Enjoy!

Piglet Flu

The Inaugural Prayer
The prayer bugged me. I think a public prayer like that, so obviously aimed at the Christian god, is a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause. I know it has been justified as “but, we have always done that.” That same justification would have kept slavery firmly implanted in the South in the 19th Century. History, to me, it not the best justification, especially for Constitutional violations. I really wish we could find someone man enough to say, “My religion is nobody’s business but my own” and to stand up for disestablishment. Unfortunately, that would be political suicide. Apparently, we have a de facto religious test of office.

Faith Based Initiatives
This one bugs me for the same reasons. Public funding of religious institutions. There is no way those funds can be applied in a way that does not discriminate against sects, and no way to ensure that all the money is reaching the intended beneficiaries. I hope this one gets abandoned.

Stimulus
This one doesn’t bug me as much as it scares me. We all know where this money is coming from. Adding over $1T in debt per year cannot be good. If Saudi Arabia and China decide not to lend us anymore money, and call in our debt, what happens then? And why is there no emphasis on education or job training? It may not be a quick fix, but education and training are the only way to sustain job growth. Instead, education tends to be the first on the chopping block when government is making cuts. On a related note, I’d like to see more action on his promise in the inauguration “If a program doesn’t work, it will be eliminated.” Where’s the review process?

I’d also like to see more efforts to keep the promise of bipartisanship. This one cuts both ways. The Obama administration needs to understand that part of the citizenry wants to see less bailouts, and listen to the republicans’ ideas. Even if they are wrong-headed (and I think they are), it would show that the new Admin is more willing to make things work.

The Republicans, too, need to be less obstructionist, and more willing to look at new ideas. Make practical criticisms (not those based on a mythical belief in Smith, and a fundamental misunderstanding of a modern economy) and come up with some new ideas. The last election should have shown you that your old ideas aren’t working for you. If you come off as reasonable, it will make the President’s obstinacy look worse. For now, it looks like politics as usual.

The Hope
Still, watching the President last night in his press conference gave me hope. It was encouraging to see a president who collects his thoughts before answering a question. It’s apparent that the President has put a lot of thought into the issues confronting this nation. I’m left thinking that it’s still very early in the game. I can easily see this President searching thoroughly for the best answers, changing tack when necessary, and actually learning from his mistakes (again, refreshing). Let’s hope that time proves me right.

I was reading through the materials so I could be an engaged parent–it’s been a long time since I was a scout. That’s when I got to the cub scout promise:

Cub Scout Promise

I, (say your name), promise
to DO MY BEST
To do my DUTY to GOD
And my Country
To HELP other people, and
To OBEY the LAW of the Pack

Now the lawyer in me starts thinking, “Okay, he can promise that because he has no duty to the Christian god.” But then underneath, in the book, it has an explanation of the promise. The very first sentence states,

“Duty to God means putting God first . . .”

I belong to a nonmainstream, non-Christian faith. My wife is an Agnostic. We decided long ago we’d let our sons come to their faith on their own, if ever (preferable when he’s old enough to think critically). I can’t ask him to make that promise. So I told him I didn’t think it would be a good idea for him to join Cub Scouts. He was pretty upset and asked why, so I explained the promise and told him I didn’t know whether he believed in the Christian god or not. He said he didn’t know either.

So I asked him if he wanted to join Cub Scouts if it meant making a promise like that. He said, “I probably shouldn’t make a promise if I don’t know if I can keep it.” I was so proud of him at that moment that I could burst. And he immediately calmed down, no fit. It was his choice. Then he floored me even more.

“I should probably explain it to [my cousin who took me to Cub Scouts], huh,” he said.

“I can explain it to his mother if you’d rather.”

“No, I think I should do it myself.”

Now I ask you, isn’t that exactly the kind of boy the Cub Scouts should be looking for? Yet because of religiously exclusive language in the “Cub Scout Promise,” he wouldn’t be able to join without betraying the Cub Scouts basic principle of Honesty. Kind of a catch 22.

