Rick Santorum’s It Takes a Family 4

Here are some items from my latest reading of Rick Santorum’s It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good.

1.  Santorum does not support passing out condoms to teens in school, for he thinks that sends out a message of low expectations: We don’t expect for many teens to abstain, so here’s some contraception.  Against this mindset, Santorum cites the 1991 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which says that 54 percent of high school students have had sex, and Santorum notes that this percentage was down to 46 percent in 2001.  That means that most high school students are virgins, even though Santorum acknowledges that it is not that overwhelming of a majority.

Personally, I’m in favor of abstinence-plus education.  I support contraception being available, but I also think that sex education should teach teens that abstinence is okay, and to respect themselves and others.

2.  Santorum thinks that the tax system should be reformed to help families.  He has problems with the marriage penalty, and also with phasing out the per-child tax credit for families making $110,000 a year, since such a family would need that tax credit if it had (say) eight children!  Santorum also talks about how the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was designed to make sure that the “super-wealthy were paying their fair share at a time when tax shelters were commonplace”, hurts families that take advantage of deductions, since these families are deemed to be paying “not enough” (pages 96-97).

3.  Santorum is a strong proponent of parents spending time with their kids.  He supports parents talking with their kids and families eating dinner together.  In the book, he also appears to be critical of mothers with kids pursuing careers, which came back to bite him during his Presidential campaign.  But he also wants fathers to spend time with their children.  In terms of how he believes that public policy can encourage this, his ideas go “from providing money for regional telecommuting planning, to providing pollution credits to companies that encourage their employees to telecommute, to giving a tax credit to individuals and companies” (page 94—-see here for information on telecommuting).  He also supports amending the Federal Labor Standards Act to allow hourly workers to choose comp or flex time over overtime.

I don’t think that women need to stay home all day to spend quality time with their children.  There is something to be said for them finding fulfillment outside of the home.  At the same time, I appreciate that Santorum does not want for parents to be so bound to the capitalist treadmill that they don’t have time to spend with their kids.  For him, there’s more to life and society than the bottom line. 

4.  Santorum believes that religion is beneficial to society.  He says that institutions affiliated with religions (i.e., Catholic hospitals) should not be forced to violate their religious beliefs, even when they receive federal funds, the same way that Planned Parenthood can act according to its beliefs when receiving federal funds.  (But isn’t Planned Parenthood barred from spending tax money on abortion?)  Santorum also talks about how Prison Fellowship, which teaches prisoners faith and morality and gives them a network to get back on their feet after being released from prison, has produced a lower recidivism rate among participants, in comparison to prisoners who are not in Prison Fellowship programs.  Santorum believes that the government should support these kinds of programs, and, against those who cry “Separation of Church and State”, he replies that such a phrase is not in the Constitution.  At the same time, in defending faith-based initiatives, Santorum states that President George W. Bush took measures to ensure that federal funds were not being used to proselytize or to condition help on participation in religious activities.

I appreciated a point that Santorum made on page 103, where he talked about introducing the Workplace Religious Freedom Act with John Kerry.  This act required the workplace to accommodate people’s religious practices, such as observance of the Seventh-Day Sabbath.  Although the ACLU has advanced legitimate arguments against this law (see here), I am appreciative of Santorum’s sensitivity to the issue, as one who has been in denominations that keep the Seventh-Day Sabbath.

Newt Gingrich’s Saving Lives & Saving Money 4

I have two items for my write-up today on Newt Gingrich’s Saving Lives & Saving Money: Transforming Health and Healthcare.

1.  On pages 73-74, Newt talks about childhood nutrition.  He laments that “School lunches…contribute to instilling unhealthy eating habits in children” because they “are high in carbohydrates and fail to offer a variety of healthy alternatives such as soymilk”, when “Foods containing soy protein are effective in reducing cholesterol, treating kidney disease, and may cause calcium to be better utilized, helping to ward off osteoporosis.”  Newt states that the dairy industry is being put ahead of children’s nutritional needs.  Newt then discusses a school district in California that has banned sodas on campuses, replacing them with milk, “beverages with at least 50% fruit juice, and sports drinks with less than 42 grams of sugar per 20-ounce serving”.  Newt says that childhood obesity is a growing problem.

