She’s Being Sarcastic…

2009-05-28T16:21:00.006-06:00

So, the regular semester has finished and after tomorrow I'll be halfway through my summer class (at which time I hope to show up here more regularly - it's been almost two months!).

I was very tempted to post something about Justice Sotomayor's nomination (mostly about how both the New York Times and the Democratic Party only really seem to support minority appointments when they're not picked by a Republican), but I’ve decided to hold my disagreeing-with-affirmative-action tongue in lieu of more thorough research…

Instead, take a look at this column written by Nancy Morgan of Rightbias.com. How I do love sarcasm! (She makes it sound so warm and fuzzy, eh?)

[Fun Fact: The last white Protestant man who has even been considered for a SCOTUS appointment was…the soon-to-be-ex-Justice Souter! In 1990! There have been five nominations in the almost twenty years since then!]

iTeleprompter?

2009-04-03T20:40:00.005-06:00

In between insulting three-fourths of the United Kingdom and bowing down to the King of Saudi Arabia, our ever-grinning President took some time to offer up some tasty soundbites at a press conference with U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Unfortunately for President Obama, he was once again walking the tightrope of public speaking without his trusty teleprompter safety net.

John Crace, a journalist for the Guardian, posted a blog “decoding” our President’s response to an apparently difficult question. I have reposted the plain text here, sans Crace’s colorful commentary.

Nick Robinson (a BBC reporter): "A question for you both, if I may. The prime minister has repeatedly blamed the United States of America for causing this crisis. France and Germany both blame Britain and America for causing this crisis. Who is right? And isn't the debate about that at the heart of the debate about what to do now?"

Brown immediately swivels to leave Obama in pole position. There is a four-second delay before Obama starts speaking.

President Obama:... if you look at ... pause... the, the sources of this crisis ... pause... the United States certainly has some accounting to do with respect to . . . pause... a regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that have taken place in the global financial system ... pause, close eyes. I think what is also true is that ... pause... here in Great Britain ... pause... here in continental Europe ... pause... around the world. We were seeing the same mismatch between the regulatory regimes that were in place and er ... pause... the highly integrated, er, global capital markets that have emerged ... pause. So at this point, I'm less interested in ... pause... identifying blame than fixing the problem. I think we've taken some very aggressive steps in the United States to do so, not just responding to the immediate crisis, ensuring banks are adequately capitalized, er, dealing with the enormous, er ... pause... drop-off in demand and contraction that has taken place. More importantly, for the long term, making sure that we've got a set of, er, er, regulations that are up to the task, er, and that includes, er, a number that will be discussed at this summit. I think there's a lot of convergence between all the parties involved about the need, for example, to focus not on the legal form that a particular financial product takes or the institution it emerges from, but rather what's the risk involved, what's the function of this product and how do we regulate that adequately, much more effective coordination, er, between countries so we can, er, anticipate the risks that are involved there. Dealing with the, er, problem of derivatives markets, making sure we have set up systems, er, that can reduce some of the risks there. So, I actually think ... pause... there's enormous consensus that has emerged in terms of what we need to do now and, er ... pause... I'm a great believer in looking forwards than looking backwards.

This is the public face of our country. (If you're wondering, he never did answer the question. Or really say anything beyond "I think we all agree now that something needs to be done" - So, now he's stumbling through the obvious?)

Forget the Blackberry, Obama should have gone with an iPhone – if he really needs a teleprompter, then there’s probably an app for that.

Or he could just learn to think on his feet.

[Note: here is how the press conference was covered by Keith Olbermann of MSNBC:

NICK ROBINSON, BBC NEWS: The prime minister has repeatedly blamed the United States of America for causing this crisis. France and Germany blame both Britain and America for causing this crisis. Who is right?

PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES: I‘m less interested in identifying blame than fixing the problem.

Perhaps Olbermann simply understands how difficult it can be to talk without reading your lines off of a screen.]

