From PowerlineBlog.com: “Let Your Voice Be Heard”

The following excerpt is from PowerlineBlog.com

With the House of Representatives scheduled to vote on Nancy Pelosi's health care takeover bill, a watershed moment in American history is fast approaching. In this video, Congressman Mike Pence puts the battle over health care in the context of freedom and of the relationship between the individual and the state: [watch video]
Only massive public opposition has a chance to stop the federal usurpation that the Democrats are planning.

The House Republican Conference, meanwhile, has gone to the Herculean effort of tabulating the new federal boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and programs that would be established by the House bill--all in the name of cutting costs, of course! They add up to 111: [see list]

After viewing the list, how would you answer these questions:
1. Where can I find the specific cost allocated to each of these items?
2. How many new Government employees will be needed to administer these items?
3. How many of these items are necessary in order to achieve the goal of reducing health costs or health insurance premiums?
4. How many of these items, if they were necessary, could be handled by existing bureaucracies instead of starting new ones?
5. Which makes more sense, 111 new programs, bureaucracies, and boards that amount to a takeover of 16% of the American economy as seen here , OR the much less radical approach described by Republican Leader John Boehner: “There is a better way. Republicans have offered solutions to lower health care costs and expand access at a cost our nation can afford. You can read about them at www.healthcare.gop.gov."

RE: "Decline is A Choice"

I often like the comments I hear from Charles Krauthammer and read his online posts whenever I can. This one in The Weekly Standard entitled "Decline Is A Choice" shows his gift of stepping back and getting a perspective that is generally missed by others. Two quotes give a window into his insights and make me think about what I must do to help America make the right choice:

"For America today, decline is not a condition. Decline is a choice. Two decades into the unipolar world that came about with the fall of the Soviet Union, America is in the position of deciding whether to abdicate or retain its dominance. Decline--or continued ascendancy--is in our hands."

and,

"And there's the rub. For the Europeans there really is a peace dividend, because we provide the peace. They can afford social democracy without the capacity to defend themselves because they can always depend on the United States.
So why not us as well? Because what for Europe is decadence--decline, in both comfort and relative safety--is for us mere denial. Europe can eat, drink, and be merry for America protects her. But for America it's different. If we choose the life of ease, who stands guard for us?"

All of the questions now being debated in Washington (and in real America outside the beltway): Health Care, Afganistan, Iran, Iraq, Stimulus, Energy, The Economy, Jobs, Cap and Trade (or "Cap and Tax"), Education, Immigration, Marriage, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and more--they are just double-sided pieces of a puzzle in which the picture only is revealed toward the end when we see the accumulated pattern of the individual choices made on each separate question.

What can I do? Work to elect those who will stand up and decide not to decline.

What can you do? Read "Decline Is A Choice" and make your own decision.

The beauty of Federalism in the health care debate

Instead of a centralized power, our Founders established the Federal system they called the United States of America. The Federal government didn’t grant authority to the states. Rather, the individual states, being closer to the people, had the authority over everything not specifically granted to the federal government.

This setup is perfect for trying out various schemes to improve society in different states, and then importing to other states those ideas that actually work. For health care reform, one could go to Massachusetts or Minnesota to see what they have implemented—what are the benefits, what do they need to change?

James Q. Wilson, writing in the Wall Street Journal Online, (A Life in the Public Interest )talked about what happens when the Federal concept is ignored and the process is top-down instead of bottom-up. He mentioned the law of unintended consequences:

“Launch a big project and you will almost surely discover that you have created many things you did not intend to create.

This is not an argument for doing nothing, but it is one, in my view, for doing things experimentally. Try your idea out in one place and see what happens before you inflict it on the whole country.”

The bills currently being developed in Congress don’t seem to have learned from the smaller experiments in separate states; and they certainly don’t project future experiments to try out reforms in smaller markets, and then to promote those reforms for other states. Instead they are attempts to jam down unproven reforms on everyone everywhere in the country.

Being Christian In A Political Debate

I have written previously here and elsewhere about the health care (or health insurance) reform issue. I learned firsthand that stating an opinion in public can encourage debate, but it can also bring out the worst in people.

In a recent ScriptoriumDaily.com post, “7 Suggestions for Christians in the Public Square” John Mark Reynolds wrote “It is hard to talk to someone when you have nothing in common.”