Newt goes on to say that he’s not in favor of banning soft drinks and whole milk, but that people should learn about balance.  But Newt may support the school’s ban on soft drinks, for he says that “The soft drink companies should be challenged to expect to produce healthy alternatives or to expect to have reduced access to young people as a market.”

What Newt said in this 2003 book intrigued me, in light of conservative snark about Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign (see here).  I wonder what the difference is between Newt’s approach to this issue and that of Michelle Obama.

In any case, as much as I like soda, I think that schools should promote healthier dietary habits.  Many conservatives decry Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity program as characteristic of a big government nanny state, and some of them defiantly affirm that they have a right to eat whatever they want, even if it’s unhealthy.  But eating in an unhealthy manner doesn’t just affect the person eating in an unhealthy manner.  It produces health problems that impact everyone else—-in terms of higher health care costs and insurance premiums. 

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the government should ban junk food.  I seriously doubt that Michelle Obama goes that far, either.  But schools and school lunches should be stocked with healthy food and drinks.  Michelle Obama does well to work with restaurants to encourage them to have healthy items on menus.  A health care program that encourages preventative care—-which entails doctors coaching patients to eat right—-can benefit individuals and society as a whole.

2.  Newt once again expresses disapproval of third-party payers for health care.  Newt supports health savings accounts—-tax-free accounts of employees to which employers will contribute.  But Newt’s proposals do not get rid of insurance altogether.  Newt believes that health-savings accounts will reduce premiums because people would have money in their account for medical needs, and thus could have a higher deductible in their health insurance.  Newt also wants to move America away from employer-based health insurance, yet he recognizes that it’s more expensive for individuals to purchase health insurance.  As a solution, he proposes a tax credit for the individual purchase of health insurance, and also that groups (i.e., of small businesses, organizations, etc.) be able to purchase health insurance.

I think that these ideas are a step in the right direction, but I doubt that they’re adequate for everybody.  Would a tax credit help individuals who don’t make enough to pay much in taxes to begin with?  Would health-savings accounts provide enough money for costly operations?  Moreover, while Newt’s proposal that small businesses come together to purchase health insurance may have merit, I question whether Republicans have the will to push for this.  I remember George W. Bush supporting this idea when he debated John Kerry.  Then Bush won, and I didn’t hear about the idea again.  (But maybe Bush did mention it, since he supported some proposal regarding health insurance, which was rejected by the Democrats.)

A Contract with the Earth 8

I have two items for my write-up today on A Contract with the Earth, by Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple:

1.  I’ve written more than one post in which I’ve tried to understand and define Newt Gingrich’s stance on global warming.  On the one hand, he supports reducing CO2 emissions from automobiles.  In my latest reading of this book, as a matter of fact, he says that we must “Lead the effort to reduce or eliminate greenhouse gases and airborne contaminants” (page 64).  On the other hand, he says on page 55 that “It isn’t necessary to link the receding ice to human activity to conclude that polar bears are in trouble if the ice disappears.”  Does that mean he questions the proposition that receding ice is due to something that we’re doing that increases temperatures?

In my latest reading, Newt and Maple talk about efforts within the private sector to counter deforestation.  This is good, they say, because more trees can absorb carbon dioxide.  Are Newt and Maple implying that carbon dioxide is bad because it traps heat in our atmosphere?

2.  On pages 70-71, Newt and Maple quote a speech by Lynn Scarlett, the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget during George W. Bush’s Administration:

“The old environmentalism set prescriptive rules, requiring, for example, that ranchers conform to a four-inch stubble rule in which grass may not be grazed to shorter than four inches.  Such rules impose one-size-fits-all requirements that may have little relationship to ensuring healthy foliage and ecosystems…it led with the ‘stick,’ assuming that human motivation to excellence is best achieved through threat of punishment rather than through incentives, example, and inspiration.”