I know that the Cub Scouts are a private Christian organization, but is such exclusion really all that Christian? As a private religious organize, I respect its right to choose it’s policies. Interference would violate its free exercise of religion, just as forcing them to let in homosexuals would have been. But I do hope that they will someday voluntarily change this exclusionary language–preferably before my son turns 12. There’s no organization out there like the BSA to teach boys practical life skills and ethical values. . . .

-Wulf

Boy Scout Slogan

Do a Good Turn Daily!

UPDATE

It has come to my attention that some of you may be under the mistaken impression that I am an atheist, and that I prevented my son from joining cub scouts because it conflicted with my beliefs. Below is a response to one such question sent via email. I hope it explains things better.

I’m not an atheist, nor is anyone in my family. I believe in a supreme being, who created the universe, and takes on many aspects depending on with whom s/he is interacting with. That’s an oversimplification, but it suffices for now.

If I were making the decision to make the promise for myself, I might be able to do so, since I have a very special relationship with the Divine. Still, God (with a capital G) tends to connote the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, and would still make me uncomfortable. I would be even more uncomfortable swearing to put the Divine first–my family always comes first. But I am confident that my god would never require that of me (don’t get me started on the sick myth of Abraham and Isaac).

But the main point is that I am not the one making the promise. [My son and my wife] are agnostics right now. That means they don’t know if god(s) exist(s). Once [my son] determines the issue for himself, then he can wrestle with the issue himself (like I have in the paragraph above). As it is, he can’t even get that far. Regardless of whether the God means the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, he hasn’t even decided if any gods exists (nor should he until he is able to think critically). Much less can he decide whether to “put god first” in front of his family. I will not ask him to find god just so he can join scouts, and will not pressure him to seek the answers that are so crucial for a meaningful spiritual existence.

Right now, he can’t make that Promise in any meaningful way. And I have an enormous amount of respect for him for realizing that, and for not wanting to make a promise when he doesn’t know if he can keep it. In the meantime, I’m looking for alternatives to scouting that won’t make him make such a promise.

Update #2

Apparently, I am not the only one with this problem.

http://www.scoutingforall.org/data/layer02/aaic/001121901.html

http://atheists.org/blog/index.php/2009/01/06/boy-scouts-denied-again

What are the differences between candidates?

The economy:

McCain seems to be devoted to deregulation and trickle-down economics. It seems that this has been tried for the last eight years. Bush has tried to turn the income tax into a salary tax, and has opposed any regulations. I am familiar with the arguments that the “COmmunity Reinvestment Act” caused the housing crisis, which in turn caused the economic crisis. Yes, it did contribute, but only 1 in 4 ubprime loans were made by institutions subject to the act. Most of them were made with the hopes of borderline-usury profits. And they were traded on the open market due to deregulation. I’d like to see another economic theory given a chance, since the recent policies (VERY similar to the one McCain advocates) has crashed and died.

Foreign Policy:

McCain still sees Iraq as the main front in the war on terror, despite the weight of evidence supporting that it is in Afghanistan. McCain wants to stay there, despite the crumbling justifications for the war, despite the fact that the legitimate, democratic Iraqi government wants us to leave. Obama is for a judicious withdrawal–not leaving, now, no matter what–a coordinated withdrawal based on current conditions and the will of the Iraqi people.

There’s also something to be said for diplomacy. McCain continues to hammer Obama for wanting to negotiate with countries we disagree with. Despite the fact that recent negotiations have made more progress in Korea and Iran than Bush’s eight years of the silent treatment failed. I think Obama’s commitment to multi-lateralism, without sacrificing American interests (ee Obama’s views on Pakistan) erves this country much better than McCains. Perhaps we’ll even achieve an international influence that is due to rhetorical skill and sound policy rather than economic bullying.

