Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Politics

  • Setting Political Speech Free

    One of my very unliberal positions is on political speech. I very much believe that controlling money spent on speech, whether that speech is in a commercial ad for a product, or in an ad for a candidate, in that candadate’s own speech, or in a journalist’s article is the same as controlling the speech itself. That controls on campaign spending are, in my view, very similar to the idea of controlling the budget of a newspaper. “Oh,” say the lawyers, “we’re not controlling what they print, just what they spend.” I know that current law is largely against me on this point, with the FEC charged with controlling campaign spending and even watching independent groups that spend money on behalf of candidates.

    Thus I am delighted with a new YouTube video that completely bypasses all of this. It’s just a free, independently made ad, and it has spread across the internet. You can read the Washington Post story about it here, and see the video itself here. (I didn’t see a link to the actual video from the Washington Post story.)

    Why am I delighted with this video? It’s great content? No, though I do like the challenge to the status quo just a bit. Do I particularly dislike Senator Clinton? No. The point is that this is an ad that has massive circulation and more viewers than the standard ads, and its not under the control of the election watchers.

    The great benefit of the internet to the spread of information is that it removes control, and provides a free market in ideas. Candidates are already finding that they cannot stay “on message” as their consultants would have them do, because people are interested in other messages. With free information flow, candidates will have much less control over their image.

    Of course all of this comes with dangers. Information on the internet is much less filtered than print and and other media. The barriers to entry into this market of ideas are all but nonexistent. We have to be careful to check our facts and get good, basic information to support what we choose to believe. But were we not responsible to do the same thing before? The difference is that it is now also easier to check that information. I find tremendous value in things like online article and book searches, for example, that let me locate information even when I can’t get it all on the internet. That reduces the time for me to get the right interlibrary loan book in my hand if nothing else. Often I can even check the facts of a news story from several sources online.

    Whether they are liberal or conservative, the folks who want to control the information you get are not trying to make you more free, nor to guarantee that you get accurate information. They’re trying to keep you on track. That’s why I have always supported the maximum possible free speech, and it’s also why I welcome the internet and services like YouTube to the political arena. There’s another revolution going on, and I think it’s a good one.

    As the Washington Post article quoted David Weinberger, former senior Internet adviser to Howard Dean and a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School:

    “It’s expressing frustration and unhappiness with the level of control that her campaign is exerting. It’s no more controlled than any other traditional campaign. It’s not especially controlled by previous standards. But it’s tightly controlled by the standards of the Web. And for a big part of the population, the standards are the Web standards,” Weinberger said.

    To regain her footing online, the New York senator “should go off-message and her talking points” and post videos and blogs that show “that she doesn’t have the answer to everything, that she’s made mistakes, that she can talk like another human being.” As such the video, Weinberger added, “is particularly effective because it draws the parallel that’s apparent to so many people — that Hillary is to the campaign as PCs are to computing.”

    I’m there. Most of my information on the campaigns will come from the internet. I’m not going to believe attack ads. I’m going to check wth everything from regular media to the candidate’s web sites. But I am delighted with how much is becoming available. The standards of control should be those of the web.

  • Congragulations to Joe Carter and the Evangelical Outpost

    Congratulations to Joe Carter who has been mentioned as a key evangelical blogger in this Washington Post article. Joe himself responds here. Joe certainly is a central figure amongst Christian bloggers. Even though I’m not an evangelical myself, I read his blog regularly to keep track of some of the thinking in that stream.

    Keep up the good work!

  • Government Planning

    Our government was apparently unaware of the potential damage from a hurricane like Katrina, and thus unprepared. Similarly, it appears someone either didn’t notice that massively increasing the requirements for passports would, shockingly, increase passoport applications.

    Either they don’t particularly care, they didn’t plan, or more likely congress figured they could mandate it all without providing the appropriate resources. I would guess that the next move is to call the bureaucrats before congressional committees and complain about their inefficiency, thus placating the voters.

    Let me go out on a limb here. I bet it won’t be long before somebody dangerous gets a passport, and the reason will be–the great rush of passport applications.

    Check out the Washington Post story here.