I think this is a valuable point.  For one, there are a lot of regulations that people tell me about that strike me as pointless.  Will the world seriously come to an end if words on a sign are smaller than the designated size, or if grass is shorter than four inches?  I’m not saying that a “stick” is not necessary, or that we should simply trust “carrots” to work their magic (as if the incentives thus far have resulted in a proliferation of green technology).  What I am saying is that there is a place for thinking outside of the box: for sifting between the regulations that are necessary and the ones that are unnecessary, as well as for seeking other ways to help the environment that go beyond “one-size-fits-all requirements”.

Second, I think back to an interaction I watched on C-Span between Diane Feinstein and a controversial Bush II appointee.  Feinstein was questioning this guy’s environmental credentials, and this guy was responding that what he did actually helped the environment.  Maybe he was spinning, I don’t know.  But he came across to me as reasonable and nuanced in his presentation.  Overall, I appreciate that George W. Bush’s Administration was open to innovative ways to help the environment.  I do think, however, that it should have been more concerned about global warming than it was.  I believe that the increase in tornadoes and hurricanes is due, at least in part, to the rise of temperatures due to increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Toby’s Neo-Con Rant

Conservatives consider the West Wing to be a liberal show, but there are plenty of times when its leftist characters give conservative rants. Here is Toby Ziegler’s neo-conservative speech, in which he says that he doesn’t want the Islamic extremists to like America, after America sucks up to them. Rather, Toby says, they’ll like America when it wins and spreads its values of freedom and democracy throughout the world. Toby later backs off from his neo-con rhetoric.

This was on when George W. Bush was President. Nowadays, there are prominent conservatives who were gun-ho for the neo-cons during the Bush years, but aren’t so much now. See Ann Coulter’s latest column here.

Stuff—With a Cool Quote About the Typological Exodus

It’s late, and I’m tired, so I want to get through this academic write-up as quickly as I can! 

1.  Sara Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought, page 163:

…Chronicles cannot justify the destruction of the Temple as punishment for the sins of previous generations [which is what II Kings 23:25-26 says]…Neither Manasseh’s sinfulness nor the people’s cumulative transgressions brought about the Temple’s destruction.  Only Zedekiah and his generation are responsible for the disaster that occurred in his time.

2.  D.A. Russell, Criticism in Antiquity, pages 4- 5:

This disdain of the ordinary audience is known to Aristotle in the context not only of rhetoric but of poetry: it is the ‘inferiority of the spectators’ which makes them prefer happy endings in tragedy, though the principles of the art make it clear that these are really signs of inferior workmanship.

I don’t care what Aristotle says.  I still enjoy a good, sappy Hallmark Channel movie!

3.  R.P.C. Hanson, Allegory and Event, pages 13-14:

The Rabbis conceived of Israel’s redemption in the Messianic Age as foreshadowed in every detail by the redemption from Egypt as its type.  As Israel was delivered in one night, so will Israel be delivered in one night in the Messianic times.  The days of the Messiah would be forty years, as Israel was chastened forty years in the Wilderness (this from Rabbi Akiba).  As Israel was fed with rich food in the wilderness, so will God feed them at the Last Time.  As God took vengeance on the Egyptians at the Exodus, so will he take vengeance on Edom (Rome) at the Messianic time; he will bring upon them frogs, flies, all sorts of beasts, plague, scab, hail, locusts, darkness; and he will slay their firstborn.  Though in Egypt Israel went out in haste, at the Messianic Deliverence she will not go out in haste nor flight, but God will go before her.  As the first deliverer (Moses) revealed himself and then hid himself, so will the last deliverer, the Messiah.  And the deliverer will lead them out of the land into the wilderness of Judah and cause them again to dwell in tents, and whoever believes in him will remain in life, but whoever does not will go to the nations of the world and they will kill him.  At the end God will reveal himself to them and cause manna to come down for them.  Just as Moses took his wife and sons and made them ride on an ass, so will the last deliverer come riding on an ass.  As the first deliverer brought bread down from heaven, so will the last, and as the first caused water to spring forth, so will the last.  Pharaoh’s daughter fostered him who was to bring vengeance on her father; so the King the Messiah who will bring vengeance on Edom (Rome) will dwell with them in the city (i.e. Rome).  As God sent deliverance through two saviours (Moses and Aaron) to the tribes at the Exodus, so he will at the end (through Elijah and the Messiah).