Health Care, Tax Policy and energy

This one is too big to address here. I urge everyone who reads this to check out factcheck.org’s analysis of the debate, particularly on health care, energy policy, and tax issues. There is a definite pattern to the two candidate’s representations of the other’s positions, and it is very enlightening. On these, I also urge you to look at the two candidates plans and views. I have my preferences on the path we hould take, and I’m sure you do too. But just watching the debates will not give you a good view of each candidate’s approach. I think the choice is clear.

Please comment. I realize this is a cursory examination. I have more details that I thought would just confuse those who were only mildly interested. If you want more , please email me.

Regards,

Wulf

Still, I have decided for the first time in 12 years to vote for a major-party candidate. In a nutshell, this is because the green party has no pragmatic energy and economic plicy and the libertarian policy fails to recognize that laissez faire economics no longer works in a modern, 1st-world economy. Unless a better candidate “rears their head” (as Gov. Palin would say), I will probably cast my vote for Obama.

I realize that I am late in the game, and that most have probably cast their early ballots, but I want to address some of the main concerns that republicans (in my view, because of desparation, since they have nothing to do with issues or policy) have brought up. I want to credit the blog of a friend of mine for provoking my thoughts on these matters.

1) Bill Ayers

This should really be a non-issue. Yes, Ayers blew up some property in the sixties in protest of the Viet Nam war. He was aquitted due to prosecutorial abuses (a debatable issue in itself) in the 70’s and convinced his wife to allow them to turn themselves in in 1980. Ultimately aquitted after he turned himself in, he became a educational theorist and has generally been a productive member of society for the last quarter-century. Some have used comments of his (out of context, I might add) to brand him an “unrepentant terrorist,” but I defy anyone to show that he has been anything but a highly influential educational theorist (and mind you, I disagree with a lot of hi educational theories) for the last 25 years. That’s what he was when Obama met him, and his connections in the Chicago community helped Obama gain a voice in the Illinois legislature. So what?

2) Jeremiah wright

There are three major flaws with the argument here:

a) No one ever brings up the fact that Wright served in the military. Not only that, one of his children have served in Iraq. Considering the fact that McCain’s service has brought him so much credibility (and how dare anyone criticize such a valiant veteran) I find it odd that no conservative pundits recognize this service.

b) The only statements by Wright that are cited are those made after Obama took the national stage. Has anyone considered that Wright is simply capitalizing on his newfound notoriety to gain more fame and followship? I challenge someone to come up with one anti-american quote by Wright that was uttered before Obama announced his candidacy in 2006.

c) Obama has never espoused Wright’s views in his public policy. A person’s religious views and their policy views should be separate, and as far as I can tell, Obama’s are. I have seen no indication that any of Wright’s views have entered into Obama’s public lexicon (apart from affirmative action, with which I disagree, but which is fairly common among minorities).

To me the last is the most critical issue. I think Romney’s religion should have been completely irrelevant. I think Obama’s should too, unless it impacts his public policy.

I also think this is a stark contrast between Obama and Palin. Palin was raised in an intolerant fundamentalist faith. This shouldn’t make a difference unless it impacts her public views–and it has. She has stated that the mission in Iraq should comport with “God’s plan.” Even more disturbing, she stated as an Alaskan politician that a pipeline across the state was “God’s will.”

When a person’s religious views so obviously interact with their public policy decisions, that is when the public needs to be concerned with their religious views–not before.

Between the fact that no controversial statement by Wright can be cited before Obama’s candidacy put Wright on the national stage, and the fact that Obama has not let any of his religious views demonstrably color his public policy stances, Wright is a non-issue.

3) The “Surge” controversy

Yes he disagreed with the surge. Yes, he hasn’t admitted he was wrong. Maybe he wasn’t. The success in Iraq coincides with the surge. It also coincides with major tactical changes (e.g. approaching Sunni tribal leaders and negotiating with Shi’ite militants) initiated by the new Gen. Patreus. No one can say which of these factors contributed to the success in iraq. There is a correlation there, but no definitive answer on causation. I’m not convinced at all that the surge was necessary, or whether those troops and resources could have been more successful in Afghanistan.

notice that two of these three have to do with association, not policy
I really think that the McCain camp is desparate at this point. Since this is turning into a very long post, I will save my analysis of policies for the next one. All comments, as always, are welcome. THey help me (and hopefully readers) consider my views in greater detail. In addition, feel free to email me any time.

