Remember, as you think about this photo, that Barack Obama considers Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr. a friend, and is comfortable enough with him to call him "Skip."
It speaks well for Sgt. Jim Crowley that he's solicitous of Professor Gates, helping him down the steps; I think it also speaks well of Dr. Gates, that he seems completely comfortable accepting Sgt. Crowley's help. It seems clear that they've made their peace, and that's good. It does not speak well of the president that he strides on ahead, oblivious.
By way of comparison, here's Barack Obama's predecessor with Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), who was neither a close personal friend nor a political ally:
I believe the contrast between these two pictures captures something real and significant about the contrast between these two men.
When Gates was shouting in the hearing of passerbys that Crowley was a racist, Crowley must have regarded this as a threat to his entire career. Allegations of racism could result in losing his job, being publicly disgraced, being unable to get another good job—the end of everything he’d worked for all his adult life.
Gates had much less to lose. His foolish mouthing off—in street talk, for goodness sake—at worst would get him a couple of hours in jail, as it did. That’s unpleasant, but even before being hauled off he could see a more-than-offsetting benefit: this could be the subject or the jumping off point for his next television documentary! Crowley had the power to put Gates in jail for a few hours, but not much else.
Gates, on the other hand, had the power to destroy Crowley’s career. And he seemed to enjoy wielding that power, or at least to be acting in reckless disregard of his capacity to destroy the professional life of another human being. Yes, Gates was jet-lagged and presumably irritated that he was locked out of his house. But the possibility that Crowley was a decent professional, not at all a racist, properly investigating a possible crime, doesn’t seem to have occurred to him. Crowley was just one of the little people, a disposable commodity in the career of an academic superstar.
This accounts well for something that rather surprised me: the swiftness and unflinching conviction with which Sgt. Crowley’s colleagues and the officials of his union stood up for him and stood behind him. I would have expected some of them to try to curry favor with Professor Gates, Harvard, the mayor of Cambridge, and the president, in the face of the radioactive allegation of racism—but none of them did. I think Barone’s right, that they recognized the real bigotry in the Gates-Crowley encounter, and though they didn’t play the victim, they weren’t willing to knuckle under to it, either.
As Barone put it, they refused to let “a Harvard swell . . . destroy one of their peers . . . on a totally specious basis for his own fun and profit.” Good on them. I don’t imagine there are a lot of Palinites on the Cambridge, MA police force—but they clearly have their fair share of strong, proud ordinary barbarians, and that’s a profoundly good thing.
A couple days ago I noted the disconcerting failure of leadership (disconcerting to Democrats, anyway) shown so far by the president on the health care bill, which is after all one of his signature initiatives; I found it puzzling. Yesterday, Michael Barone offered an explanation that makes sense, and one that dovetails with something I've written before: Barack Obama isn't leading the legislative process because he doesn't know how. And why should he? He's never done it. He's had the title of a legislator, but he's never really been one.
He served as a legislator for a dozen years before becoming president, but was only rarely an active one. He spent one of his eight years as an Illinois state senator running unsuccessfully for Congress and two of them running successfully for U.S. senator. He spent two of his years in the U.S. Senate running for president. During all of his seven non-campaign years as a legislator, he was in the minority party.
In other words, he's never done much work putting legislation together—especially legislation that channels vast flows of money and affects the workings of parts of the economy that deeply affect people's lives. This lack of experience is starting to show. On the major legislation considered this year—the stimulus, cap and trade, health care—the Obama White House has done little or nothing to set down markers, to provide guidance, to establish boundaries and no-go areas.
The administration could have insisted that the stimulus package concentrate spending in the next year. It didn't. It could have insisted that the cap-and-trade bill generate the revenue that was supposed to underwrite health care. It didn't. It could have decided either to seek a bipartisan health care bill or to insist that a Democratic bill be budget-neutral. It didn't—and it still hasn't made this basic policy choice.
I worried, during the campaign, about electing someone with no real record of substantive accomplishment—someone who knew how to talk about ideas but not how to realize them, who had no real experience getting things done; now, I think, we're seeing the fruit of that. When his agenda runs into trouble, all he knows how to do to push it forward is talk; that's why, as Politico's Carol Lee pointed out,
He’s been in office only six months, but already there’s a strong sense of déjà vu around the way Americans are seeing and hearing from President Barack Obama.
The president keeps returning to the same communications tactics over and over, and all the pages of his PR playbook have one thing in common: a big dose of Obama.
His prime-time news conference Wednesday night, one of the standbys, brings his total to four. That’s the same number that George W. Bush did—in eight years as president.
To be fair to President Obama, he is handicapped by having to work with Nancy Pelosi, who's proving a remarkably, perhaps historically, ineffective Speaker of the House. But every leader has to work with and rely on lieutenants who are less than they ought to be; effective leaders get the most out of those folks that they can and try to avoid putting them in a position where they can derail things. So far, anyway, that's not Barack Obama. I've been saying that he's a smart man and he's bound to figure it out, but so far, he hasn't; so far, all he's managed to do is prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you can't spell "president" without "PR"—and he has the diminishing returns to prove it.
Heidelberg Catechism Q & A 9 Q. But doesn't God do us an injustice by requiring in his law what we are unable to do?
A. No, God created humans with the ability to keep the law.1 They, however, tempted by the devil,2 in reckless disobedience,3 robbed themselves and all their descendants of these gifts.4
Note: mouseover footnote for Scripture references.
After having considered the greatness and the extent of man's sinfulness, disobedience and wretchedness, the Catechism concludes this division on human guilt by suggesting three possible objections. . . .
The initial objection concerns the Creator himself. Is not God unjust? . . . Is it right for God to require what man cannot do? But what is it really that God requires—a series of regulations and commandments and ordinances? Let us remind ourselves again that the entire law is summarized in one word: love! If man now has become a sinner, must God now say that it is no longer necessary for the sinner to love him? Of course not; God remains the same. His requirements do not change. But supposing this to be correct, can man fulfill the requirements of the law? The answer is No, but the answer was Yes! God created man able to perform and to do all the good pleasure of God. But Adam deliberately turned his back on God and disobeyed.
Dr. De Jong elaborates on this with the example of a contractor who agrees to build a home, then takes the money for materials and spends it on a drinking binge; he asks, reasonably enough,
Is it unjust for the original party to demand that his home be built? Can the contractor claim immunity because of his weak character? The contractor was given the means with which to build the house and willfully squandered them.
To be sure, as Kuyvenhoven admits (32), this doesn't exhaust our objections on this point:
Still, we bristle in self-defense: That temptation happened . . . millennia ago. Why should we be doomed for what none of us remembers?
Here again, it's a matter of perspective. We protest like individualists. But the Bible says that the very fact that we are able to think of ourselves as unrelated, disunited individuals presents evidence of our sinful perspective. God's revelation views the human race not as a pile of gravel but as a giant tree. We are not pebbles thrown together but twigs and branches on a tree, all organically united.
We form a corporate unity. In many respects you and I have never doubted it. The national debts . . . are your and my debts. Yet when the debts were incurred, some of us were not yet born and none of us were asked. Similarly, the debt of the human race is yours and mine.