A fitting quote for this Passover season!  And several biblical passages come to mind: the comparison of Israel leaving exile with the Exodus in the Book of Isaiah; statements in Ezekiel and Hosea that Israel will have a wilderness experience; the similarity between Moses surviving the decree of a tyrant to kill baby boys, and Jesus surviving such a decree in Matthew 1-2; and the Book of Revelation’s similarity to the Exodus.

4.  N. Fernandez Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, page 4. 

Christianity’s ancient critics claimed that the Bible used barbaric language, and the church fathers responded to that in different ways.  Some said that the Bible uses simple language so that everyone can understand it.  But others tried to argue that the biblical language was actually quite sophisticated, purporting to see in the Bible the “rules of classical metrics” and “various stylistic devices.”

Media Selectivity

The AP has a news story, “Did the Harsh Interrogation Methods Actually Work?” (see here).  Remember the CIA documents that demonstrate the success of the enhanced interrogation techniques, according to Cheney?  The AP read the documents more closely and concluded that they may not have been necessary or effective.

I have no problems with the media reading documents closely rather than superficially.  My problem is that it’s pretty selective about when it does so.  Remember the 2006 Senate report that said our activity in the Middle East had actually strengthened Al-Qaeda?  The report also discussed ways that Al-Qaeda was weaker after the Bush Administration’s policies, as well as encouraged the U.S. to continue its mission in Iraq.  Yet, only Fox-News and talk radio informed us of that.  The mainstream media went with the superficial reading rather than looking for any nuance in the document.

The same goes with the media’s treatment of Sarah Palin.  When the Alaska state legislature came out with its report on Palin, the AP’s story was entitled, “Report: Palin Abused Power.”  The title didn’t convey much nuance!

I don’t think that the mainstream media should give Republicans a free pass.  I’m glad that they read documents closely.  I just wish they’d do so more often, not just when it suits their liberal agenda.

Love from Mortality

G. Reale, A History of Ancient Philosophy: The Schools of the Imperial Age, trans. John R. Catan (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990) 260.

The following is from the Golden Verses of Pythagoras, which has an indeterminate date:

…do not become accustomed to acting inconsiderately in any matter, but know that it is the fate of everyone to die.

This verse seems to be saying that remembering human mortality will make us kinder people.

A lot of things go through my mind as I read this.

There’s the scene in Oliver Stone’s W, in which George W. Bush’s pastor says to George (before he became governor): “I want you to imagine that everyone around you will die tomorrow, and reach out to them with all of the love that you can muster.” The implication was that George would be more likely to love people who would die the next day.

I recently read a book by Dayna Dunbar, The Saints and Sinners of Okay County. In it, the main character, Aletta, is estranged from her mother Nadine (over religion and something that happened years earlier), but they finally reconcile right before Nadine’s death. I’m not sure if Aletta had regrets that she didn’t develop a stronger bond with her mom years earlier, but that’s how relationships are: various things can divide people, whether they be conflicting personalities, a wounded self-image, annoyance, grudges, insults, trying to force others to be a certain way, etc. Should people assume that these things are unimportant and remain in the relationship, for the sake of peace? Should they confront the other party, hoping that he or she will change? Should they be aloof from the relationship and say “Good bye” at the very last minute? What if they’re too late?

I also think of a scene from Desperate Housewives, the one in which we meet Mike Delfino’s father, who’s in prison for murder. Mike’s father had deep hatred for a man, but he feels horrible whenever he thinks about the time he choked him to death with his tie.

