Did we learn anything from Ferguson?

by Greg Krehbiel on 9 April 2015

All the initial reactions to the Ferguson shooting turned out to be completely wrong. So now, after the recent incident in South Carolina, we’re doing it all over again. I.e., judging the situation before all the facts are in.

Why the rush to judgment?

Have you had your quiet time?

by Greg Krehbiel on 9 April 2015

In Evangelical churches they talk about “quiet time” — a time you set aside each day to read the Bible and pray. Other Christian traditions would call it “daily devotions,” and other religions advocate daily prayer or meditation.

This is one of those examples where religion is good for you whether you believe in God or not. And even whether or not God exists.

Consider: if you spend time praying for your family, what are you doing? You’re thinking about their genuine needs. Only the most crass person dares to go to God about trivial things. Putting your family’s needs in front of God is a way to focus on what really matters. It’s a way to align your thoughts and your priorities. In a way, prayer is like defragging your brain. It blows away the chaff and focuses your mind on what’s important.

These thoughts were inspired by this quote from Digital Disruption and the Death of Storytelling. Professor Douglas Rushkoff studies …

people’s inability to connect with another person or an ideology … while they’re immersed in this era of multitasking and digital chaos.

As life gets more disruptive and chaotic, it’s all the more important to set aside time for undistracted, quiet thought, serious reading, prayer and meditation. And I don’t mean chilling in the chaise lounge with an Agatha Christie novel. I mean serious (but quiet) reflection on values, priorities and goals.

The psychological benefit is real even if you don’t believe anybody upstairs is listening.

I look forward to the day …

by Greg Krehbiel on 9 April 2015

… when we look back and say, “Remember when everybody thought Hillary was inevitable?”

Paul Blooms As Clinton Wilts In Colorado, Iowa, Virginia, Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll Finds

The Delta smelt or California farms?

by Greg Krehbiel on 8 April 2015

Some people are blaming the California drought on global warming, while others are blaming it on misguided environmental policies.

As I’ve mentioned before, California has had lots of very serious droughts in the past, so while humans may be to blame — in one way or another — it may also just be one of those things.

Whichever is the case, the linked article raises an important point. You can’t have everything.

Not everything is a zero sum game, but many things are. When you protect one thing you restrict something else. When you give to one person you take from another. When you spend on Cause A you take away resources from Cause B.

Some political types seem to believe they can just keep requiring, keep restricting, keep taxing and spending, and that somehow it will all turn up roses in the end. We have to stop such people.

Taking America down a notch

by Greg Krehbiel on 8 April 2015

I agree with Dick Cheney’s assessment.

… if you had somebody as president who wanted to take America down, who wanted to fundamentally weaken our position in the world and reduce our capacity to influence events, turn our back on our allies and encourage our adversaries, it would look exactly like what Barack Obama’s doing ….

Dick Cheney calls Obama ‘worst president’ on foreign policy

Russians hack White House?

by Greg Krehbiel on 7 April 2015

Okay, but can they give us the emails Hillary deleted?

A modest proposal on motherhood

by Greg Krehbiel on 7 April 2015

Advances in general health are causing people to experience puberty sooner and live longer, but we’re marrying later. This lengthens the time between sexual maturity and marriage, and shortens the window in which a married woman can have kids. Both of those are socially destabilizing, in my opinion.

Many women are told that they have to pursue an education and a career, but then when they feel the urge to have a kid it’s getting late. This isn’t good for mother or baby.

A couple related facts: women tend to live longer than men, and young couples often can’t afford a home.

With all these things taken together, I think it’s time to re-evaluate our expectations for marriage, family, career and the shape of households. The agenda for women should be babies first and early, careers after. I’ll discuss two different options for men.

The first option is to have 16 year old women marry 30 year old men. There’s a lot to be said for that arrangement. The man is probably mature by then and probably has a decent enough job to support a family. But there are disadvantages as well — a big one is that if men aren’t marrying until they’re 30, what are they doing all that time? As a man who is opposed to sex outside of marriage, that seems untenable to me.

Another disadvantage is on the other end of life, when a still young-ish woman is stuck with an older man. A 30 year old man might be appealing to a 16 year old woman, but a 64 year old man isn’t as great for a 50 year old woman.

The second option is to have 16 year old women marry 18 year old men — and live with their parents. The grandparents would have a much larger role in raising the kids than is common these days, which would be good for everybody. The man would pursue a career in his early years, but without the pressure of having to support an independent household. The mother could pursue a career once the kids are grown.

