Posts
Representative Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) is at it again, asserting that students are being presented with inaccurate information in some federally funded abstinence-only sex ed programs. Only problem is, are the things Waxman is complaining about actually more accurate than not? Waxman and his teach 'em everything brethren miss the forest for the trees.
For example, Waxman cite the following "misconceptions": A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person." Ok, granting that this is poorly stated from a semantic standpoint, isn't the point that this is the timeframe in which base cognitive functioning comes "on-line" so to speak?
HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears. There is still a debate about whether or not this is possible; while the viral load in such fluids is extremely low, the virus is still present in such bodily secretions, and thus the possibility, however slim, must still be said to exist. A scare tactic? Perhaps to an extent, but we are talking about something here for which there is no cure.
• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse. Again, huge debate here over the actual failure rate. But even if the correct failure rate is 3 percent as is claimed by the government researchers that Rep. Waxman cites, isn't the true point that in an estimated 3 (or 31!!!) out of every 100 instances when condoms are used in an instance when one hetereosexual partner has HIV that there is a protection failure! How many such acts of intercourse take place even on a daily basis? The odds, no matter what they are, are not good here. Condoms are not a good solution. Besides, this is assuming perfect usage anyway. Do you want to assume "perfect usage" when it's your son's or daughter's life on the line? Not to mention the amazing discrepancies between the "HIV failure rate" and the "pregancy failure rate" for condoms--we are really supposed to believe that condoms are better at preventing HIV infection than they are at preventing pregancy, when a sperm is way bigger than a virus? Nor does this mention the differences in potential for infection between men and women--when that condom fails, it is the woman partner, by virtue of her biological makeup, who is much more at risk for infection.
One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said. Ok, first question. Which textbook, and what, exactly, does it say? My textbooks say many things, and not all of those things are factually accurate. The writers of an obstetrics textbook may not have an agenda in how they frame or report things? Get real. The evidence on the psychological and physical effects of selective abortion is out there, and it shows that abortion is profoudly damaging.
Maybe we need further debate on who exactly is "lying to our kids"?
One great resource to check out is Dr. Meg Meeker's excellent book Epidemic: How Teen Sex is Killing Our Kids
Thursday, December 02, 2004
A Brief note on Iraqi elections
President Bush is entirely right to stick to his guns when it comes to the January 30th date for Iraqi elections. The show must go on; we must do what we said we were going to do, when we said we were going to do it. When are people goign to learn that this President is a man who does what he says he is going to do?
History has shown us repeatedly that you hold elections anyway, even when a situation is not ideal. Were elections during the U.S. Civil War illegitimate because not everyone participated in them? Of course not.
Have the vote, claim a victory, and work out the remaining kinks afterward.
History has shown us repeatedly that you hold elections anyway, even when a situation is not ideal. Were elections during the U.S. Civil War illegitimate because not everyone participated in them? Of course not.
Have the vote, claim a victory, and work out the remaining kinks afterward.
Alan Greenspan for Sec. of Treasury?
George Will, in an article yesterday, argues persuasively that Greenspan is the right man for the job, because Social Security reform is the top pressing issue and Greenspan, whom Will calls " a black hole of charisma", would inject an air of sobriety into any discussion over reforming Social Security. Will argues that the job of Sec. of Treasury is to advocate for the President's economic policies, and that Greenspan would be persuasive on numerous fronts because he is respected.
Some might question whether removing Greenspan from his present post at the Fed is wise, though this is really not much of an issue, since the potential successors to Greenspan at the Fed are very much in his mold and would follow the same path that Greenspan has so productively followed. Greenspan has had a great run at the Fed, and will have left a great legacy there; he can accomplish even more good for this country's economic future by helping to guide us through the treachorous waters of reform toward social security and tax systems that make the most economic sense and will lead to the most economic vitality for all people.
Some might question whether removing Greenspan from his present post at the Fed is wise, though this is really not much of an issue, since the potential successors to Greenspan at the Fed are very much in his mold and would follow the same path that Greenspan has so productively followed. Greenspan has had a great run at the Fed, and will have left a great legacy there; he can accomplish even more good for this country's economic future by helping to guide us through the treachorous waters of reform toward social security and tax systems that make the most economic sense and will lead to the most economic vitality for all people.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Great article on federalism today
Jonah Goldberg's column today begins with this great line:
"Federalism! It's not just for conservatives anymore!"Goldberg's point is that federalism is the way around this
"I'm packing my bags and moving to Canada" attitude that some liberals
now have after the election. He writes, "As conservatives have known for decades, federalism is the defense against an offensive federal government".