I’ve seen shows in which one person mortally hurts another and says to the unconscious body, “I didn’t mean it. Get up!” Something about seeing a lifeless body can foster a regard for a person’s humanity.

Except when it doesn’t. In the movie Misery, based on the Stephen King novel, I’m sure most viewers are thinking at the end, “Man, when is this psychotic woman going to die? Can anything kill her?” But Annie Wilkes had enslaved Paul Sheldon and was trying to kill him, so the feeling many of us have when she finally dies is relief at Paul’s newfound freedom.

On that note, I’ll close here. Have a good day!

Ron Silver

I just read that Ron Silver has died of cancer at the young age of 62. Ron played Bruno on the West Wing, a political strategist who helped the Democratic Bartlett campaign and later the Republican Vinick campaign.

On one episode, Bruno gave a dramatic speech lamenting that “liberal” has become a dirty word. I could think of a couple of reasons that such was the case, but what interested me was that Ron Silver himself was a supporter of George W. Bush, notwithstanding his Democratic past. Silver supported Bush on terror issues. Before I even got into the West Wing, I saw Silver on MSNBC after the second Presidential debate, taking on Ron Reagan alongside Pat Buchanan (who supported Bush despite the terror issues).  According to an article I read, Ron had trouble finding work on account of his political stances, and his fellow West Wing cast-members liked to chant “Ron, Ron, the neo-con” whenever he entered the room.

Rumor has it that Silver visited Redeemer Presbyterian Church once with Ann Coulter, so he may have been spiritually searching.

My best to him and his family.

Two Barack Obamas

The Telegraph has an article today on Barack Obama, Rush Limbaugh, and the Republicans in Congress (see here).

There are two Barack Obamas. One I love, the other I can hardly stomach. One acknowledges different points of view, keeps his cool, has humility, and brings people together. The other is arrogant, condescending, and talks down to others.

Lately, we got to see the second Barack Obama, if what the Telegraph says is true. Remember the Barack Obama who arrogantly claimed “people don’t read their Bibles,” then proceeded to mangle the Bible? He seems to have made a reappearance.

He reportedly said that he doesn’t care about Republican input, since he won the election. He also told Republicans that they shouldn’t listen to Rush Limbaugh, for that keeps things from getting done.

President Obama has a right to act this way. His party won the election, and there’s no law that says he must like the provocative voices of the other side. But he puts himself on a higher plane when he advertises himself as someone who will bring people together and usher in a new era of bipartisanship. Right now, he’s acting like the liberal stereotype of George W. Bush, assuming that he doesn’t need the other side, and marginalizing voices that dissent from his ideology.

I can understand that Rush Limbaugh can be pretty annoying to Democrats, since it seems like Rush monitors and critiques their every move! But that doesn’t mean Republicans are wrong to listen to him. We can learn a lot from our critics!

President Obama, this is the real world now. Not everyone is enamored with your charisma. Not everyone thinks that disagreement with you is a “childish thing.” When you spend taxpayer money on institutions that perform abortions, people will get offended and speak out. When your economic stimulus plan spends a bunch on contraceptives, critics will argue that perhaps the money should be spent more wisely.

Come to think of it, I think every President has two sides. George W. Bush was cranky and opinionated in the first two 2004 Presidential debates, but he was charming and witty in the last. Bill Clinton could acknowledge and in some cases implement conservative ideas, as well as acknowledge the value of Rush Limbaugh in the political process. But he also accused conservative talk radio of causing the Oklahoma City bombing.

I guess these last few weeks set the tone for how I’ll react to the Obama Administration. Some days I’ll love it, other days I’ll hate it.

Roe vs. Wade Anniversary 2009

On this 36th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, I could lament President Obama’s latest decisions on abortion, or long for the days when we had a pro-life President in George W. Bush. Instead, I want to tell some of the story of Norma McCorvey, known to many Americans as “Jane Roe.”