It's an interesting illustration, since nobody really does deny our liability for the national debt; perhaps it's because the corporate unity represented by the nation is visible, tangible, and human-created. It's a reminder that, however hard we may try to avoid the fact, our responsibility in life goes beyond merely that for which we want to admit responsibility.
from a former president of the American Medical Association, Dr. Daniel Johnson Jr.: Memo to My Fellow Physicians: We Have Reached the Moment of Truth. It's well worth your time, because he knows what he's talking about and doesn't hesitate to call a spade a spade; I found his thumbnail history of the debate over nationalized health care particularly interesting. Here's an excerpt:
Now, with elderly, poor, women, and children covered, all that is left is a segment of the population outside of those groups that is reasonably self-sufficient and most of which has private insurance. Those folks will be forced into government coverage because of a “public option” plan that all intellectually honest observers, including both proponents and opponents of single payer, realize is a Trojan horse for a Canadian-style single-payer system. Once private insurance is crowded out by the unfair competitive tactics of the federal government intruding into an already flawed marketplace, it will be a simple matter to consolidate all of these different groups into one single entity.
What does this mean to physicians and their patients? “Clinical effectiveness research,” when operated by government instead of the medical profession, will become “cost effectiveness” restrictions on what care is available and to whom—determined by the federal government. It will only be a matter of a short time before Americans will enjoy the pleasures of “quality adjusted life years” wherein people my age will be denied services from which they might benefit because of their age and/or some other infirmity.
We don’t have to make this stuff up: It is already the law of the land in some other developed countries, such as the United Kingdom, and has been long advocated here in the U.S. by voices from the left, including major media outlets. The federal government will exert total control over payment for all medical services.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to imagine what will happen when the payment-control mechanisms used by Medicare are extended to the entire private sector. The occasional inability of Medicare patients to find physicians who are willing to provide for their needed care at a loss will become the standard experience when the cost shortfall can no longer be shifted to the private sector.
Practicing physicians in the U.S. have become accustomed to the continued availability of ever better diagnostic and treatment innovations created by our academic and research colleagues. In my own specialty field of diagnostic imaging, the pace and breadth of scientific innovation to help us help clinicians be more effective in the management of sick and injured individuals or in the early detection of life-threatening illness, such as breast cancer, has been amazing. Yet I remember only too well the mid 1970s when the federal government and all but two states (Nebraska and Louisiana) did everything in their power to deny the American people access to the technology of computed tomography because of cost. As sure as the night follows the day, we will see that same kind of limitation imposed, but on a much larger scale. But in contrast to the ’70s, total federal control will prevent physicians and patients from overcoming the stricture as we were able to do back then.
Read the whole thing, and remember, this man is a good doctor: take his diagnosis and prescriptions seriously.
Much easier to do this back in my office with my books to hand, so I can add a few things to my post last night.
One, the plural of bamah in Isaiah 14:14—to which the person who did the video refers in order to justify his back-translation of bamah—is indeed bamatey; or better, bāmātê, since the yodh there isn't functioning as a consonant but rather as a vowel marker. (Actually, the root word should really be written bāmâ, since the closing hē isn't really a consonant either, but also just a vowel marker.)
Two, now that I've had the chance to sit down with the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (NIDOTTE to its friends), I can say with confidence that this conjectured back-translation is completely wrongheaded. The word bāmâ is used in several places in the OT in the stereotyped phrase "to tread/ride on the heights of," as NIDOTTE says, "to express God's absolute sovereignty over land and sea"; Isaiah puts this phrase in the mouth of the king of Babylon to express his arrogant presumption. The word is never used to denote Heaven, the place where God dwells, however, and never would have been, since the primary meaning of bāmâ was a place of worship (the "high places" that the kings of Israel/Judah are criticized throughout the middle OT for not taking down); the word for "heights" that is used in this way is mārôm. Besides, if Jesus had used bāmâ, we wouldn't have to guess, since it actually passed into NT Greek in the form bēma.
Instead, looking at the semantic field, the word Jesus would have actually used would have been šāmayim (or its Aramaic cognate), which is the word that actually means "heaven" (it's paralleled with other words that mean "height," "sky," "firmament," etc., but those words aren't used by themselves to mean "heaven"). As such, even kībārāq min-ûbāmātê, as little as that sounds like "Barack Obama," is clearly not what Jesus actually said; the likeliest back-translation of the words "I saw Satan fall like lightning from Heaven" into Hebrew, rather, would be hāzâ (or rā'â) ha-śātān kībārāq min-vešāmayim.
All of which is to say, the idea that Jesus said "I saw Satan as Barack Obama" is utterly unsupported by the facts, and unsustainable on the basis of any real understanding of Hebrew; it's contemptible nonsense to fool the credulous and pre-deceived, nothing more.
Update:Shane VanderHart's post on this on his blog, Caffeinated Thoughts, is also well worth checking out, as he adds some good points.
Ordinarily, I just ignore things like this; but for some reason, this idiot really irks me. (HT: Allahpundit)
This guy doesn't even fall into the "knows just enough Hebrew to be dangerous" category, because he doesn't actually know any Hebrew at all—or, indeed, much of anything about Hebrew. For all his pompous statement "I will report the facts. You can decide," he's precious short on facts and long on false assertions. Watch the video if you want to, and then let's go through it, if you're interested. (If you aren't, don't bother to click "Read More," just scroll down to the next post.)
One: "Aramaic is the most ancient form of Hebrew." That's about like calling French the most ancient form of Portuguese. Aramaic isn't a form of Hebrew, it's a different language—closely related, another Northwest Semitic language, but a different language.
Two: he relies on back-translations, which are necessarily conjectural, but presents them as if they were proven fact. Sloppy. Very sloppy.
Three: barack is the Arabic cognate of Hebrew barak, which is also used as a name (so see Judges 4-5; "Barak" is the name of Deborah's general). Barak means "he blesses" or "he kneels"; the word baruch, which we also know as a name, means "blessed" and is the noun form of this verb. Baraq may sound the same, but it's a completely different word, with a completely different root (beth-resh-qoph instead of beth-resh-kaph); the similarity in sound is meaningless, nothing but a red herring.
Four: the person who made this video is clearly unaware that the Hebrew alphabet does not have any vowels. During the post-biblical period a group of scholars called the Masoretes added pointing (a system of dots) to indicate vowels, to preserve the reading of the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, but these are not original to the text. A couple consonants, yodh and vav, were used in the original Hebrew to indicate certain vowels (hē was also used this way at the end of words, much as we end words with "-ah" and "-oh"); the Masoretes included notations in their pointing system to indicate when these consonants were being, essentially, used as vowels.
Five: even if bamah (or rather its Aramaic equivalent) was in fact the word Jesus used in Luke 10:18, as this video suggests, it would have been plural, not singular, and quite different in form (bamatey, I think; I don't have my language tools with me at the moment, and Hebrew was never my strong suit).
Six: the individual who did this video declares, "the Hebrew letter waw [or vav] is often transliterated as a 'U.' Some scholars use the 'O' for this transliteration. It is primarily used as a conjunction to join concepts together."
This is wrong.
As I noted above, one of the ways in which Hebrew used the vav (and also the yodh and the he) was to indicate certain vowels; when the Masoretes came along to add vowel pointing to help people know how to pronounce the text, they came up with special points to indicate when, say, vav was being used as a "u" (sureq) or an "o" (holem-vav), as opposed to when it was simply a consonantal "v." (The technical term for those is matres lectiones, or "mothers of reading.") It is incorrect to say that vav "is often transliterated as a 'u'," and still more incorrect to say that 'o' is a different transliteration used by "some scholars." Rather, sometimes when the consonant vav is in the text, it's serving as a "u," and sometimes it's serving as an "o." However, this is different from the use of vav in the Hebrew conjunction, which is the prefix ve-.