This would optimize the woman’s fertile years, would give young men and women a legitimate (moral) sex life, wouldn’t put as much pressure on young men to grow up and be responsible (which they seem reluctant to do), and would give older married couples additional incentive to stay together. That is, they’d have a common goal in raising the grandkids. And the multi-generational family would be able to afford a decent house.

Thoughts?

Stand with Rand?

by Greg Krehbiel on 7 April 2015

Rand Paul is entering the presidential race today, so I thought I’d take a look at his policies. Here’s what the fount of all knowledge says about him. Political positions of Rand Paul.

Here are some random comments on the policies listed on that page …

I generally agree with his economic positions, although I don’t know what to make of all the anti-fed talk from both Rand and Ron Paul. It’s mostly above my head. If it’s true that the fed has never been audited, it certainly should be. That’s just basic sense. Other than that, I’ll punt on this one.

On energy policy, I don’t understand this at all. “He opposes subsidizing energy companies, and would support allowing tax breaks for companies that produce alternative energy such as wind, solar, or geothermal.” How is a tax break not a subsidy?

I’m not against subsidies in some cases, and I think we should encourage energy sources that use fewer resources and emit fewer pollutants, but it has to be done in a sensible way. Poverty is worse for people’s health than pollution, and most Democratic policies are just crazy talk.

I like Paul’s stance against surveillance and invasions of privacy.

The abortion issue is clear morally, but a mess politically. I don’t think there’s any chance that pro-life legislation is going to pass any time soon, so my pragmatic opinion is that the best thing to do is chip away at the abortion culture.

Same-sex marriage is dumb beyond words, so I agree with Paul on that.

Like Paul, I’m concerned about the militarization of the police and the increasing arrogance of the police. I’d also like to see criminal justice reform.

It’s hard to be sure what his policy is on anti-discimination, but I think it’s reasonable to discuss differences between accommodations on public and private property. I don’t believe that if you offer your services to the public you are required to offer them without any conditions. That’s a ridiculous standard — that nobody believes it anyway. It’s simply used as a bludgeon when convenient and then ignored when it’s not convenient.

I agree with him on education, although I would be more radical than he is.

I’m against most gun control.

On healthcare I would like to see more free market and less government, so I’m with Paul on that.

Nobody is radical enough for me on immigration. I would simply close the borders for ten years and schedule a conversation for reform after that.

I agree that states should decide about marijuana.

My biggest concern about Paul is his foreign policy, but that’s mostly because of his father, not him. I’m not sure how much I actually disagree with Rand.

The irrelevant Catholic voice

by Greg Krehbiel on 6 April 2015

R.R. Reno, writing over at First Things, calls is Duck and Cover Catholicism.

He says “the leaders of the Catholic Church have done everything they can to avoid saying anything in response to the furor over the Indiana RFRA.”

Moral leadership? Who, them?

Some months ago, I [that is, R.R. Reno] predicted that Catholicism in America would basically accommodate itself to whatever sexual regime dominates our society. The accommodation won’t be explicit. The Church won’t endorse homosexuality or gay marriage. Instead, the bishops will step aside, avoid controversy, and just stop talking about things that carry a high price for dissent.

That’s what they’ve done with fornication. I can’t recall ever hearing a sermon against fornication in the Catholic Church.

Yesterday there was an announcement before mass about a new physician-assisted suicide bill in Maryland, and that we should call our representatives and tell them what we think.

I was wondering why they think that we think what they want us to think. I’ve never heard a word from them about physician-assisted suicide. In fact, I haven’t heard anything from the pulpit that could even charitably be construed as moral teaching.

On the moral issues of the day, the Catholic Church seems very close to irrelevant.

Slander and scream bloody murder on page 1, then apologize a month later on page 24

by Greg Krehbiel on 6 April 2015

That’s the typical pattern. Advocates lie and demagogue about a law so they fill the public’s mind with falsehood, then later they reluctantly admit the truth.

Fortunately, the “oops, sorry” for the UVA rape story is getting a little more attention.

Report On Retracted ‘Rolling Stone’ Rape Story Cites ‘Systematic Failing’

I doubt that the apologies and corrections are ever quite enough to undo the damage of the initial accusation, but at least there’s a little more of an attempt this time. Probably because the failure implicates journalism, so the media is more interested.