Check out Goldberg's Dorm Example, which is one of the best explanations of the true benefits of republican federalism I have ever read or heard. It is just simply great.
Goldberg also makes a compelling argument that "Federalism is...morally superior because it requires the consent of the governed at the most basic level".
One of the best lines Goldberg has in the piece is the following:
"But now, all of a sudden, because they can't have their way at the federal level anymore, the incandescently brilliant logic of federalism has become apparent: Liberals in blue states can live--like liberals! Wahoo!"
Goldberg is also correct to point out that we conservatives are now doing things that run counter to this solution, such as the Bush administration arguing against California's medical marijuana law, moving ahead toward a constitutional prohibition on gay marriage, and increasing federal control over education. For this to truly work, what is good for the goose must be good for the gander. We conservatives need to decide whether we really want federalism or not, recognizing that if we don't argue for it now, it won't be an option for us when the tables are turned. We need to hear Goldberg's conclusion loud and clear: "It's not that the White House doesn't have good arguments for its policies. But it is impossible to restore
federalism unless you start by allowing states to make decisions you dislike. Otherwise, it's not federalism, it's opportunism [The emphasis is mine]".
"Federalism! It's not just for conservatives anymore!"Goldberg's point is that federalism is the way around this
"I'm packing my bags and moving to Canada" attitude that some liberals
now have after the election. He writes, "As conservatives have known for decades, federalism is the defense against an offensive federal government".
Check out Goldberg's Dorm Example, which is one of the best explanations of the true benefits of republican federalism I have ever read or heard. It is just simply great.
Goldberg also makes a compelling argument that "Federalism is...morally superior because it requires the consent of the governed at the most basic level".
One of the best lines Goldberg has in the piece is the following:
"But now, all of a sudden, because they can't have their way at the federal level anymore, the incandescently brilliant logic of federalism has become apparent: Liberals in blue states can live--like liberals! Wahoo!"
Goldberg is also correct to point out that we conservatives are now doing things that run counter to this solution, such as the Bush administration arguing against California's medical marijuana law, moving ahead toward a constitutional prohibition on gay marriage, and increasing federal control over education. For this to truly work, what is good for the goose must be good for the gander. We conservatives need to decide whether we really want federalism or not, recognizing that if we don't argue for it now, it won't be an option for us when the tables are turned. We need to hear Goldberg's conclusion loud and clear: "It's not that the White House doesn't have good arguments for its policies. But it is impossible to restore
federalism unless you start by allowing states to make decisions you dislike. Otherwise, it's not federalism, it's opportunism [The emphasis is mine]".
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
If You're Dutch, You Ain't
There is a phrase in Dutch Reformed West Michigan: "If you ain't Dutch,
you ain't much". Apparently, now if you are a terminally ill infant in
the Netherlands (How utterly appropriate: "the way out-there"-lands) it
appears that if you are Dutch you simply become "ain't".
This
shock headline just appeared on the Drudge Report.
I have to respond specifically to one thing said:
"Measures that might marginally extend a child's life by minutes or
hours or days or weeks are stopped. This happens routinely, namely,
every day," said Lance Stell, professor of medical ethics at Davidson
College in Davidson, N.C., and staff ethicist at Carolinas Medical
Center in Charlotte, N.C. "Everybody knows that it happens, but there's
a lot of hypocrisy. Instead, people talk about things they're not going
to do."
Professor Stell is either being duplicitous or else he is severely
mistaken, for there is a huge ethical difference between stopping
measures that might prolong life and seeking, as the Dutch are,
deliberately to end life. Equating switching from
extraordinary measures to palliative care to deliberate euthanasia is
morally, theologically, and logically irresponsible and indefensible.
This is just sick. The Culture of Death marches on and eugenics lives.
Peter Singer must be sooooooo proud. This is the killing of people who
have no voice, who have expressed NO DESIRE TO DIE.
God help us all. Rise up, O Church.
you ain't much". Apparently, now if you are a terminally ill infant in
the Netherlands (How utterly appropriate: "the way out-there"-lands) it
appears that if you are Dutch you simply become "ain't".
This
shock headline just appeared on the Drudge Report.
I have to respond specifically to one thing said:
"Measures that might marginally extend a child's life by minutes or
hours or days or weeks are stopped. This happens routinely, namely,
every day," said Lance Stell, professor of medical ethics at Davidson
College in Davidson, N.C., and staff ethicist at Carolinas Medical
Center in Charlotte, N.C. "Everybody knows that it happens, but there's
a lot of hypocrisy. Instead, people talk about things they're not going
to do."