  • TVC is at it Again

    The TVC is generally bummed about their week, and one of the major downers for them was California Representative Peter Stark declaring his unbelief in God on the floor of the house.

    I’ve commented on this sort of attitude before. What did they want him to do? Lie? What about all those Christians and others who have declared their faith?

    I’m fully in favor of people declaring just what they believe about anything that is central to their life. I think a major problem is that much religious rhetoric from politicians is simply put there to attract particular groups of religious voters. It’s hypocritical. But if a candidate is a person of faith, he or she should express that faith. It’s part of who the candidate is and the voters should be able to decide. If I were ever to run for office, an event which will occur right after hell becomes an ice-skating rink, the cameras would have to follow me to church on Sunday morning if they care that much. Why? Because that’s where I am on Sunday mornings and you’re not going to stop me.

    When a Muslim was elected to congress I believed and continue to believe that he should express his faith as a candidate and as a congressman. Since Congressman Stark does not believe in God, it is appropriate for him to express that. I don’t know if he attends a Unitarian-Universalist Church, but if he does, that is where he should be at the appropriate time. That’s who he is.

    But consider this quote, taken from the same article:

    Christian Seniors Association Executive Director James Lafferty notes: “It is sad but not surprising that the current Congress has produced this historic first – one of its members has denied God. The liberals in Congress want to throttle any school child who bows his or her head in prayer but they want to establish a right for liberals to bash Christians and berate God around the clock.”

    Lafferty continued, “Congressman Stark’s statement is a very sad benchmark for America. It could be the moment which defines the decline of our country or it could be the spark which marks an important day. That would be the day that religious Americans stood-up to the liberal bullies who are so determined to use the power of government to silence prayer and every other religious expression of free speech.”

    This stuff makes me crazy! The man says he’s an atheist and it becomes an attack on free speech? Just how did they get there? Talk about unbalanced reporting–this stuff has capsized. The religious right needs to get it through their heads that prayer in schools is already legal. Your child can pray. Your child can form prayer groups with other children. If you modeled prayer at home and taught your children how to pray, there would be nothing in their way. The problem the religious right has with prayer in schools is that the government doesn’t sponsor it. Apparently parents can’t get their kids to pray enough so they need teachers to enforce state sponsored prayers.

    And yes, it definitely is alright for liberals or anyone else to “bash Christians and berate God around the clock.” God will remain undamaged by being berated, and Christians who once faced lions in the arena for their faith should be able to take a little verbal bashing. Any time either the left or the right wants to silence people they don’t like it’s an attack on free speech and needs to be fought.

    And that’s one of the big problems with this article. If the TVC wanted to support traditional American values they could take the following approach and appear much more sincere. They could announce that they welcome the honesty and openness of Representative Peter Stark, and they are glad we live in a country where not only can an atheist express his views publicly, something that would be illegal in Saudi Arabia, for example, but he can be elected to congress. That’s a wonderful example of freedom of speech. We intend to support that just as we support the right of those Christians who oppose homosexuality to express their views, or those who believe abortion is murder to express theirs. Hallelujah and pass the free speech!”

    But instead they choose not to follow the path of free speech, something they ask for themselves, but instead they simply try to change who it is the target of silencing.

  • American Civilization, Christian Faith, and Cultural Clashes

    How’s that for a broad title? 🙂

    I’m going to annoy quite a few people with this post, but I have noticed for a number of years that Christians in America often conflate Christianity and American patriotism. This goes to extremes with certain Christian reconstructionists who actually believe that America is the new chosen nation, destined to accomplish God’s will in the world. This manifests itself in a determination to make America a home of “Christian” values, meaning their particular brand of Christianity, and not anything actually having to do with Jesus. Further, it manifests itself as we identify America’s interests with Christianity’s interests.

    One of the most disturbing aspects of this was those American Christians who regarded the invasion of Iraq as advancing God’s kingdom, because the American and UK troops paved the way for Christian missionaries. Christians who move in on the heals of invading forces should give serious consideration to the damage done to God’s kingdom when it is attached to the sword of a state. Christianity has spread best when it was carried by persecuted missionaries, and it has deteriorated quickly when backed by the sword (or gun, or tank).

