« July 2006 | Main | September 2006 »

August 31, 2006

I Miss Home

Where politics and government don't have to be entirely evil and can actually do some good. It looks like the emissions reduction bill is goin to be signed into law. Hopefully the health care for all bill, which made it through the senate this week, will be signed as well. I'm told not to be as optimistic for that one, but maybe the Gropenator's strategy of pandering to the left to atone for his ballot initiatives and insults to teachers, nurses, firefighters, etc. will take him that far. Meanwhile, on the national level, the VA continues to impress, and maybe has convinced more than I thought that a national health program can work, and well. Let's see, Medicare and the VA are the two most loved health provider programs in the country, and both are single-payer. Why wasn't this a no-duh issue years ago?

Posted by mattalexander at 10:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 29, 2006

More On Stem Cells

Scott commented on my recent post about stem cells. He asked if I could comment on the Catholic bishops' hesitation regarding manipulation of stem cells and what my take on it is. That got a lot of thoughts running through my head again, so if I may, and I think I can given that it's my blog : D, I'm gonna jot down some more than a response to Scotty's question.

The bishop's use of the term "manipulation" strikes me as misinformed, to begin with. From what I can gather, they oppose manipulating embryos for scientific aims since embryos are living people. I'm just not convinced that's what they really think. If you extend this logic, that means no people--embryo, child, adult--ought have any of their cells worked upon because they are fully living and not to be used for scientific aims. I think you can see where I'm going with this. Either they need to find a different way of phrasing their position, or they are accusing countless Catholic-run hospitals, medical schools, etc. to break communion with Church teaching on this issue, because those establishments do vast research on human cells daily.

Now, were their argument against "destruction" of the embryo, I think it'd be a more logically sound one. Indeed, that seems to me what their objection to previous ESC research has been--such research is not permissible because it necessitates the destruction of an embryo, which is a living person. However, that's what I find so appealing about this new technique--it specifically avoids destruction of an embryo. Rather, it samples tissue of a living organism for further examination while allowing that organism to go on living. And while research is limited, a sample size of 2000 children who have survived undergoing the same approach during IVF makes a strong argument that these embryos are not harmed, or "modifiied", by this new approach. Have I made my point on this nuanced topic clear? I hope so. Please let me know if I haven't.

As I mentioned, there are a few other aspects of this topic that have been bouncing in my head since I saw Scott's comment. Continuing with the Catholic bishops' reticence toward modification, I think much of the worry is that human cloning might come about as a result of techniques using ESCs. But I think it's important here to note what the debate here is about. At this point it's about whether or not federal money can be granted to fund such research, and I'm pretty sure strong safeguards against full cloning of humans and gross genetic engineering have been passed. (If I'm wrong on this, PLEASE let me know! I don't have time to find the specific legislation.) So, in my mind, grandstanding against modification during a debate about the allocation of federal grant dollars isn't really going to stop people who want to clone or do genetic engineering. If a human is ever cloned, and let's just hope that never happens, it's almost certainly going to be at a privately-financed lab somewhere in a poorly-regulated country. It seems to me that the doomsayers warning of the production of a new, genetically altered superhuman race have been effectively silenced, and I think it's for good reason.

Another thought modification brings to mind here is the opposition in Roman Catholicism to in vitro fertilization. In the Vatican's eyes, sex is very functional; it's strictly for procreation, and any recreational sex not intending children is irresponsible and sinful. Hence, the teachings against contraception. In terms of IVF, conception is removed from sexual intercourse, so the church has come out against it. Now, I don't think this is the post to debate this opposition to IVF, but I do want to suggest that the Vatican ought to come out more strongly in saying what its real opposition is in order to clarify the logic of its positions. I fear that focusing more on the issue of stem cells has dangerously meandered into dangerously partisan territory. I fear that making its teachings clear, it is positioning itself in ways that can too easily be seen as acting as chaplain for the Republican party. And I think we can all agree that's a pretty bad thing.