Now, that said, one of the oddities of Hebrew is that before beth, mem, and pe, the conjunction changes from ve to a sureq, becoming a "u" sound, which is no doubt what the person behind this video is trying, however ineptly, to say. Again, though, "heights" is plural, and so even if his assumption that bamah underlies the Greek text is correct, it would not be in the singular form bamah, but in a plural form.
Thus, it is simply wrong to assert that Jesus, in talking about Satan falling from heaven like lightning, would have said ubama; it's wrong even if you assume that Jesus would have used bamah to denote heaven, which is unproven. Thus, the last name of our president isn't in the text of Luke 10:18 in any way. As for our president's first name, while Jesus might have said baraq, that's not the same as barak. Plus, the person behind this video has forgotten that Jesus didn't say, "I saw Satan fall lightning heaven," but "like lightning from heaven"—there's a preposition before, and another one in the middle, and rest assured the one in the middle isn't "Hussein." It would be, rather, the Aramaic equivalent to the Hebrew min-. The one before would be the equivalent to the Hebrew prefix ki-.
As such, the closest to "Barack Obama" that Jesus could have spoken would have been something like kibaraq min-ubamatey . . . and that just isn't good enough to support this farrago of nonsense that Jesus told us that Barack Obama is the Antichrist.
Update: I've added a few key points to this argument here. I hate it when people misuse Scripture to their own ends; this is a particularly egregious example.
As the vitriol, invective, and dishonest attacksagainst Sarah Palin continue to come from the Left, demonstrating that their determination to destroy her remains high—and as she continues to refuse to fight hatred with hatred and vitriol with vitriol, which is one of the reasons I support her as strongly as I do—I can’t help thinking yet again of what a disease hatred has become in our politics in this country. It’s hard to believe, from a rational perspective, that this is really what our politics has come to, that some people in this country hate others because they don’t like their views on tax policy, or immigration, or foreign policy, or gay marriage; but sadly, it has.
I can remember, more times than I can count, hearing people denounce George W. Bush as a thief, a liar, and an abuser of presidential authority, but most of the folks who made those accusations didn’t dislike him for those reasons. Sure, there were probably some who did, but for most, it was the other way around. That’s why is why people who wrote off President Clinton’s perjury then waxed furious against President Bush for lying to the American people—which if true put him in the company of FDR and Lincoln, among others—while others who wanted President Clinton impeached turned around to defend President Bush; it’s also why many who spent 2001-08 screaming bloody murder about “the imperial Presidency” and declaiming that the president should be impeached for “destroying the Constitution” are now perfectly happy as Barack Obama continues to expand executive power. If you want defenders of congressional prerogatives (outside Congress itself, anyway), you’ll have to look on the Right. The hypocrisy here—which is not confined to one side, by any means—is enough to make you gag.
The key thing about all these charges and denunciations is that people’s views of them tend to be defined by their politics, not the other way around. That’s why criticizing Clinton’s character never worked for the Republicans, and it’s why accusing Bush of lying didn’t work for the Democrats (it was the specter of losing in Iraq, combined with the Katrina fiasco, that killed his administration): in our current political climate, for far too many people, only the politics matter.
Those on our side (whichever one that is) are the white hats who can do no wrong, and we love them; those on the other side are the black hats who do everything from evil motives, and we hate them. If the other side lies, cheats, and steals, we proclaim it from the housetops. If our side does, well, the other side reporting it just proves what rotten people they are. Not everybody takes this approach, of course—to give conservatives credit, the reaction to the Ensign and Sanford scandals has been encouragingly different in many quarters—but more often than not, this is American politics in the early 21st century.
Of course, this is nothing new; much the same could have been said about American politics across much of the 19th century, which gave us our first presidential assassination and most of the dirtiest presidential elections in our history. For that matter, it was nothing new then, either; so it has been, I expect, in pretty much every society or group that has politics, at least some of the time. I’m not accusing contemporary America of any sort of new or different sin. But that doesn’t mean we don’t need to do something about it—hatred is a sickness that could eat our country hollow from the inside, if we let it.
We need to start to fight this—and by we I don’t mean somebody out there, I mean us, the common folks, the ordinary barbarians of this country. This isn’t going to be solved by politicians, or the media, or any of the rest of our country’s elite—from their perspective, that would be counterproductive; after all, as long as they can exploit the hatred so many people have been taught to feel for their own ends, they’re going to carry right on doing so (and exacerbating it in the process). The only way to begin to break down this culture of animosity is to do it at the grassroots level, following the example of (of all people) David Mamet:
Prior to the midterm elections, my rabbi was taking a lot of flack. The congregation is exclusively liberal, he is a self-described independent (read “conservative”), and he was driving the flock wild. Why? Because a) he never discussed politics; and b) he taught that the quality of political discourse must be addressed first—that Jewish law teaches that it is incumbent upon each person to hear the other fellow out.
And so I, like many of the liberal congregation, began, teeth grinding, to attempt to do so. . . .
The right is mooing about faith, the left is mooing about change, and many are incensed about the fools on the other side—but, at the end of the day, they are the same folks we meet at the water cooler.
We need to do the same with those who disagree with us—not to change our minds, but to build relationships with our political opponents and listen to them respectfully, such that they know that we take their concerns seriously and with real care for what they think and feel and believe; that’s the only way we’re ever going to convince those across the political divide to do the same for us. We need to set aside the goal of changing people’s opinions—that might happen, but it shouldn’t be the purpose of conversation—and seek instead to change the way people hold their opinions, by building a spirit of disagreement in mutual understanding and respect.
The more we can do that, the worse it will be for our politicians—but the better it will be for us.
Heidelberg Catechism Q & A 8 Q. But are we so corrupt that we are totally unable to do any good and inclined toward all evil?
A. Yes,1 unless we are born again, by the Spirit of God.2
Note: mouseover footnote for Scripture references.
This is the doctrine typically referred to as "total depravity," and it's one that confuses some people. Andrew Kuyvenhoven's explanation (28) is helpful here:
Sin is worse than we are inclined to think, and salvation is bigger than any church can tell.
The Bible teaches that, by nature, people are "totally depraved." This is again a technical term, and it might be helpful to say, first, what it does not mean. We don't mean to say that people are as bad as they can possibly be. Most of the time, most of them are not. Neither do we mean that ordinary decent people cannot perform acts of kindness, helpfulness, courtesy, and so on. Many people do, and we thank God for the milk of human kindness and the paint of civilized surroundings.
By total depravity, we mean that sin has affected every part of every human being. . . .
The only solution to total depravity is total renewal. No person can do anything that is really acceptable to God unless he or she has a new heart.
The Christian life is a life of total dependence on the grace and the power of God. There is no "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" here, and no suggestion that if you just work harder, you can be good enough (nor the corollary that if anything's wrong in your life, it must mean you're not trying hard enough); nor is there any trace of the idea that to keep your salvation, you have to keep working harder. Rather, there is the call to joyful acceptance of our deliverance by Jesus Christ, who set us free from our slavery to sin, who took our death and gave us life.
Rebuild the parties? On why we might be suffering from an excess of democracy, in one respect.
Reclaiming the gospel? We have a remarkable ability to get our idea of Christianity backwards . . .
A bad week for Barack Obama The most recent polls show that a lot of folks who voted for the president are now questioning their votes, whether because of the Gates affair, because he's governed as a hard leftist, or whatever; but everything we see now was foreshadowed during the campaign, for those willing to believe it.
A matter of trust "We hear God saying, 'Obey me, obey me, obey me'; but what God is really saying is, 'Trust me. Trust me. Trust me.'"