The idea of authoritative revelation—that received by one person for the benefit of others, as opposed to personal inspiration received through meditation and prayer—was the principle that first sparked my doubt in my spiritual upbringing (for those who don’t know, I was raised as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints [”Mormon” or “LDS” for short]). It didn’t sit well with me that one has to have absolute faith in “divine revelation” by “authority” even if it makes no logical sense. The particular commandment that got me thinking of this lately was what they call the Word of Wisdom (full text here).

The original revelation advised that meat only be eaten in winter, and even encouraged making beer (D&C 49:17 encourages the use of barley for “mild drinks”, which Brigham Young took to mean that beer was okay). It strictly forbade wine, “strong drinks” and “hot drinks” (which Church officials at the time translated as only coffee and tea). The original Word of Wisdom was a suggestion; Brigham Young made much of it a commandment. The current revelation and guidance from senior church leaders denies baptism and entry to the temple for use of any and all alcohol, coffee, tea (except herbal teas) and tobacco.

That’s where the logic fails. Ignoring the change of stance on “mild drinks” made from barley, the current stand leads to some illogical results. Two case studies:

The case of the amped law student
A friend of mine, and one of the best Mormons I know, is one of the top law students at the law school I attend. He drinks “Monster” energy drinks daily, and has been known to drink 2-3 when he has to stay up all night cite-checking or studying for finals. He is a Church member in good standing and does temple-work regularly. A 16 oz. can of Monster has 160 mg caffeine and 53 grams of sugar. A cup of black coffee has 100 mg of caffeine and no sugar. Yet if a health-conscious LDS law student were to drink a cup of coffee to help with these same study tasks, he or she would not be allowed a temple recommend. Even more illogical, a sick LDS person who drinks a cup of green tea (only 40 mg of caffeine) which actually has health benefits and no sugar, he or she would also be faced with losing temple privileges. To carry the argument ad absurdum, the same result would occur even if the green tea were decaffeinated.

Side note: Yes, I’m aware that some church officials, most notably President Spencer W. Kimball, counseled against the use of cola as well—but the fact remains that cola won’t keep you out of the temple, and decaffeinated green tea will.

I can certainly understand the reason for counseling against the use, especially intemperate use, of addictive substances. As a tobacco user, I sincerely wish I’d never heard of cigarettes. But this is clearly a case where personal revelation could supply a much better answer more in keeping with the spirit of the law than the authoritative revelation.

The Case of the Anxious Mother
Another example brought itself to my attention recently. Another friend of mine, who has a relatively large number of children, was suffering from mild anxiety. She wasn’t having panic attacks or anything, but at times it was sufficient to affect her relationship with her children and family. When she went to see her family physician, he explained the possible side effects of common anti-anxiety medications, and suggested she first try a glass of red wine after dinner. This not only has anti-anxiety effects, but aids digestion and has numerous other documented health benefits. She too is LDS, so this was utterly out of the question. The Church would prefer she take potentially harmful prescription drugs, with just as much potential for abuse as alcohol. Again, a less healthy alternative is officially preferred by authoritative revelation, in defiance of logic.

I have always been a proponent of developing a personal relationship with your “god” instead of relying on others as intermediaries. In my view, if anyone else tries to prescribe what is best for your spiritual development, any advice they give should be taken with a large grain of salt. Wealthy nobles used this tactic for years, using the Catholic church to keep the peasants powerless and in-line. I’m not saying that all faith is bad. I have faith in lots of things I can’t prove (like evolution ). Blind faith is dangerous, however, and I would just say to be wary when the object of your faith is a person–especially a person with power and authority.