Professor Stell is either being duplicitous or else he is severely
mistaken, for there is a huge ethical difference between stopping
measures that might prolong life and seeking, as the Dutch are,
deliberately to end life. Equating switching from
extraordinary measures to palliative care to deliberate euthanasia is
morally, theologically, and logically irresponsible and indefensible.
This is just sick. The Culture of Death marches on and eugenics lives.
Peter Singer must be sooooooo proud. This is the killing of people who
have no voice, who have expressed NO DESIRE TO DIE.
God help us all. Rise up, O Church.
It's Time for Sensible Intelligence Reform
Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, who is chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee, is to be applauded for his push for real
intelligence reform, not merely a shuffling around of the deck chairs
on The Titanic
Read more about his fight to restrict drivers' licenses for illegal
aliens and other sensible ideas here
Judiciary Committee, is to be applauded for his push for real
intelligence reform, not merely a shuffling around of the deck chairs
on The Titanic
Read more about his fight to restrict drivers' licenses for illegal
aliens and other sensible ideas here
Thoughts on the movie "The Incredibles"
This is a great movie, with many things to say about modern American
family life, and great potential for use in various ministry settings.
Here are some of my thoughts after viewing the movie with my youth
group:
Mr. Incredible--”Big, strong man stuck in dead-end job, sneaks out to
listen to police scanner and maybe "save the day"
Elasticgirl--woman who is literally overextended. Constantly contorting
himself to keep her family together, and safe from harm.
Dash--classic ADHD kid. Gifted kid held back from using gift.
Violet--invisibility and force fields. Shy.
The family name: Parr--average, when they most certainly are not. They
are The Incredibles
What does it mean to be a hero?
Who are your heroes?
How do we deal with people who don't want to be saved?
Can someone ever stop being a hero?
Has anyone read Animal Farm? How does what Syndrome says about "when
everyone is exceptional, no one will be" fit in with this?
How does Flash being held back in sports relate to what John Eldredge
was talking about in his book Wild at Heart in
regards to competition and "kicking the other team's butt"?
Does God want us to hide our talents, or to share them?
Save the world one insurance claim at a time. Is insurance a metaphor
for trying to pick up the pieces after the damage has already been
done? Bob Parr still tries to fight for justice for little old ladies
being screwed by the system.
How does the daughter's transformation and coming into her own
regarding her powers reflect how a wound can become a strength? Or are
they just a heightened defense mechanism?
What does Syndrome's use of technology say about different ways of
being exceptional? Does our society rely too much on technology to be
exceptional? He loses control of the robot, which "learns"; what does
this say about our use of technology and about the culture human beings
create?
The movie is realistic about the threat facing the kids "these people
will kill you if you let them; don't give them that chance".
Individualism vs. community and "family"
Parents protecting their kids. Do you feel protected? How have you felt
protected in the past?
"Do? You are elasticgirl! You remind him who you are!" How does this
fit in with Wild at Heart? How does
being authentic help a relationship?
Don't compromise yourself to fit in!
"Honey, where's my supersuit?" When danger comes, will we be ready to
deal with it? Have we hung up the armor of God in closet; misplaced it
somewhere in our lives?
Checking watch: how kairos, i.e. the important moment, the krisis, can
intersect and impact the chronos.
Being forced into submission by a mediocre society
Syndrome and jealousy?
A world that WANTS saving?
family life, and great potential for use in various ministry settings.
Here are some of my thoughts after viewing the movie with my youth
group:
Mr. Incredible--”Big, strong man stuck in dead-end job, sneaks out to
listen to police scanner and maybe "save the day"
Elasticgirl--woman who is literally overextended. Constantly contorting
himself to keep her family together, and safe from harm.
Dash--classic ADHD kid. Gifted kid held back from using gift.
Violet--invisibility and force fields. Shy.
The family name: Parr--average, when they most certainly are not. They
are The Incredibles
What does it mean to be a hero?
Who are your heroes?
How do we deal with people who don't want to be saved?
Can someone ever stop being a hero?
Has anyone read Animal Farm? How does what Syndrome says about "when
everyone is exceptional, no one will be" fit in with this?
How does Flash being held back in sports relate to what John Eldredge
was talking about in his book Wild at Heart in
regards to competition and "kicking the other team's butt"?
Does God want us to hide our talents, or to share them?