    I grew up as the child of missionary parents. About half of my childhood and youth was spent overseas. I grew up watching cricket, and not baseball, and knowing soccer as football, and not American football. In fact, when I first watched American football I couldn’t comprehend why it was called “football” as they only thing people seemed to use their feet for was to run. The rare occasions on which someone actually kicked the ball produced less points than running.

    Now many Americans look at me immediately with pity, regarding my childhood as deprived. No baseball? No football? You poor thing, missing the essentials of childhood! Well, I disagree. I recall as a teenager riding around town in Georgetown, Guyana, and arguing with a very good Guyanese friend about the recognition of the People’s Republic of China as the proper holder of the Chinese seat on the security council, and not the Republic of China on Taiwan. “You Americans don’t understand how the world thinks,” he told me. And he was right.

    On the other hand I learned a great deal by growing up that way. I was the only white kid in my youth group, and I have never since been able to look at being a minority in quite the same way. I now love baseball, mostly because my two stepsons, one of whom is a professional pitcher, dragged me into it. But I can truly understand how the subtleties of the game drive a newcomer wild. I also understand how non-American Christians can look at us and wonder how we can regard some of our attitudes as “Christian” when to them they appear purely American and somewhat unChristian.

    Early during the war on Iraq I was on a mission trip in the transcarpathian region of the Ukraine, and I found that there were young ethnic Hungarians being pressured to sign up as “volunteers” to be sent to Iraq. Their perspective and that of their families on the internationalization of that war was quite different. Now I’m not trying to blame any particular person(s) for the plight of those Hungarian young men, but it was wrong, and they had a very different perspective from most Americans at that time.

    This morning I read a post by Peter Kirk at Speaker of Truth. Peter and I have generally agreed on the war up to now, but I can see from this post that his opposition to the war is even deeper seated than mine. I don’t intend to debate those points, but rather I’d like to ask American Christians to go and read the words of a dedicated British Christian in opposition to our war on terror and the way it is being conducted. I noted also in my mornings blog feeds this agreeement from another Christian across the pond.

    I think it is important and fair for me to point out, however, that this was a response to another blogger from across the pond Adrian Warnock, with whom I have frequently disagreed. His post was a response to a human interest story from Chuck Colson. To his credit, Colson does admit that there are moderate Muslims and that the cultural clash he describes is with “radicals.”

    All of this brought back to me the issue of just who is a terrorist. I have no problem at all regarding those who flew aircraft into the twin towers as terrorists. They were evil people and they committed an evil act. I do believe there are evil people, you see. Those who train their young people to go out as suicide bombers qualify, in my view, as evil.

    But there is a state of desperation that makes people vulnerable to becoming victims of such evil people. Now here’s where people are going to say that I’m making excuses for terrorists, and blaming American victims for the evil deeds of terrorists. But let me use the analogy of rape. If a woman I love were raped in a bad section of town, I would not blame her as the victim. The person who committed rape committed an evil deed. Rape is not the fault of the victim.

    But at the same time I can do several things that might prevent such an event. I can get training for those I love in how to keep from being a victim of crime. I can advocate improved law enforcement in the community where this action happened. I can advocate better education and better opportunities in that neighborhood to improve their lives, increase their realistic hopes, and reduce the likelihood that they will turn to crime. (Since someone is sure to point this out, let me add that I don’t believe rape is some kind of manifestation of low income level. What would make the community safer would be a population that was willing to help prevent crime and keep their own neighborhood safe. On the other hand, I believe robbery is often the result of an absence of hope.)

    Now taking action to prevent an attack does not mean that I blame the victims. It means I want to make it less likely for the victims to be victimized. This applies as much or more to terrorism. Noting that there are causes of terrorism does not blame the victims. It might just point the way to improving our chances in the war on terror.

    Somehow many of us in America have gotten the idea that if you just kill enough terrorists, terrorism will end. People often point me to Israel as a specific case. “We need to respond to terrorism like the Israelis do,” they tell me. But the Israelis are still living under constant threat of terrorist attack. Now I don’t want the Israelis to give up and go away. I think they have every right to defend themselves. I don’t blame them for going after terrorists on their home ground or taking security measures. But it’s important to notice that those measures alone have not brought an end to terrorism.