I watched the movie Roe vs. Wade in 1989. It was enlightening because it depicted what life was like before the decision. Norma was pregnant, and acquaintances advised her to claim she was raped; apparently, Texas law had a rape-exception in its abortion ban. This is important because many assume that pro-lifers in general want to ban all abortions–no exceptions. Actually, there appears to have been some flexibility prior to Roe vs. Wade.

(UPDATE: Actually, I found that Texas law only had an exception for the life of the mother, but acquaintances adviced Norma to claim she was raped to build a more sympathetic case.)

The movie leaned in a pro-choice direction, but it occasionally tried to present the pro-life side. There was a constitutional scholar who said to Sarah Weddington (Jane Roe’s lawyer), “You know, if the founding fathers viewed abortion as a right, they would have included it in the Constitution.” Weddington replied that the thought never crossed their minds, since abortion was an accepted practice for hundreds of years.

I don’t know. Opposition to abortion has existed for a long time, as one can see in the Hippocratic Oath and the first century Epistle of Barnabas (19:5). Were the founding fathers pro-choice because they didn’t explicitly ban abortion, or pro-life because they didn’t make abortion a right? Although anti-abortion legislation first emerged in the U.S. in the nineteenth century, common law (which is based on court decisions) was against it prior to that point (see here and here). But, even if the founding fathers were pro-choice, heck, many of them owned slaves too! If we’re going to have a living, breathing Constitution, shouldn’t we at least consider our present ability to look inside the womb and see a real-life human being? But I’m using liberalism here to justify a conservative position!

In another scene of the movie, the lawyer defending the Texas abortion ban, Henry Wade, was talking to a friend about the life of the fetus. “Do you know that in the sixth week of a woman’s pregnancy, the child can suck his thumb? We’ve got to win this!”

One scene that stays in my mind is Norma giving birth. Her plan was to have the child and give her up for adoption. Right after the baby came out, the doctors took her away so they could give her to an adoption agency. “Can’t I at least hold her?,” Norva asked. The movie was trying to ridicule the “adoption, not abortion” rhetoric, but what went through my mind was, “Hey, she wanted to kill her child earlier in the movie, and now she wants to hold her?”

So the movie made its plug for Roe vs. Wade, and it wasn’t an accident that it came out in 1989. That was the year when the Supreme Court was deciding whether or not to overturn Roe, in Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services. The decision upheld certain abortion restrictions, but it stopped short of overturning Roe. One political cartoon portrayed Rehnquist saying, “We’ve decided not to abort Roe vs. Wade; rather, we will put it up for adoption.”

But the movie was incomplete, for Norma McCorvey’s story was not yet finished. The year was 1995. I was watching two shows one night: Michael Moore’s TV Nation, and Pat Robertson’s 700 Club. On TV Nation, Michael Moore was portraying pro-lifers as hateful fanatics. Moore and his cronies were outside of an Operation Rescue leader’s home, and the leader said, “Darn, I was about to shoot you!” We were left with a negative impression of the pro-life movement.

But the 700 Club presented another side. Norma McCorvey had just accepted Jesus Christ as her personal Savior, and she was renouncing her role in legalizing abortion. A big reason she did so was the love that Operation Rescue people had shown to her.

Throughout her life, Norma McCorvey was somewhat of a pawn for both sides. She often felt that Sarah Weddington (her lawyer in Roe) used her but did not really care for her. And I recall the Operation Rescue minister who led her to Christ telling Pat Robertson that Norma was a “baby Christian,” and he later showed a picture of him baptizing Norma McCorvey on the cover of his autobiography. (My impression is she was used as a pawn, but Weddington and the Operation Rescue leader probably have different explanations.)

But Norma McCorvey was a maverick in her own right. A few years after her baptism, she left evangelicalism and converted to Roman Catholicism (see here). And, in 2008, she endorsed Republican candidate Ron Paul for President, since he promised to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the case that bears her pseudonym.

There are many touching aspects of her story, but I’ll save them for another year. Unfortunately, Roe vs. Wade will probably be with us for a while, unless God gives President Obama the grace to change his views on abortion. In the meantime, here’s the wikipedia article on Norma McCorvey.