Save the world one insurance claim at a time. Is insurance a metaphor
for trying to pick up the pieces after the damage has already been
done? Bob Parr still tries to fight for justice for little old ladies
being screwed by the system.
How does the daughter's transformation and coming into her own
regarding her powers reflect how a wound can become a strength? Or are
they just a heightened defense mechanism?
What does Syndrome's use of technology say about different ways of
being exceptional? Does our society rely too much on technology to be
exceptional? He loses control of the robot, which "learns"; what does
this say about our use of technology and about the culture human beings
create?
The movie is realistic about the threat facing the kids "these people
will kill you if you let them; don't give them that chance".
Individualism vs. community and "family"
Parents protecting their kids. Do you feel protected? How have you felt
protected in the past?
"Do? You are elasticgirl! You remind him who you are!" How does this
fit in with Wild at Heart? How does
being authentic help a relationship?
Don't compromise yourself to fit in!
"Honey, where's my supersuit?" When danger comes, will we be ready to
deal with it? Have we hung up the armor of God in closet; misplaced it
somewhere in our lives?
Checking watch: how kairos, i.e. the important moment, the krisis, can
intersect and impact the chronos.
Being forced into submission by a mediocre society
Syndrome and jealousy?
A world that WANTS saving?
What a question from Dennis Prager
Dennis Prager raises a very difficult question in his artice today:
"The death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat raises an interesting and significant question: Is it morally and theologically acceptable to hope anyone goes to hell?"
Here is a red meat theological issue to chew over for the day...
I think we have to say that there is behavior that is worthy of hell, but that apart from the grace of God, we are all guilty of such behavior. The question of Arafat's salvation is a matter for God, but if he is not covered by the grace of God, then I think we have to say that he is in hell.
I think that while we can root for and expect God's justice, we should all hope and pray for God's mercy. If God chooses to save Arafat or damn him, what is that to me? Am I God? Was Arafat a horrible example of a human being? Yes. Was he beyond the grace of God? How can we say that he was?
Hell is a reality, but I don't think it is acceptable to wish anyone end up there; this is against the express will of God in the New Tesament (and, considering Prager is a Jew, I think it is safe to assume that this is not part of his thinking). 2 Pet. 3:9 "The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance".
Any other thoughts out there?
"The death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat raises an interesting and significant question: Is it morally and theologically acceptable to hope anyone goes to hell?"
Here is a red meat theological issue to chew over for the day...
I think we have to say that there is behavior that is worthy of hell, but that apart from the grace of God, we are all guilty of such behavior. The question of Arafat's salvation is a matter for God, but if he is not covered by the grace of God, then I think we have to say that he is in hell.
I think that while we can root for and expect God's justice, we should all hope and pray for God's mercy. If God chooses to save Arafat or damn him, what is that to me? Am I God? Was Arafat a horrible example of a human being? Yes. Was he beyond the grace of God? How can we say that he was?
Hell is a reality, but I don't think it is acceptable to wish anyone end up there; this is against the express will of God in the New Tesament (and, considering Prager is a Jew, I think it is safe to assume that this is not part of his thinking). 2 Pet. 3:9 "The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance".
Any other thoughts out there?
Happy Birthday C.S. Lewis
Today is the birthday of former Oxford Don and Christian author and apologist extroadinaire C.S. Lewis. I am indebted to Chuck Colson for this information.
I cannot agree with Colson's thesis more: "This Oxford don was not only a keen apologist but also a true prophet for our postmodern age". Colson has some great things to say too about why Lewis was such an effective prophet and apologist. Go read it.
I cannot agree with Colson's thesis more: "This Oxford don was not only a keen apologist but also a true prophet for our postmodern age". Colson has some great things to say too about why Lewis was such an effective prophet and apologist. Go read it.
Monday, November 29, 2004
I post by email now
This is a great feature of this blog: Sending stuff by email. Let's see
what else it can do.
Hey, bookmark this site now if you haven't already: Drudge Report
what else it can do.
Hey, bookmark this site now if you haven't already: Drudge Report
Welcome to my Blog!
This is the personal blog of Wayne Paul Barrett: Welcome!
I am currently a Senior at the Western Theological Seminary in Holland, Michigan, and a Canidate for Ordination in the Presbyterian Church (USA) under the care of Eastminster Presbytery.
This blog will contain my thoughts on any number of topics: church, politics, theology, and whatever else crosses my path or blows a synapse in my brain...
Again, welcome! Thanks for reading.
In Christ,
Wayne
I am currently a Senior at the Western Theological Seminary in Holland, Michigan, and a Canidate for Ordination in the Presbyterian Church (USA) under the care of Eastminster Presbytery.