One of the key facts about the push to nationalize our healthcare system is that it's coming from people who have absolutely no intention to live under the system they're trying to produce. Barack Obama even admitted as much last month, though the media has done its best to ignore the fact. Give Jake Tapper and Karen Travers credit, though, for refusing to sweep the president's admission under the rug:
President Obama struggled to explain today whether his health care reform proposals would force normal Americans to make sacrifices that wealthier, more powerful people—like the president himself—wouldn't face. . . .
Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it's not provided by insurance.
Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he's proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.
The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if "it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care."
That's telling. Would the president be willing to accept limitations on the care his wife and children could receive for the sake of the greater good? Dr. Devinsky asked. No, the president would not. He evaded the question for as long as he could with a non sequitur about his dying grandmother, but when he finally came back around to answering it briefly, that was his answer: no.
And after all, he won't have to accept the limitations of his plan—he's the President of the United States. He's famous, he's powerful, he defines well-connected . . . and he's a member of a government which routinely exempts its own members from the limitations of the laws it passes. Obamacare for thee, but not for me and mine, is indeed his attitude—he's too important and valuable a person for that. That's only for us ordinary barbarians.
If ObamaCare isn’t good enough for Sasha, Malia, or Michelle, then it’s not good enough for America. Instead of fighting that impulse, Obama should be working to boost the private sector to encourage more care providers, less red tape and expense, and better care for everyone.
But that's not what he's doing, and it's not what he's going to do; that's how he wants it to work for him and his family, but not for everyone else. Unless, of course, they're political allies whose support he needs and to whom he owes favors—then they can get special treatment too:
Who will decide when medical care is just too expensive to bother with? Who will be left to perish because they just aren't worth the lifesaving effort? Well, for sure it won't be any members of Congress or anyone that works for the federal government because they won't be expected to suffer under the nationally socialized plan. It also won't be Obama's buddies in the unions who are about to be similarly exempted from the national plan, at least if Senator Max Baucus has his way.
Insisting on standards for others to which one is unwilling to hold oneself? The word for that, I believe, is "hypocrisy"—and the forces of Obamacare are rife and rank with it. As James Lewis pointed out recently on the American Thinker website, one of our leading advocates of socialized medicine makes a pretty good poster boy for it.
Senator Ted Kennedy, who is now 76 years old and was diagnosed with brain cancer in May of last year, is telling the world that nationalized medical care is "the cause of his life." He wants to see it pass as soon as possible, before he departs this vale of tears.
The prospect of Kennedy's passing is viewed by the liberal press with anticipatory tears and mourning. But they are not asking the proper question by their own lights: That question—which will be asked for you and me when we reach his age and state in life—is this:
Is Senator Kennedy's life valuable enough to dedicate millions of dollars to extending it another month, another day, another year?
Because Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy agree with each other that they of all people are entitled to make that decision. Your decision to live or die will now be in their hands.
Ted Kennedy is now 76. Average life expectancy in the United States is 78.06. For a man who has already reached 76, life expectancy is somewhat longer than average (since people who die younger lower the national average); for a wealthy white man it may be somewhat longer statistically; but for a man with diagnosed brain cancer it is correspondingly less. As far as the actuarial tables of the Nanny State are concerned, Kennedy is due to leave this life some time soon. The socialist State is not sentimental, at least when it comes to the lives of ordinary people like you and me.
The socialist question—and yes, it is being asked very openly in socialist countries all around the world, like Britain and Sweden—must be whether extending Senator Kennedy's life by another day, another month or year is socially valuable enough to pay for what is no doubt a gigantic and growing medical bill. Kennedy is a US Senator, and all that money has been coughed up without complaint by the US taxpayer. Kennedy is already entitled to Federal health care, and it is no doubt the best available to anyone in the world. . . .
There might be a rational debate over the social utility of Senator Kennedy's life. We could all have a great national debate about it. Maybe we should do exactly that, to face the consequences of what the Left sees as so humane, so obviously benevolent, and so enlightened.
Consider what happens in the Netherlands to elderly people. The Netherlands legalized "assisted suicide" in 2002, no doubt in part for compassionate reasons. But also to save money. . . .
There's only so much money available. The Netherlands radio service had a quiz show at one time, designed to "raise public awareness" about precisely that question. Who deserves to live, and who to die?
But nobody debates any more about who has the power to make that decision. In socialist Europe the State does. It's a done deal. . . .
In the socialist Netherlands Kennedy would be a perfect candidate for passive euthanasia.
Has anyone raised this question with Senator Kennedy? I know it seems to be in bad taste to even mention it. But if ObamaCare passes in the coming weeks, you can be sure that that question will be raised for you and me, and our loved ones. And no, we will not have a choice.
One set of standards for the rich and the powerful, and another for the rest of us. One set of medical options for those who write the laws (and those who influence them), and another for those of us who live under them. That's liberalism? It seems to me there's something seriously wrong with that.
Which is why, to my way of thinking, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) is a hero of the fight over Obamacare. Rep. Fleming, a physician, is the author and sponsor of House Resolution 615, which he describes this way:
I've offered a bill, HR 615, to give them a chance to put their "health" where their mouth is: My resolution urges members of Congress who vote for this legislation to lead by example and enroll themselves in the public plan that their bill would create.
The current draft of the Democratic bill curiously exempts members of Congress from the government-run health care option: The people's representatives would get to keep their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill—even though the people wouldn't.
If members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hardworking American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. . . .
Congress has the bad habit of exempting itself from the problems it inflicts on the American people. From common workplace protections to transparency and accountability measures, lawmakers always seem to place themselves and their staffs just out of reach of the laws they create.
Americans don't know that there is an attending physician on call exclusively for members of Congress, or that Congress enjoys VIP access and admission to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda Naval Medical Center.
It is past time that we make the men and women making the laws be exposed to the same consequences as the American public.
Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
We deserve health-care reform that puts a patient's well being in the hands of a doctor, not a bureaucrat.
I think he's right on. If it's good enough for us, it's good enough for the members of Congress, the employees of the Executive Branch (all the way up to the POTUS and his family), and the judges and staff of our courts. If you agree, you might want to go to Rep. Fleming's official website and sign the online petition in support of HR 615. Well done, Rep. Fleming; trust a doctor to know a boil when he sees it, and know how to lance it—even a spiritual one.
As I noted in the previous post, there’s been a real lack of active leadership from the president on the whole issue of health care “reform,” which has been quite frustrating to his party. Unfortunately, instead of that, we’re getting more of his patented harangues. This is a bad thing because for all the praise he receives as an orator, Barack Obama is a remarkably lazy and juvenile rhetor; he has a terrible weakness for cheap rhetorical tricks, tending to lean on them heavily whenever he needs to make his case. One he particularly likes is to set up false, simple-minded dichotomies, which he can then use to either a) paint himself as offering a more enlightened third way forward, or b) portray his own position as obviously correct and that of those of us who disagree with him as obviously wrong.
With his example of the red and blue pills, and another about whether a child’s hypothetical tonsils should be removed, President Obama unwittingly presents the real problem with his plan for reform. Here is a well-meaning government official who so fails to grasp the problem in health care that he can present such absurd oversimplifications and suggest that this sort of thing is the real problem—doctors simply lack the common sense to make obvious medical decisions. President Obama wants us to solve this problem by putting himself and other government officials in charge of rescuing medicine from the medical profession. If medical doctors with a decade of schooling cannot distinguish between good cures and ineffective ones that must be discontinued, then by gosh, we’re lucky that the good folks from the government can.