    I am not one of those who believes that we don’t have to fight a war on terror. But I think that as a duty to ourselves we need to be very careful how we fight such a war, and precisely who gets injured and killed. Families in Iraq and Afghanistan are not generally going to distinguish carefully whether their loved ones were killed by an act of terror, or by an act of war by a legitimate government. They’re going to be angry. I’m fairly certain it’s impossible to conduct a war without errors, and that someone is going to get killed who is not supposed to. But doesn’t that make it even more critical to be very careful where and when you go to war or take any violent action and make sure that the violence is intelligently aimed at a good end?

    If this is a cultural war, we aren’t winning it, except in our own minds. I think it’s funny that some pro-war folks here in the United States accuse me of not realizing we’re in a cultural clash, while at the same time acting as though we’re in a purely physical clash. Do you believe you will win a cultural war solely through physical violence? Do you think that we’ll win a cultural war by randomly attacking various countries?

    There are Muslim radicals based in many other countries of the Middle East. If we have a cultural clash, we should include Saudi Arabia on the other side. Surely their treatment of their own people qualifies as just plain wrong. Yet they are our allies. Bluntly, we aren’t behaving at all as if it’s a cultural clash. People in a cultural clash use ideas, and when they do use violence, they use it very carefully.

    One last point–if this is a cultural clash, we need cultural allies. We need physical allies as well. I have been told repeatedly by supporters of the war on Iraq that if those wimps in other countries, especially Europe, who don’t want to stand up to terrorism don’t want to support us, #*%$ them! We can take care of it ourselves. But that view is simply idiotic. Look at what’s going on now. Our reserve and guard troops are exhausted. Yes, they’ll keep going and going like the energizer bunny, but it will be harder and harder to recruit and eventually we’ll be past the point where even a substantial draft will take care of it. Beyond that, there are still other military powers in the world. We’re not up to being a world empire, either physically or morally.

    If we think this is a cultural clash, we need to arm ourselves to act in the cultural arena. Right now we’re failing. A good start on that would be to listen to some folks in the rest of the world. They don’t see us as we see ourselves.

  • Freedom of Speech Rights Tangled

    Here’s an interesting freedom of speech issue again brought to my attention by Breaking Christian News and this time referring me to this LifeSite article. It appears that at a minimum there is confusion about the facts of the case, including the professor’s intentions and when the paper was graded, as comparison of the LifeSite article with this article on the Southern Illinoisian web site.

    I am uncertain of where the law would stand on this, and would certainly welcome comment that might clarify it for me. This whole story bothers me because of what it means for education. A professor’s beliefs do have something to do with what they teach and what they are going to find acceptable in a paper. I can imagine, for example, a person who wants to be a social worker, but who believes that the entire course of treatment should consist of prayer and Bible study. Should such a study be granted a degree in social work, essentially the university saying that this person is qualified to perform the functions of a social worker? If it’s a free speech issue, then the validity of the contents would not be relevant. I’m not suggesting that Christine Mize did not provide a reasonably competent, faith-based program, but it seems dangerous to me to apply free speech standards to the grading of college papers.

    To take an example from a field with which I’m more familiar, suppose that a biology student wished to write a paper on origins for biology class that claimed that all species appeared fully formed and without genealogy, and proposed to demonstrate this from the Bible. I would have to say that there should be no requirement that such a paper be accepted for biology credit. The student has free speech, and can go home and post his paper on his blog if he wants, but I don’t think the first amendment guarantees, or should guarantee a passing grade. Of course the level of competence required would depend on the level.

    There’s a subjective line here between thoroughly incompetent and competent but challenging prevailing attitudes. I must say that while it seems excessive to me for the professor to refuse any inclusion of faith based options in a treatment plan, considering that there is substantial disagreement on the value of such elements, it also seems to me that applying first amendment rights to the acceptance and grading of assignments is questionable, and I wonder what the courts may have ruled on this in the past.

    As I have time I will look it up, though it’s likely that brilliant readers will have straightened me out before I get the time to do that.