The Things They Left:

2009-04-03T20:26:00.002-06:00

A list of the items left behind by the previous tenants of our new apartment:

* A couch
* A television set
* Two salt and pepper shakers
* Two box fans
* A rotating fan
* Three mousetraps, one used (no mouse)
* Three tables
* Four jar lids
* Three candles
* A broom
* A mattress/box spring set (stained)
* The packaging from a set of bedsheets
* A sleeping bag cover
* A coat rack (broken)
* A spice rack (empty)
* A chair
* A hummingbird feeder
* An unopened pregnancy test
* Three air fresheners, jasmine scent
* Two toilet brushes
* A toilet plunger
* Assorted pieces of cardboard and styrofoam
* A shoebox filled with trash
* A bag of paper cups
* A bar of soap
* A toothbrush cup
* Clear evidence that they did not regularly clean their living space

Who were these people? What else are we going to find?

What is Wrong with Modern Christianity?

2009-03-08T14:58:00.003-06:00

This.

I know Jesus told us to be salt and light to the world, but this guy took that a little too literally...

After watching one too many "television chefs" recommend the use of 'kosher' salt, one faithful entrepreneur has decided to offer a Christian alternative (blessed by an Episcopalian priest, no less!). As referenced in the article, this betrays far more of a failure to understand Jewish dietary laws, as well as exactly what kosher salt actually is (here's a hint: Rabbis do not bless it, but merely observe its processing to ensure proper practices).

Why is this what Christians choose to focus on? In the words of the business owner, "This is about keeping Christianity in front of the public so that it doesn't die" - but how does providing a product with the word "Christian" on the label contribute to that goal? Paul told us to speak the truth in love, not to market an ostensibly competing product - where is the teaching? Where is the foundational truth?

How does this do anything except tickle the funny bone of cynics and atheists and fuel the ever-so-present eye rolls about "those craaazy Christians?"

(And on a side note - would a Pentecostal church member agree that this is "Christian" just because it was blessed by an Episcopalian?)

Comical Prognostication

2009-02-20T00:11:00.003-07:00

This strip was originally published on April 4th, 1993.....spooky, huh? Remember: Calvin was, and forever will be, in second grade.

I'll leave it at that.

(Calvin and Hobbes is owned by Bill Watterson and the Universal Press Syndicate - but loved by many!)

An aside...

2009-02-15T23:07:00.002-07:00

It's worth noting that the previous post was the first on this blog not mentioning now-President Obama, and, indeed, was my first post in some time. I think that, despite the way I have described this space, the frustration I was feeling around the time of the election was what led me to originally create this blog - a fact that my wife has helped me realize. I have thought about it and, after this absence, have decided to try and maintain this space (with only the occasional riff about the current political atmosphere).

We'll see how it goes - especially with our President set to sign Congress' new bill into place on Tuesday.

(But, let's be honest, it's not like anyone's reading this anyway, right?)

My First Letter to the Editor

2009-02-15T22:59:00.003-07:00

[On Feb. 12th, the Rocky Mountain Collegian, CSU's student-run newspaper, ran this article. I submitted the following in response (please keep in mind that I was limited to only 250 words).]

"Tax journalists who don’t research their articles"

I expected better from a junior political science major; Alex Stephens’ Feb. 12th article indicates little more than his gross misunderstanding of the “separation of church and state” that he claims to appreciate so dearly.

The freedom of religion clause within the First Amendment was designed not to protect the state from the interests of the religious public, but rather to ensure the freedom of the public to practice the religion of their choice.

To this end, religious organizations have been exempted from requirements that could hinder the free practice of their beliefs, such as taxation. Tax-exempt status is not some gift given to churches, but a logical precaution to ensure religious freedom.

How ironic, then, that Mr. Stephens seems to advocate the revocation of that freedom by punishing the followers of a religion that he doesn’t agree with for doing nothing more than acting in a way he deems “intolerant.” Indeed, it seems the notion of punishing a body of believers because of their faith is no different.
The situation is not that churches are directly shaping public policy, but rather that they influence the beliefs of citizens, who then go out and vote. Certainly, voters’ beliefs affect their votes, but if you have a problem with that, then it seems like your beef is more with democracy than religion.

And Focus on the Family is not a megachurch, but a non-profit organization like Goodwill, the United Way and the Red Cross. They do not hold church services.

[Now we’ll wait to see if it actually gets published.]

"That depends on the definition of 'contact'...."

2008-12-16T14:51:00.005-07:00

I’m nearly at a loss of words over this – throughout the recent presidential campaign, accusations flew over just whose pocket the so-called “gotcha liberal media” was snuggled into (Hint: without empty promises, he wouldn’t have much to say). Since November 4th there have been several too-little-too-late admissions that various newspaper did, in fact, favor President-elect Obama back when he was merely Sen. Obama running for President. But this new development really takes the cake.