President Obama thus frames the issue as a false choice between doing nothing at all and handing over to Washington complicated, case-by-case medical decisions that cannot possibly be legislated or dictated by government.
Freddoso’s wrong about one thing: “complicated, case-by-case medical decisions” can in fact be “legislated or dictated by government”—in one way, which he mentions:
There is exactly one thing that government can do to control costs in health care: it can insist on paying below cost.
Granted, he’s thinking here of government short-changing insurance companies and medical providers, which is a significant problem in our current system:
This shifts the cost burden to private insurance companies, which in turn pass along higher premiums to their patients. This is what government-run Medicare does today for many treatments, including cancer. Government will do more of this kind of “saving” when it assumes greater responsibility for funding citizens’ health care, particularly if a government-option health care plan is established.
What he’s missing, though, is that this form of “saving” only has this particular effect when there’s still a sizeable public sector in existence to bear that burden and compensate for it with higher premiums. Kill off that private sector, as the president’s preferred approach will pretty much do, and you get a different result—which is what the Mayo Clinic is worried about:
Under the current Medicare system, a majority of doctors and hospitals that care for Medicare patients are paid substantially less than it costs to treat them. Many providers are therefore already approaching a point where they can not afford to see Medicare patients. Expansion of a Medicare-type plan without a method to define, measure, and pay for healthy outcomes for patients will move many doctors and hospitals across this threshold, and ultimately hurt the patients who seek our care.
You see, when the government bureaucrats need to make “complicated, case-by-case medical decisions,” they’re not going to make them on the basis of the things that truly make them “complicated” and “case-by-case”; they’re going to make them on the basis of the actuarial tables, on a cost/benefit analysis run purely from the perspective of the federal government, and the way they’ll make them is by telling doctors, “We won’t pay that much for that procedure” (if indeed they’re willing to pay anything for it at all). If the figure they set is low enough, the procedure won’t get done. The only variable for medical decisions will be government cost control. In his usual role as the ghoul at the party, Peter Singer has been the only one to come right out in public and tell everyone what that means: rationing of health care.
As cost issues come to dominate the government’s interest in the health care system—which is to say, as the rosy and unrealistic projections of cost savings which the Democrats are currently using to try to build public support for their plan quickly give way to reality, creating a budget crunch—this will also necessarily mean increased taxes. After all, Democrats never have the stomach for huge budget cuts (except from defense budgets), and certainly won’t be willing to embrace the kind of truly draconian rationing of medical care that would be necessary to solve that budget crunch without tax increases. That’s why, despite the promises the president made back when he was trying to get elected, the House’s health care bill already includes a significant tax on the uninsured.
As expected, the House bill would mandate that individuals and families have or buy health insurance.
But what if they don’t buy it?
Then Section 401 kicks in. Any individual (or family) that does not have health insurance would have to pay a new tax, roughly equal to the smaller of 2.5% of your income or the cost of a health insurance plan. . . .
I assume the bill authors would respond, “But why wouldn’t you want insurance? After all, we’re subsidizing it for everyone up to 400% of the poverty line.”
That is true. But if you’re a single person with income of $44,000 or higher, then you’re above 400% of the poverty line. You would not be subsidized, but would face the punitive tax if you didn’t get health insurance. This bill leaves an important gap between the subsidies and the cost of health insurance. CBO says that for about eight million people, that gap is too big to close, and they would get stuck paying higher taxes and still without health insurance.
Ed Morissey adds that “the mandate in the bill would force people to choose between paying the taxes or paying as much as three times as much for health insurance, assuming a family plan.” Still, isn’t that better than having 45.7 million uninsured people? Not necessarily; the crowning irony to this is that, as Deroy Murdock points out, the number of people for whom lack of medical insurance is truly a serious problem is actually about . . . eight million.
Obamacare is propelled by the oft-repeated Census Bureau statistic that 45.7 million Americans lack health insurance. Even if that number were accurate, why would Washington turn the health-care industry upside down for all 300 million Americans in order to help 45.7 million? In fact, as Pacific Research Institute president Sally Pipes demonstrates, public policy should concentrate on a far smaller group of hard cases.
From those 45.7 million uninsured, subtract 17.5 million who earn more than $50,000 annually. Though they can afford coverage, they evidently have other priorities. Of the remaining 28.2 million uninsured, some 14 million are eligible for, yet have not enrolled in, the Medicaid and S-CHIP programs. Meanwhile, as many as 10 million uninsured may be illegal aliens. All told, Pipes estimates that only about 8 million Americans are uninsured due to chronic illness or working-poor status. The latter have incomes too high for assistance and too low for insurance.
In other words: if the House bill passes, it will throw a huge amount of money at the problem of people who can’t afford medical insurance, and the result will be that the same number of people will be unable to afford medical insurance, except that they’ll be paying higher taxes for the privilege. Even for D.C., that will be an amazing accomplishment.
For all the real problems with our country’s health care system, the current fight in Congress is more about Barack Obama’s agenda than it is about what this country needs; you can see that in the way he’s tried to argue that bringing in massive new regulation of our health care system is necessary to fix the economy (a line which, to judge by current polling, most voters aren’t buying). That’s why Sen. Jim DeMint declared that if the president can’t get this bill passed, “it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” President Obama knows it, too, as an anecdote in a recent National Journal story, told by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, shows:
“Let’s just lay everything on the table,” Grassley said. “A Democrat congressman last week told me after a conversation with the president that the president had trouble in the House of Representatives, and it wasn’t going to pass if there weren’t some changes made . . . and the president says, ‘You’re going to destroy my presidency.’”
Which makes the president’s lack of real leadership on this issue telling. CNN’s Political Ticker noted last week that Democrats on the Hill are unhappy with his failure to do his part to get a health care bill passed:
One Democratic senator tells CNN congressional Democrats are “baffled,” and another senior Democratic source tells CNN members of the president’s own party are still “frustrated” that they’re not getting more specific direction from him on health care. “We appreciate the rhetoric and his willingness to ratchet up the pressure but what most Democrats on the Hill are looking for is for the president to weigh in and make decisions on outstanding issues. Instead of sending out his people and saying the president isn’t ruling anything out, members would like a little bit of clarity on what he would support—especially on how to pay for his health reform bill,” a senior Democratic congressional source tells CNN.
How did he respond? By going out and picking a fight with the Cambridge, MA police, which “sucked the oxygen out of the health care debate at the very moment Democrats were pleading for him to become more involved.”
President Obama clearly recognizes that in making a huge statist health care bill central to his agenda and staking a great deal of political capital on it, he has made it a bill which he must get passed if he’s to be able to lead effectively; if it fails, it will demonstrate significant political weakness to conservatives, to voters more generally, to the political class, to our nation’s allies, and to our enemies abroad. That’s why he told his party’s congressional wing that they will “destroy his presidency” if they don’t pass it without major changes; that’s why Sen. DeMint called it potentially his Waterloo.
In one sense, of course, that comparison is overstated, because the Obama administration isn’t going to fall if the Democratic health care bill fails; the president will be weakened politically, but he’ll still be the president. In another sense, though, Sen. DeMint’s comparison might not even be strong enough, because the most telling thing about this whole situation is that when faced—by his own admission—with the possible destruction of his presidency, Barack Obama has left it in the hands of Congress to prevent that. He’s happy to go on TV and host a press conference, but when it comes to the nitty-gritty work of leadership, he’s completely hands-off. For whatever reason, he just can’t or won’t do that.