    Brilliant readers, where are you?? 🙂

  • Persecution Victim as a Profession

    It seems that former Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt, who claims to have been dismissed from the Navy for praying in the name of Jesus, is making a career now of being persecuted. The story is being kept alive. I was alerted to the current edition through my Breaking Christian News e-mail alert, a source that often provides me with valuable, positive news, but in this case refers me to the WorldNetDaily which appears to be a bit apoplectic.

    WND said:

    A chaplain who was dismissed from the U.S. Navy when he refused to following orders to make his prayers “nonsectarian” and remove the name of Jesus from them now has been commissioned by the governor of Kentucky as an honorary “Kentucky Colonel.

    But CNN reported:

    In September a military jury found Lt. Gordon Klingenschmitt had disobeyed a superior officer’s order not to wear his uniform to a political protest at the White House in March 2006.

    Ah, he was not dismissed for praying in Jesus name, but for disobeying a lawful order. Interesting difference. The Kentucky legislature should be ashamed of themselves for commending an officer for disobeying orders. Kentucky’s governor should be ashamed of himself for giving such a person an award for courage.

    Since I have commented on the issue before, I’m not going to go through the details of the original problem about prayer. Suffice it to repeat here that Klingenschmitt’s view on this differs substantially from that of others, including other Christian chaplains.

  • Only Evil People Disagree with Me

    Well, not really. But that’s what many people think according to this Washington Post story, that reports on a study by Glenn D. Reeder, a social psychologist at Illinois State University.

    When Reeder and his colleagues asked pro-war and antiwar Americans how they would describe the other side’s motives, the researchers found that the groups suffered from an identical bias: People described others who agreed with them as motivated by ethics and principle, but felt that the people who disagreed with them were motivated by narrow self-interest.

    I don’t think most of us required a survey to realize that tempers are hot, and the other side is generally accused of bad motivations. I would suggest, however, that not only is it a question of how convinced we are of a position and how important that issue to us, it’s also a question of how much moral investment we have in it. Such commitments drive the intense debates about abortion, for example, in which people on one side cannot imagine how anyone reasonably human can accept the “slaughter of millions of babies” while folks on the other side see a massive invasion of their personal lives at the very deepest level. On the war in Iraq, we’re dealing with people getting killed, and that is certain to be very emotionally invested.

    I really liked the following note, however:

    “Partisans within ideological groups tended to view themselves as atypical vis-a-vis their group: atypical in their moderation, in their freedom from bias, and in their capacity to ‘see things as they are in reality’ even when that reality proves to be ideologically inconvenient or ‘politically incorrect,’ ” Harvard Business School researcher Robert J. Robinson and his colleagues concluded.

    This is behavior I have noted in myself. But hey, I really am more moderate than everyone else! 🙂

  • If True, This is Good

    Public pressure is sometimes a good thing, as shown by this story on Rep. Jefferson. See my previous comment.

  • Why Force when you can Encourage?

    I found this Washington Post article interesting. GM has a reputation for producing gas guzzlers here, but as a leader in fuel economy over in Europe. Why is this?

    “We could sell the OPC here and make money because gasoline is near $6 a gallon,” Lutz said. “If we had $6 gasoline in the United States, we could sell it there at a profit, too,” he said. But he said it is unlikely that Americans would buy a little car at $30,000 “when they’re paying $2.50 for gasoline.” “We need $6 gasoline” in America to make sense of the Corsa OPC in that market, Lutz said. [Lutz is GM’s vice chairman for global product development]

    Auto manufacturers can do it with the proper motivation. In this country we seem to have an imperative to force fuel prices lower any time they threaten to rise. Then we simultaneously try to force companies to produce more fuel efficient cars. Neither the consumers nor the manufacturers have the motivation.

    One of my least popular personal ideas is simply that gas prices should be higher in this country. Frankly, it would inconvenience me if they were, but it would be good for our economy and for the environment in the long run. One of the reasons we do not have the type of efficient mass transit that folks have in Europe is simply that it is not economical, even when subsidized.

    Two things would serve to appropriately raise the price of gas. First, don’t react with panic to rising prices with such politically expedient but stupid ideas as releasing petroleum reserves. Second, cover a reasonable amount of the environmental impact through gas taxes. I know I’m bound to hear about gas taxes being too high already, but I don’t agree.