Sometimes it is even hard, but not impossible, to talk with someone when you share some common values because of “how we prioritize values when good come into conflict.” We may “agree on the values”, but prioritize and apply them differently.

A few years back I encountered some faithful Christians with some doctrines that were radically different from mine. I was startled to conclude that they actually believe these things they are saying, but I respected them personally and I realized I needed to continue to relate to them as fellow believers. Sadly, some of them did not reach the same conclusion.

The same thing can happen with the health care debate. That brings us to one of Reynold’s suggestions: "Attacking ideas is different than attacking people". In response to one email about health care I sent which went viral, one person (who admitted that she didn’t know me) named me personally as a “Deather”. She was referring to those who seek disclosure of Barak Obama’s birth certificate and are called “Birthers” (but she didn’t refer to the “Truthers” –9/11 Conspiracy Theorists). Instead of debating the ideas presented, she attacked me.

Reynolds is right though in his 2nd suggestion: “Strong opinions encourage authentic dialogue.” It is only as people with strong convictions speak up and engage in civil debate with others of strong convictions that authentic dialogue takes place. If you strongly disagree with a policy or an idea but say nothing when others present their opinions, there is no dialogue. The recent town hall meetings may have been boisterous (and some participants may have gone over the line at times), but they had the desired effect of getting both sides of the issue before the public and their elected officials.

I encourage you to read the entire article 7 Suggestions for Christians in the Public Square.

In a previous post, John Mark Reynolds quoted Jim Wallis’ comment that health care is a “deeply theological issue, a Biblical issue and a moral issue”, and then replied that “Health care is such a deeply theological, Biblical, and moral issue that it cannot be trusted to the government.

Increasing government control over health care increases the number of ethical issues where government authority will have to be on one side or the other of these disputes.

Sometimes increasing state power is necessary, but it should also be done with care. When religious leaders like Jim Wallis pretend that it is obvious that government should increase its involvement in health care, they have confused the goal (universal basic care) with the means (government programs).”

Again, I encourage you to read the entire article: Too Great a Good for Caesar: Health Care Reform .

There are some health care issues that involve ethical decisions that cannot be entrusted to politicians or bureaucrats whose decisions are politically, not morally, based.

Christians have a responsibility to speak up about moral and ethical issues and not abdicate that responsibility to others. However, we must also be Christian in the manner in which we debate. I applaud John Mark Reynolds for his helpful suggestions as to how that debate can be Christian in tone and manner.

Health Care Reform

I've been reluctant to jump into most political issues on this page. But periodically one comes along that demands a stance. The proposed health care "reform" is one of them.
Everyone says we need reform (regardless of the President's claim that some are standing in the way of reform because they are satisfied with the status quo). There are just competing ideas of what kind of reform is needed.
One kind of reform is akin to updating or remodeling an existing home that has many desirable features and some obsolete ones. The other kind of reform reminds me of the videos of a building being demolished by explosives so a brand new one can be constructed on the site.
National Review Online today has an editorial which succinctly expresses the unbelievable claims that the architect of the new building wants us to buy. Here are the first two paragraphs:
Snake Oil “President Obama’s press conference Wednesday night offered an ideal encapsulation of the Democrats’ case for their health-care-reform proposals: outlandish promises about benefits and patently dishonest denials of the costs. He said essentially all of the uninsured would be covered, the insured could keep their existing coverage and would be guaranteed to keep it if they lost or changed jobs, the quality of care would rise, waste and fraud would be slashed, the deficit would decline, and no one would have to pay a price for all this except a few millionaires. Oh, and by the way, the plan would also “keep government out of health-care decisions.”
If the president can persuade the American public of all that, then maybe we don’t even need medical care — we can just have him tell us all we’re perfectly healthy and we’ll go on our way.”
I have many issues with the proposed demolition of our health care system--too many to list here--and the greatest one is that I fear the loss of freedom that will come with the new system. Returning to my metaphor of a building being demolished, it appears to me that what is being proposed is that we tear down our hospital and replace it with a prison, and bureaucrats will be the guards who restrict our access to needed health care. More later.

Where Is Our Hope?

It's one thing to have hope when looking back after the Resurrection, and another to have hope when it's just after the crucifixion and burial. What went on in the minds of the Apostles?

WHERE IS OUR HOPE?