This is the great difference between President Obama and Emperor Napoleon: Napoleon was on the field at Waterloo. He wasn’t on the front line itself, leading a charge, but he was right there with the army, giving orders and calling the shots. President Obama, by contrast, has left that job to Marshal Pelosi and General Reid—he’s back in Paris canoodling with Josephine. I’m not sure what that says about his ability and willingness to be a real leader, but whatever it is, it ain’t good.
Wikipedia: “Hair of the dog is a colloquialEnglish expression predominantly used to refer to ingestion of alcohol as treatment for a hangover. It is occasionally used with respect to dealing with the after effects of use of other recreational drugs.”
As I’ve already said, I agree that our health care system in this country is dysfunctional—it’s inefficient, uncompetitive, too expensive, too unaccountable, and not at all transparent. Unfortunately, we have a bunch of politicians (to whom the whole thing is personally irrelevant since they have a superb taxpayer-funded health care plan which won’t be affected at all by anything they pass) whose desire is to solve these problems by feeding it the hair of the dog: making our healthcare system even more inefficient, uncompetitive, expensive, unaccountable, and opaque by adding a vast new tangle of government bureaucracy to the existing vast tangle of government bureaucracy that’s already gumming up the works. If you haven’t seen the organizational chart for this, it’s beyond belief:
If you’re wondering how that will function in practice, here’s a working model:
One of the great problems with a government-centric approach to “reforming” health care is almost theological, the same problem the early church had with the Pharisees (and the church has had throughout the centuries with those who would rather live by law than by grace): if you try to define and control anything through law, then you need a law for every bit of minutiae. This is is why government control is never the most efficient way to run anything, because it’s impossible to fine-tune the law well enough to make it truly efficient; it’s why government control stifles innovation, because all those laws lock innovation down. It’s also why, whatever the overarching principle of any law might be, the devil is always in the details.
As the above organizational chart shows, the details of the current Democratic health care bill are myriad, complicated, and confusing; and as a closer examination of some of those details shows, for this bill, they add up to a mighty big devil. Check out the Economic Policy Journal blog for a list that may very well curl your hair, including a massive expansion of government incursion into individual rights and economic freedom. Then consider that while one of the other big factors driving up the cost of healthcare is runaway litigation, this bill won’t do anything to rein that in—in fact, it will expand it. (HT: Mark Hemingway)
AARP knows and the people with me here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable. It’s totally unacceptable. And it’s completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it now. It can’t do it financially. We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation. Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’ The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.
It doesn’t really deserve its own name, though, because it’s not new to VP Biden at all; it’s the same old folk logic of the hair of the dog: to fix a problem, just pile on lots more of what created the problem to begin with. Apply it to drinkers, you get drunks, who then use it to justify becoming worse drunks. Now, a government drunk on tax money and a political party supported in large part by trial-lawyers drunk on lawsuit money are using it to try to justify getting even drunker. We need to tell them to sober up.
The other day, I tipped the hat to Barack Obama for his gracious response to Cambridge, MA police officer Jim Crowley. At the time, I hadn’t really thought about the fact that his motivation for doing so might be purely political—namely, that he might have significant political reasons for wanting the flap over his response to Henry Louis Gates’ arrest to go away as quickly as possible. Jennifer Rubin lays it out:
The president’s decision to weigh in on the arrest of his Harvard law professor friend Henry Louis Gates Jr., who mouthed off to a Cambridge cop threw a grenade into his health care PR offensive and revived questions about his promises of a post-racial presidency. He tried to defuse matters with a Friday appearance in the White House briefing room, but like his predecessor, he found it impossible to say “I am sorry” or “I was wrong.”
It is not surprising that the cable TV news and the Sunday talk shows continued to chew over the story. Unfortunately for the president, the comment was harmful on multiple levels. We can count at least five ways in which the story is a loser for Obama.
First, it suggests he is an uninformed busy-body. . . .
Second, he sucked the oxygen out of the health care debate at the very moment Democrats were pleading for him to become more involved. . . .
Third, Obama indisputably fanned the flames of racism and rekindled animosity on both sides by assuming or making this all about race. . . .
Fourth, the underlying fault line in Obama’s presidency and his agenda is the growing sense that government is getting too big and is accumulating too much power. It is not just core Republicans who think government is doing too much, but an overwhelming number of independents who are irked by the Washington power grab. . . .
Fifth, Obama has fallen into the unfortunate habit of blaming others.
Perhaps the most damaging thing of all this is the way it shows a reflexive assumption of racism on the president’s part.
Juan Williams, on Fox News Sunday, did the country an immense service by recounting what exactly occurred: “The president spoke without the facts. You can’t have a ‘teachable moment’ if it’s based on a lie.”As Williams explained, in this case, the neighbor called the police, Gates began to berate the officer (“Do you know who I am?”), trash-talking about the officer’s mother and pursuing him out of the house. The black and Hispanic officers confirmed Gates’ abusive behavior, and Sergeant Crowley took out the handcuffs and warned Gates before finally having to cuff him.
Williams asked, “Is this an instance of a poor black kid being beaten by the cops?” No. And in converting this into a tale of police misconduct (he acted “stupidly,” Obama said) and racial injustice, Obama only reinforced the country’s racial divide. Whites often think blacks scream racism at the drop of a hat; blacks think whites are out to get them. Good work, Mr. President.
This sort of reaction on President Obama’s part directly undermines the foundation of his appeal among moderates and independents—namely, his promise of a post-racial America, free from this sort of conflict. That’s why, though this flap in and of itself is a minor thing, he might find it much harder to put behind him than his strongest supporters believe.
As Williams argued, his knee-jerk reaction to cry racism “hurt the country and it hurt him.” It was, to put it mildly, exactly what Obama didn’t need. A polarizing event—confirming the worst fears that he is arrogant, not at all post-racial, and prone to play last-and-loose with the facts—is not what he needed in the midst of the biggest political challenge of his young presidency. The stimulus is working, he is teaching us about race, and now he wants to run your health care. Not an attractive picture.
Like most folks, I agree that our health care system in this country is dysfunctional and needs serious treatment. I agree with those who say that we need to uncouple medical insurance from employers and employee benefits, for a lot of reasons; that linkage was a 1940s expedient that has done more, I think, to distort both the cost of health care and the functioning of our medical system than anything else. I think if we recognize and accept this, a real bipartisan reform is possible on that basis, providing that the Democratic Party is willing to stand up to the unions on that point.
Where I part company with the current administration is its analysis of where we go from here. To my way of thinking, the great functional problem with our health care system is that it’s an anticompetitive mess. The majority of us don’t choose our medical insurance; instead, they get what comes with their situation (in most cases, their current or former job). We sort of choose our doctors, but from a limited list preselected by our (unchosen) insurer, and based on a far more limited set of data than we might use to choose, let’s say, a new washing machine or coffeemaker. (Side note: the Cuisinart DCC-2000 carafeless coffeemaker is wonderful if you don't mind the electrical system dying every year or so; they’re very good about replacing it free of charge when it does.) And when we need to go to the hospital, we don't do a price comparison, we go where they send us.
Indeed, we can’t do a price comparison, because hospitals don’t make that information available; as my wife rightly insists, requiring hospitals to be transparent about their rates and tell you in advance what they charge for everything is an essential element in any meaningful health care reform. Without that information, it’s impossible for the market economy to function, because it's impossible for people in need of healthcare to make economically-informed decisions; there is only the upward pressure on costs produced by the desire for more and better and more elaborate services (because after all, there’s just a chance that this or that test might tell us something we don't already know) with no countervailing downward pressure on costs produced by the desire to save money (because after all, those tests are horrendously expensive and not worth the cost when they’re not really necessary). If we want to bring costs down while preserving the quality of our health care system, what we need to do is open up the system to market forces, not close it still further by making it a part of our highly-inefficient government apparatus.