Metatron acts as the voice of God. Any documented occasion when some yahoo claims God has spoken to them, they’re speaking to me–or they’re talking to themselves.
–Kevin Smith, Dogma

Update: Those of my family who think that the Word of Wisdom was what inspired the doubt in authoritative revelation referenced above would be wrong. It was actually related to the conduct of some church officials, along with the contention that they were called of God, not of man.

http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1103

Other webcomics I enjoy?

In His Likeness
Order of the Stick
Devil’s Panties

I’m posting this a little early though, because the pagan (okay, neopagan) holiday of Ostara is tomorrow. It’s a time of renewal and planting for the harvest. It has a marvelous feel to it, even though where I live it means it’s going to be hotter than hell soon. Anyhow, however you celebrate, go have some fun. Enjoy the warmer weather, get outside, kiss a puppy or whatever.

Much love,

Wulf

A little Madness in the Spring Is wholesome even for the King.
–Emily Dickinson (1830 - 1886), No. 1333

Last year I volunteered as juror in a litigation clinic. The defendant was a black woman. Her counsel was also a black woman. During voir dire, plaintiff’s counsel asked if anyone had experienced discrimination. I looked around and noticed that several women and minorities were raising their hands. Not to be left out, I raised my hand too.

After addressing everyone else, counsel turned to me and asked me to explain. I said, “When I was in college, I had a 4.0 GPA. I decided to apply for a scholarship. In meeting with a financial aid advisor, she said, ‘Your academic record is impressive. If you were a woman or a minority, I could probably get your whole tuition paid. As it is, I have no scholarships for you.’” I wasn’t making it up.

To her credit, defendants counsel did not strike me for any reason. After the jury was selected, the professor asked for comments from other members in the class. One student said, “I’d have struck the bigot in the corner.” (indicating me). Huh. None of the other people who had answered the question were bigots. How odd.

More recently, I was up for a position as Editor-in-Chief of the law journal. After losing the election, I applied for a position on the new Senior Board. After my interview, the new Editor-in-Chief, another white male, said this:

“You are definitely very qualified. But I’m in a tough position. Since the last two Editors-in-Chief have been women, I really need a woman on the Senior Board. Unfortunately, the only women who have applied are applying for the same position you’re applying for. I’ll let you know what I decide.”

Naturally, the Senior Board will now be made of three white males, and one woman–in the position for which I applied. I won’t even bother telling you about her resume.

It seems so strange. Having been raised to be color-blind, I don’t understand how one form of discrimination is acceptable, but another is not. One sees echoes of this in the early Democratic Primaries: Women seemed to break for Clinton, Blacks seemed to break for Obama, but White Males did not overwhelmingly support John Edwards. (Although white males do appear to see religion, if not color and gender).

It just seems that today, socio-economic distinctions seem to play a much bigger role than gender or ethnicity in determining a person’s success. Whatever demographic distinctions there are between ethnicities seems to be a product of cultural priorities or disparity in education. Doesn’t it make more sense to spend our efforts in ensuring that all ethnic groups receive the same primary education rather than governmentally sponsoring a different form of discrimination. I’ll grant that there are remnants of the Glass Ceiling, but is continued discrimination really the answer for that? Perhaps I’m just bitter.

“[R]acial preferences may reflect ‘a desire to foster equality in society,’ [b]ut there can be no doubt that racial paternalism and its unintended consequences can be as poisonous and pernicious as any other form of discrimination. So-called “benign” discrimination teaches many that because of chronic and apparently immutable handicaps, minorities cannot compete with them without their patronizing indulgence. Inevitably, such programs engender attitudes of superiority or, alternatively, provoke resentment among those who believe that they have been wronged by the government’s use of race. These programs stamp minorities with a badge of inferiority . . . .”
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S., at 241, 115 S.Ct. 2097 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).

Update: A Wall Street Journal Article notes that some research shows that affirmative action in law schools is actually hurting black would-be lawyers. Some affirmative action proponents are both criticizing his study and stonewalling him from conducting supplemental research to address their critiques. Hmmmm . . . .