It’s over now.
We tried to say
There was something
Wrong with the way
He was doing things.

Now he is dead—
Crucified for some crime,
Some trumped-up charge
Which no one believed
He could ever do.

But what’s the use?
Who cares anymore?
We were fools to think
That he, or anyone for that matter,
Could really change the way it is—
And has been—and always will be.
Why fight it anyway?

Oh God, how we hoped
That he was really sent from You.
We just knew that You really cared
And that through him you were at last
Bringing salvation to those who trust in You.

Bah! What’s the use of talking like this?
Maybe even You died a long time ago.
Maybe You were never there at all—
Our fathers just said you were real
Because they could not explain life
Any other way.

Why don’t you answer me?
Why don’t You take away the ache
And give that mysterious peace I was promised?
If you are real, why don’t You reveal Yourself?

No. I have no right to criticize.
I am sure You have a purpose in his death.
I just can’t see it now.

Perhaps…If only it were possible…
He said he would rise again on the third day.
Then, oh then I could begin to hope again.
And what I seek is real, genuine HOPE.

Rudy J. Antle
April 3, 1974
© 2009

The So-called "Stimulus" Bill

I just thought you might like to know where your money will go if the "Stimulus bill" is passed. A simplified printout in spreadsheet format has been published.

As a Realtor who has seen firsthand the devastating effect of the subprime mortgages, foreclosures, and short sales on the housing market (which was the primary reason we got into this mess) I am obviously concerned about what will be done to help shore up housing. See if you can find help for housing in this bill.

John Updike: Seven Stanzas At Easter

I came across this poem for the first time when reading about the death of John Updike in Christianity Today. The poem is referenced at the end of that article: “Kendall Harmon at TitusOneNine posted "Seven Stanzas at Easter," Updike's well-known poem on the Resurrection, last March.”

I like the way Updike creatively addresses classic arguments against the Resurrection and their manifestations in today’s theological debates with allusions to today’s scientific awareness.

Enjoy,

Seven Stanzas at Easter

Posted by Kendall Harmon

Make no mistake: if He rose at all
it was as His body;
if the cells' dissolution did not reverse, the molecules
reknit, the amino acids rekindle,
the Church will fall.

It was not as the flowers,
each soft Spring recurrent;
it was not as His Spirit in the mouths and fuddled
eyes of the eleven apostles;
it was as His Flesh: ours.

The same hinged thumbs and toes,
the same valved heart that — pierced — died, withered, paused, and then
regathered out of enduring Might
new strength to enclose.

Let us not mock God with metaphor,
analogy, sidestepping transcendence;
making of the event a parable, a sign painted in the
faded credulity of earlier ages:
let us walk through the door.

The stone is rolled back, not papier-mache,
not a stone in a story,
but the vast rock of materiality that in the slow
grinding of time will eclipse for each of us
the wide light of day.

And if we will have an angel at the tomb,
make it a real angel,
weighty with Max Planck's quanta, vivid with hair,
opaque in the dawn light, robed in real linen
spun on a definite loom.

Let us not seek to make it less monstrous,
for our own convenience, our own sense of beauty,
lest, awakened in one unthinkable hour, we are
embarrassed by the miracle,
and crushed by remonstrance.

--John Updike (1932- 2009)

Challenging Myself

Like many others I put 2008 behind me as the annus horribilis I want to forget. Looking to 2009 in hope for a better year in many ways, I set a goal to read at least one book a month ("and none of them with pictures" as I wrote on my Facebook page).

An article in The Wall Street Journal Online about the books President Bush reads challenged me to read more and watch TV less. So far my list of books to read in 2009 is up to 18. Notice I said, "to read" not "have read".

I've finished 2 so far, and one of them--The Blessing of Christmas, by Pope Benedict XVI--does have pictures. They are beautiful reproductions of classic paintings of Advent. It was a Christmas gift along with three others that are on my list: Jesus of Nazareth, by Pope Benedict XVI; Truman, by David McCullough, and The Reason for God, by Timothy Keller.

I'll leave the one with pictures on the list as a balance to some of the others that are much longer and heavier (literally--Truman is hard to hold as I read it).

There are lots of other challenges ahead in 2009. I'm grateful to have one that I have set for myself and that I have some control over its outcome.

May your challenges in 2009 be ones you can have some control over, too. Happy New Year!