As tracks are rushed to be covered over, pointed fingers are flying through the air faster than reporter’s footwear over who exactly knew about Illinois’ Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich’s plans for Sen. Obama’s vacated Senate seat. Accused of bribery, corruption and several types of fraud, it appears that the governor was essentially seeking to sell the seat off to the highest bidder (as Blagojevich was recorded saying, “[the seat] is a f---ing valuable thing, you don’t just give it away for nothing.”). This is merely the capstone on a long career of scandals and questionable actions for the governor, but the first to grace the headlines since his friend and co-worker Sen. Obama has risen to the level he now has. The question: how involved was Obama in Blagojev ich’s dealings?

Naturally, the official statement is a flat-lined “no involvement whatsoever.” In fact, according to the latest statement, Obama never even had contact with Blagojevich at any point during the last few weeks since the election. But, as seems to be the status quo with Barack Obama, numerous questions still remain. Such as: Why did a local Illinois news station report that Obama was meeting with Blagojevich to discuss his Senate seat? Why did David Axelrod, Sen. Obama’s campaign manager, state on Nov. 23rd that they were meeting to discuss that seat (the video has unfortunately been taken down, but the text is very interesting)? And what exactly is depicted in this photo, taken on Dec. 2, if not “CONTACT”?

Indisputably, the President elect has a long history of supporting “Hot Rod” Blagojevich. Of course, this is not the first friend of Obama’s that warrants a raise of the eyebrows. Radically racist preachers and "ex"-terrorists are one thing, but a federally indicted convict?

For an administration that has yet to even take office, this is a dark portent of the kind of conduct we have to look forward to over the next 4 years. Even the FBI has its doubts over the supposed lack of influence that Obama’s office had on Blagojevich’s.

But the most wonderful part, as I began this post saying, has been the media’s response to the situation. No investigative reporting has been done, no hard questions have been asked; once again, soon-to-be President Obama speaks, and the reporters jump over each other to write his words down first (hopefully without trampling any seasonal workers along the way). The office claims that Axelrod misspoke – and the media simply accepts it. In fact, KHQA, the station that originally reported the meeting between Obama and Blagojevich, has renounced its original story – the media is trying to re-write history so they can stay in Obama’s court!

Perhaps this has something to do with it.

“The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.” –Thomas Jefferson

Because Black Friday "Casualties" Aren't Enough to Worry About

2008-11-30T22:56:00.003-07:00

I must admit, the pressures of end-of-term assignments (combined with wonderfully taxing hours at the workplace) have diverted my attention from this blog.

However, this could simply not go unmentioned.

As we have moved through this wonderful lame-duck season (when "only one" president gives Thanksgiving Day addresses and the like), there have been multiple opportunities to once again question the preparedness of our upcoming Commander-in-Chief. For a while, I was fixated on the dismal results of his very first press conference as President-elect (where between his first words to the press being "Wow" or his insulting gaffe about Nancy Reagan, the only thing truly impressive was the fact that he had already commissioned a brand-new logo with his title on it).

But this article from Christopher Booker offers insight into both President-elect Obama's second major policy commitment and Al Gore's good ol' Inconvenient Truth.

And while I might be able to 'just say no' to trampling seasonal workers to death in my rush to save money on a big screen TV, I simply cannot pass up a good two-for-one deal when I see one.

(Hey – add this into your cart if you want a little more to ponder – what are we to think of Mr. Obama if the stress of almost being President is getting to him?)

I'm surprised...

2008-11-10T20:35:00.005-07:00

...that someone is finally admitting this.

The results of a statistical survey of the Washington Post have been released and (I hope you're sitting down) it appears that Sen. Obama was significantly favored in their reporting of the 2008 campaign season. Not only was he discussed more favorably, but he was discussed more period, appearing in more than 100 more articles and being featured on the front page thirty more times than opponent John McCain.

Shockingly, these findings complement the Pew Research Center's determination that President-elect Obama was drastically favored by the media in general over the course of the entire campaign.

It's nice to finally hear someone else saying it, but methinks you are several months too late, folks.

Predictions

2008-11-07T23:25:00.009-07:00

I did not vote for Barack Obama.