Rather than endorse such big-government overkill, pro-freedom members of Congress should promote a simple concept: Let every American own and control an individual health-insurance policy that can be transported among jobs, self-employment, graduate school, and life’s other twists and turns. . . .
There is no need for a gargantuan health plan that spends $1.5 trillion—as the Congressional Budget Office estimates House Democrats want—nor for the 29 new federal boards, panels, and agencies that Senate Democrats envision. As for creating a “government option” for health insurance, why not create a government option for grocery stores and clothing shops, lest famine and nudity erupt across the land?
What Americans need is a thriving market in individually owned and controlled health-insurance plans. When you book an airline flight, PriceLine.com does not ask, “What is your group number?” You decide when and where to fly, and then buy your ticket. At least with personal travel, your boss does not fund this. The same is true for car insurance, home insurance, and often life insurance. Why must Americans shop for health insurance at work, rather than online or through independent agents?
Health-care reform should give Americans the option of using money tax-free to purchase whatever kinds of health insurance make them happy. If employers offer such plans, lovely. If not, individuals should be encouraged, through tax-free Health Savings Accounts, to buy their own policies and maintain them throughout their careers. This dramatically would reduce the tragedy of “job lock,” whereby employees put up with bosses and duties they cannot stand, merely to keep employer-furnished health coverage.
As Rep. John Shadegg (R., Ariz.) has argued, Americans also should be free to buy health plans across state lines. Today, such policies usually must be purchased within consumers’ own respective states, subject to state-level insurance regulations. If New York residents may arrange home loans through Illinois-based banks, for example, why are we only allowed to buy health plans through insurers who operate in the Empire State?
Creating a massive government bureaucracy to control health care will only be good news for bureaucrats; for all that this is couched in the language of “making health care a right,” the actual result will be the opposite. After all, as Peter Singer has already said (I won’t say “admitted,” because he doesn’t view it as an admission), the inevitable result of government funding of healthcare will be government control of your health care decisions, and government rationing of healthcare. If government money is necessary for you to live, then the government will make the decision whether you live or die—and the government cares more about your money than it does about you.
This is inevitably what happens when the government takes something over. Robert Wenzel sums it up well in his comment on Dr. Singer’s piece:
The big problem with Singer’s argument is that he makes the mistake of assuming a fixed pool of healthcare services. This is a world where the evidence shows that in a free market economy, innovations are a daily occurrence. Cell phones, big screen televisions and personal computers get better and cheaper. Expensive new products that only the rich can afford are in many ways simply inferior “test” products before they get to the masses in better quality and much cheaper. Would you rather have the current cheaper jumbo screen televisions, cell phones and personal computers or the much more expensive clunkier jumbo TV, cell phones and PCs of yesteryear that only the rich could afford?
By rationed healthcare, and limited bureaucratic controlled access to “expensive” healthcare, new innovations, creativity and advancements in the healthcare industry will be greatly reduced, perhaps eliminated. The incentives will be gone. Remember, there are never any stats on what innovations, discoveries and advancements will have never been created. Those who argue that medical care works in national health care countries fail to understand the innovations that are killed off. This is, of course, in addition, to the usual problems of rationing and bureaucratic distortion of prices—and the government taking the role of decider on whether you deserve to walk or not, or whether you calculate out for life or death.
Rather than moving our medical system toward the world dominated by Moore’s Law (that drives innovation rather than suppressing it), Obamacare would move it into the world of government procurement that gave us the fabled thousand-dollar hammer, and the world of government financial management that has put us trillions of dollars in debt. Given that government has consistently proven itself poor at running anything efficiently and under budget, there’s no justification for the claim that the government can improve our health care system by taking it over (especially when there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary from other countries that have tried it).
Government-run health care systems are no more functional than the one we have now—economically or morally; if anything, they’re less so, especially as they inevitably lead in the end to the government putting a dollar value on people’s lives according to how much they’re worth to the state. If we truly want to make things better (as opposed to transferring large amounts of our personal freedom and autonomy to yet another unaccountable bureaucracy), we need to turn away from this approach and toward the one Murdock lays out, one which has already been shown to work. We need to break the health care bureaucracy that already exists, rather than multiplying it, and give people the information and autonomy they need to make their own decisions with their own money. We need to let the market drive efficiency, as it already does in so many other parts of life. We need to set health care free.
Heidelberg Catechism Q & A 7 Q. Then where does this corrupt human nature come from?
A. From the fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise.1 This fall has so poisoned our nature2 that we are born sinners— corrupt from conception on.3
Note: mouseover footnote for Scripture references.
Our first ancestors fouled the well, and poisoned our inheritance. Kuyvenhoven puts it well, I think, when he says (27),
[The catechism] intentionally calls Adam and Eve our "parents," thereby teaching that, just as black parents get black children and white parents get white children, so sinful parents get sinful children, whether they are yellow, red, black, or white. None of us can escape this poison, for all of us have parents. That's the teaching.
And none of us can avoid passing it on, for all of us are sinners. As the father of three, I can testify that I am far more aware of my own depravity now than I ever was before they came along.
after responding to the arrest of Henry Louis Gates in something of a knee-jerk fashion—which is understandable, since Dr. Gates, one of the high-profile members of the Harvard faculty, is a friend of his—has now acted quite graciously to defuse the situation and to defend the officer who arrested Dr. Gates, Sgt. Jim Crowley of the Cambridge police. While of course he continues to insist that the arrest was an "overreaction"—something which is easy to say from a distance, since from an outside perspective it's clear that Dr. Gates didn't actually intend Sgt. Crowley any harm—he has also unbent far enough to admit that "Professor Gates probably overreacted as well." While that's something of an understatement, given the professor's loud, arrogant and abusive behavior (not surprising from a Harvard prima donna), it's still a welcome admission. More than that, President Obama called Sgt. Crowley "a good man . . . who has a fine track record on racial sensitivity," and admitted of his initial reaction,
In my choice of words, I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department, or Sergeant Crowley specifically. I could have calibrated those words differently, and I told this to Sergeant Crowley.
As well, President Obama gave the press another reason to feel good about Sgt. Crowley:
By the way, said Obama, at the end of his conversation with Crowley, there was some discussion of Obama, Gates, and Crowley having a beer in the White House. "I don't know if that's scheduled yet," Obama deadpanned, "but we may put that together. But he also did say that he wanted to find out if there was a way of getting the press off his lawn."
"I informed him," Obama said, "that . . . I can't get the press off my lawn," drawing big laughs from the gathered reporters.
Since he's now been the cause, in a friendly and familiar way, of a presidential joke, as well as the recipient of an official presidential pat on the back it seems unlikely that Sgt. Crowley should have to worry about any further attacks on his character . . . though he may still want to swing wide of Dr. Gates in future. But this is a guy who could easily have been savaged, given the way things go in this country, and who really didn't have it coming; kudos to President Obama for his gracious handling of the situation to keep that from happening.
Courtesy of The Onion, of course; though I have to admit, as someone whose inner child still remembers playing with G. I. Joe, Mask, and Transformers, to the sneaking thought that it would be cool if our army did have a dragon tank . . .