This blog will contain my thoughts on any number of topics: church, politics, theology, and whatever else crosses my path or blows a synapse in my brain...
Again, welcome! Thanks for reading.
In Christ,
Wayne
Great article, hope the Democrats don't listen
My friend Rob Harrison has a link to this article on his blog, and I thought it was worth cribbing :)
David von Drehle's latest column in the Washington Post, "Take the Issues to the People, Not to the Courts."
Great article that I am hoping the Democratic establishment flat out ignores, because this is a technique that would work, I think. Most people are pretty live and let live--what they hate is anyone telling them what to do, which is what a court decision seems like to a great many people. I will be very curious to see if the Democratic mid-term strategy involves taking a page out of Karl Rove's playbook and putting more Democrat-friendly issues on the ballot. Not social issues, per se, because I think they'd lose there yet again, but perhaps a non-binding referendum on universal healthcare or other economic issue? That could be trouble...
David von Drehle's latest column in the Washington Post, "Take the Issues to the People, Not to the Courts."
Great article that I am hoping the Democratic establishment flat out ignores, because this is a technique that would work, I think. Most people are pretty live and let live--what they hate is anyone telling them what to do, which is what a court decision seems like to a great many people. I will be very curious to see if the Democratic mid-term strategy involves taking a page out of Karl Rove's playbook and putting more Democrat-friendly issues on the ballot. Not social issues, per se, because I think they'd lose there yet again, but perhaps a non-binding referendum on universal healthcare or other economic issue? That could be trouble...
Check out this great blog
If you haven't checked it out yet, head on over to the blog of my good friend, Rev. Rob Harrison, at trinitycp.blogspot.com
Rob writes some great stuff and, trust me, he is one of the most erudite and thoughful Christians I have ever met. We'll all be calling him doctor someday...
Rob writes some great stuff and, trust me, he is one of the most erudite and thoughful Christians I have ever met. We'll all be calling him doctor someday...
The election
Just a few random thoughts on the past election:
I think one of the reasons this election was and is so divisive is because it involved another resurrection of the Zombie Decade--i.e., the Sixties, the Decade and the Issues that simply WILL NOT DIE! Kerry started it with the Vietnam stuff, but other social issues reflected the Zombie Decade as well, and often unflatteringly for the liberals. Homosexuality is not race, and the struggle for gay rights is not the same as the struggle for black civil rights--this comparison did not and will not work for liberals; the majority of Americans do not see the connection, and resent those who try to equate what is at best a questionable moral issue with the moral clarity of the true civil rights movement of the Zombie Decade.
Second, it is hard to understand how someone like John Kerry could have been nominated for dogcatcher, let alone President of the United States, apart from his deep connection to the most extreme parts of the Zombie Decade. Jane Fonda wasn't going to and couldn't run, so the Necromancer Party ran the next best thing: Kerry. I refuse to let liberals off the hook for nominating and voting for Kerry: Aside from the issues, and there WERE legitimate points of debate, the liberals have embraced people like John Kerry as "Their kind of people". That to me is the most disturbing thing about this election: Significant numbers of Americans saw no disqualifying characteristics in a man as obviously morally flawed as John Kerry.
More to come later, if I can stomach it...
I think one of the reasons this election was and is so divisive is because it involved another resurrection of the Zombie Decade--i.e., the Sixties, the Decade and the Issues that simply WILL NOT DIE! Kerry started it with the Vietnam stuff, but other social issues reflected the Zombie Decade as well, and often unflatteringly for the liberals. Homosexuality is not race, and the struggle for gay rights is not the same as the struggle for black civil rights--this comparison did not and will not work for liberals; the majority of Americans do not see the connection, and resent those who try to equate what is at best a questionable moral issue with the moral clarity of the true civil rights movement of the Zombie Decade.
Second, it is hard to understand how someone like John Kerry could have been nominated for dogcatcher, let alone President of the United States, apart from his deep connection to the most extreme parts of the Zombie Decade. Jane Fonda wasn't going to and couldn't run, so the Necromancer Party ran the next best thing: Kerry. I refuse to let liberals off the hook for nominating and voting for Kerry: Aside from the issues, and there WERE legitimate points of debate, the liberals have embraced people like John Kerry as "Their kind of people". That to me is the most disturbing thing about this election: Significant numbers of Americans saw no disqualifying characteristics in a man as obviously morally flawed as John Kerry.
More to come later, if I can stomach it...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)