I know that the concept of an American college student not going all glassy-eyed as soon as the new President-elect opens his mouth may be difficult to imagine, but I assure you that I am not alone in my feelings. Certainly, I was not the only member of my particular demographic who preferred to think through the issues of the past election and not merely throw my voice away on a promise and a smile in a process I have dubbed 'v-moting' (that is, showing nothing but emotion with one's vote). For all the talk amongst my age group about the importance of a person's 'choice,' we seem all too ready to give ours away to the most charismatic person who asks for it...

Nonetheless, Mr. Obama has clinched the top spot in the race that is only slightly less important than this year's American Idol contest to many of my classmates. Though we are only a few days past this decision, already we are seeing its ramifications begin to surface - let us take a look at a few other likely outcomes of this year's election:

First, let us review a short list of the promises made by Mr. Obama to various groups during his campaign. If he is to be believed, then these are some of his top issues to address during his first few weeks or months in office.

He will sign the Freedom of Choice Act , effectively destroying any progress made over the past few decades by state governments in combating the outcome of Roe v Wade.
Read his campaign’s official press release here.

He will grant amnesty to the more than 12 million people who are living in the United States illegally (including, perhaps, his own aunt?).

He will work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, while also pushing for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

He will unilaterally reverse many of President Bush’s executive orders, including those that limited funding for stem cell research, family planning initiatives and climate change programs.

He will reduce federal oversight of unions and support proposed legislation to eliminate secret ballots for union business, thus strengthening some of the most corrupt political machines in the country by limiting First Amendment rights.

He will trample over the government’s system of checks and balances to initiate his own policies should Congress fail to act as he sees fit towards the issue of climate change.

Now, this list is by no means exhaustive – and these are merely based on promises made by Mr. Obama or his advisors during the campaign season. Let’s consider a few other likely eventualities suggested by comments made over the past few months:

President Obama may consider reinstating compulsory military service.

Based on his voting record, it is not hard to imagine that he will support any type of legislation to limit 2^nd Amendment rights (a likely possibility in many citizen’s minds, as evidenced by the recent run on firearms sales.

If soon-to-be Vice President Biden is to be believed (which, understandably, is always a stretch), there will be some sort of international crisis that will test our new President in some monumental way. (The Obama campaign tried, and largely succeeded, in spinning this horrendous verbal hemorrhage into the ground – please read or listen to what Biden actually said).

Certainly, as we have already seen, there will be more threats on President-elect Obama’s life that, God forbid, may one day culminate in an actual attempt. Regardless of one’s opinion of our new commander-in-chief, such an act must never be allowed to take place.

There has been much talk about the need for ‘change’ as of late – it is clear that our newly elected President has been imagining how he could change something in just about every avenue of public policy within his first few months in office. Time will only tell how honest he has been with us about his priorities…

My advice?

Don’t hold your breath.

Here I Go

2008-11-07T23:01:00.004-07:00

Hello!

My name is Anthony Holdier (pretend the ‘i’ isn’t there and you’ll pronounce it without any problems). I am a newly-married white Christian twenty-something who is currently in the process of finishing up a Bachelor’s degree in Anthropology at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, CO, and I have never used a website like this (though, with some work, I can apparently summarize things into single sentences with considerate skill!).

As has been typed countless times before, I’m sure, this blog is intended to be an experiment. Though I am trying to limit my delusions of grandeur about how large the throngs of people will undoubtably be as they flock to read my thoughts (not all as sarcastic as this last one), I understand that this will be (especially in the beginning) mostly about me writing and less about others reading. If nothing else, this will allow me to present my thoughts in a public place, something that I find myself doing often with difficulty elsewhere.

The title of this space stems from two distinct sources: St. Thomas Aquinas and early elementary Sunday School. Aquinas once wrote that it is "better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate." When coupled with the grade-school song that extols the virtues of "this little light of mine" and how "I'm gonna let it shine," I can think of little else but a public forum for civil discussion: this is the goal of this blog.

Why now? I find myself growing more and more frustrated on a daily basis with the general embracement of intellectual apathy in my culture. Be it in issues of politics, ethics, education or health, my peers seem content to buttress their thoughts with nothing more than emotion and warm feel-goods. Thought is no longer respected, and I am often at a loss on how to communicate.

At the very least, this blog should allow me to blow off some steam as it builds up in my cluttered head.