A. No. God created them good1 and in his own image,2 that is, in true righteousness and holiness,3 so that they might truly know God their creator,4 love him with all their heart, and live with him in eternal happiness for his praise and glory.5
Note: mouseover footnote for Scripture references.
There's a real tendency these days to appeal to genetics to explain behavior—and increasingly, to excuse behavior, as action is reframed as identity. The church can't appeal to the word of God with regard to homosexual activity without someone else (or a number of someones) standing up and saying, "God made me this way, and therefore this is how I'm supposed to be, and therefore God can't really have meant that"; and the repetition of that assertion has convinced a lot of folks (especially younger folks) who consider themselves evangelicals, and thus has done considerable damage to the authority of Scripture in the American evangelical church.
Now, I have no interest in the debate over whether or not or to what degree homosexual desires are a matter of genetics; to be blunt, I consider the whole question a red herring, as we understand full well when it comes to other issues. From the information I've seen, the heritability of alcoholism is about the same as the heritability of homosexual preferences, and nobody uses that as a defense for driving drunk. Certain cancers, we well know, come to us through our genes, yet we don't tell cancer patients, "God made you this way, so he must want you to die of cancer." (The federal government might, if Obamacare passes, but that's another matter.) It would be quite consistent to label homosexual tendencies just another inherited disease—but we don't do that; this makes it clear that it's not the genetic element that's driving the argument, but the affective element, the fact that those who practice such behaviors don't want to give them up.
And yet, given that the appeal to genetics has been effective (whether logical or not), we can expect to see it raised as a defense for other behaviors as well; over time, it will become increasingly hard for the church to call people to holiness without hearing, "God made me this way!" As such, it's important to remind Christians that the Scriptures give the church a firm answer to this, to which the Heidelberg bears witness: No, he didn't. We are all sinners, we are all bent to defy the will of God and to prefer evil to good in at least some areas of our lives, and all of our natural tendencies, preferences, orientations and desires arise out of sin-distorted hearts—but God didn't make us that way. God created us good, in his own image; our sinful desires are someone else's fault altogether.
As such, just because something is natural to us, just because we inherited it along with our hair and eye color, doesn't make it right, and doesn't mean that God approves of it. All it means is that we're born sinful, just like everybody else.
One of the enduring myths of modern times is the idea that lemmings have a suicidal streak. Apparently, we have Disney to thank for this, at least in part. During the shooting of their 1958 nature film White Wilderness, the crew purchased a few dozen lemmings, shot footage of them from a number of different angles to make them look like a large herd, then drove them off a cliff in order to show them “hurling themselves into the sea.” It apparently convinced a lot of people—after all, would Disney lie to you?—but it just isn’t so; the real reason for mass lemming extinctions is quite different. You see, in the absence of sufficient predators to keep their numbers in check, lemmings tend to breed out of control and literally eat themselves out of house and home; when there’s no more food, they pack up and move, migrating en masse, looking for a new place with enough to eat. The problem is that lemmings don’t see very far, so if they come to a cliff, or a lake, or the ocean, then yes, they keep right on going and end up dead; but their deaths are accidental, not the result of some long-tailed death wish.
The upside of this myth, at least for lemmings, is that at least we’ve heard of them. If I asked you to name another animal that lives on the Arctic tundra, how many of you could? Granted, it’s not that lemmings themselves are all that interesting, it’s their symbolic value; but the symbol is powerful enough that it doesn’t much matter that the actual animal is really rather nondescript. When we hear “lemming” we don’t think “tundra rat,” we think of someone who’s easily led, who follows the crowd wherever they go; we have an image of an individual who lacks the foresight to see trouble coming, or the insight to ask where their leader is going. We think, in other words, of the kind of person who would blindly follow someone right over the edge of a cliff and not even think twice until they were halfway to the bottom.
Now, there are those who will tell you that lemmings are in the majority, that most people are mindless followers; they might even be right, though I’ve noticed that people who say that tend to be pretty arrogant about their own independence. In the last analysis, though, I think the real lesson to be learned from the lemming is that leadership matters, because the direction in which you go matters. Indeed, that’s even truer for us than it is for lemmings: unlike the rodents, we know there are obstacles out there, we have some idea what they are, and we can plan for them. As such, we can reasonably expect our leaders to see the cliff up ahead, and turn before they get to it.
And if they don’t? Well, we have one other advantage over lemmings: just because we’re currently following a rat doesn’t mean we have to keep doing it.
Our local deity is not Jesus. He goes by the name Jesus. But in reality, our local deity is Jesus Jr.
Our little Jesus is popular because he is useful. He makes us feel better while conveniently fitting into the margins of our busy lives. But he is not terrifying or compelling or thrilling. When we hear the gospel of Jesus Jr., our casual response is “Yeah, that’s what I believe.” Jesus Jr. does not confront us, surprise us, stun us. He looks down on us with a benign, all-approving grin. He tells us how wonderful we really are, how entitled we really are, how wounded we really are, and it feels good. . . .
Jesus Jr. is the magnification of Self, the idealization of Self, the absolutization of Self turning around and validating Self, flattering Self, reinforcing Self. Jesus Jr. does not change us, because he is a projection of us.
I need to get caught back up on the Rev. Dr. Ortlund's blog; my thanks to Jared Wilson for highlighting this one. Read the whole thing, because he really nails the core idolatry of so much of the American church. I've written before on what some have dubbed "the Jesus heresy," but I think it would be truer to call it "the Jesus Jr. heresy," because it's this shrunken, sanitized, shrink-wrapped, shock-absorbed replacement Jesus that makes it possible.
There are folks out there (like Examiner.com's George Copeland) suggesting that Sarah Palin may have resigned from office to set up a run for the presidency in 2012, not as a Republican, but as an independent candidate. While I tend to doubt that that will be her approach, the party mandarins have every reason to worry about what she might do to them. After all, the last time Sarah Palin resigned from a position, it was the beginning of an all-out assault on the Alaska GOP, which had betrayed the party's core principles with its corruption and cronyism. Following her resignation, her political career was widely pronounced dead at the scene, but in fact it was only the beginning of the political insurgency that would carry her to the governor's mansion. The past is no guarantee of the future, but there is certainly considerable reason to think that we might see history repeating itself here.
We’ve got major battles on the Hill and fundamental principles to defend.
Show the corrupted, Beltway-infected, power-drunk Republicans the door.
And get back to work.
I heartily agree. To this point, though, not enough Republican voters have; when I tried a while back to argue over on RedState that conservatives should back Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao (R-LA) in a primary challenge to Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), I was shouted down by a bunch of folks saying, in essence, "His voting record's good—never mind the prostitution thing." Here's hoping that sort of attitude is starting to change; it has to. My second-favorite politician, Florida's Marco Rubio, is right to say,
The Republican party should be the party that always understands that what people want more than anything else in life is for the chance to provide security for themselves and their family and to leave their kids better off than themselves. . . .
For many Americans our party has become indistinguishable from the Democrats. We're viewed as the party of hypocrites who say one thing and do another.
The only way we're going to fix that, and the only way we're going to have a political party whose leaders represent and stay true to the beliefs and concerns of those who elect them, is to finish clearing the decks of the low-character power-focused Washington-corrupted lowlifes who currently make up the bulk of the national party establishment. Gov. Palin, throughout her political career, has been about cleaning folks like that out of the Republican Party, first locally and then on the state level. Now she's stepping down from her position in Alaska so she can take them on—and take them out—on the national stage. All I can say is—you go, Gov.; we're behind you every step of the way.