Finally, as is often the case, I find myself grappling with utilitarian ethics when trying to discern the place of Christians when they work in the sciences. I think I'm coming to the conclusion that a cautious, muted utilitarianism is acceptable when approached within a faithfulness to the Gospel. For instance, I think an often poorly scrutinized utilitarian ethic motivates people to get IVF in the first place. It seems the goal of parenting a child biologically their own is worth the sacrifice of many fertilized embryos. But, in my opinion, I think it's acceptable for a Christian to utilize would-be-discarded cells resulting from poorly thought out actions to try and eliminate suffering in the world. (Side note, I know it's fashionable among pro-lifers, even dubya, to bring up the so-called "snowflake children." The number of these children--around 100--pathetically pales in comparison to the number of embryos currently frozen and slated to be discarded--460,000. .02%? It's tough for me to take such arguments seriously given these numbers, and I think we can essentially considered these effectively dead when not used for IVF. Even more, many won't ever survive the freeze/thaw process and are thus actually dead.) Jesus healed the sick, and as I humbly try to emulate that profession, I think it's morally acceptable to use these frozen embryos for research, given that I don't have much luck working miracles. ; )

In addition to the narrow utilitarian ethic of IVF, the Vatican's seemingly utilitarian view of sex strikes me as wrong as well. Each time my wife and I have relations (I have always wanted to publish that! Haha!), we certainly aren't aiming or hoping for children. And I think that's how God intends it. And I have a problem with this utilitarian love being used up as a standard against which we can condemn IVF labs. (This was an argument by a bishop quoted in the original article.) If we continue the utilitarian ethic of procreation, I think these labs have a far better record of "love", given how destructively "unloving" a female's uterus can be, in these utilitarian terms. It's an infrequently discussed, ugly fact that many, many conceptions result in very early spontaneous abortions. In fact, we can't accurately quantify it given that these often occur before a woman knows she's conceived.

Finally, to wrap this up in an oh..., Eddie Izzard ending, sort of way. I think there is a puzzling inconsistency in the way the Catholic church regards medicine, science, etc. and life. Remember the utilitarian maintenance of life advocated in the Terry Schiavo mess. Ms. Schiavo certainly would not have been breathing for several years had it not been for medicine. If a utilitarian application of medicine was appropriate to save/prolong her life, why is it not acceptable the save/prolong the lives of millions? Just some food for though. I don't claim to have all the answers, but these are some of the things I've been thinking about.

Posted by mattalexander at 5:34 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 26, 2006

Why The Christian Right Is Wrong

I wrote a couple weeks ago about the sermon Robin Meyers gave at our church. Well, I just finished reading his book, which I mentioned I'd check out. Why The Christian Right is Wrong is an intriguing book that I actually found more in common with than I had anticipated. I imagined this being an anti-Bush diatribe by a liberal (in the American political sense) liberal (in the liberal democratic polity sense) Christian minister. The framework for this book is a speech he gave at the University of Oklahoma last year, which in itself I could use as a nice pamphlet to answer people who ask, "Just what is so wrong?" when I show my exhasperation at how badly things have gone in this country. He is a bit disparaging toward those insistent on creedal fidelity, and at times he slides a bit far into liberal ecumenicism, but his call to model our lives, particularly in our politics, after the life of Jesus, was quite welcome to this reader. It's worth reading, but I understand you can't read every book I recommend, so his speech, which can be used as a good summary of the book, is posted below the fold.

Dr. Robin Meyers Oklahoma University November 14, 2004

As some of you know, I am minister of Mayflower Congregational Church in Oklahoma City, an Open and Affirming, Peace and Justice church in northwest Oklahoma City, and professor of Rhetoric at Oklahoma City University.

But you would most likely have encountered me on the pages of the Oklahoma Gazette, where I have been a columnist for six years, and hold the record for the most number of angry letters to the editor. Tonight, I join ranks of those who are angry, because I have watched as the faith I love has been taken over by fundamentalists who claim to speak for Jesus, but whose actions are anything but Christian. We've heard a lot lately about so-called "moral values" as having swung
the election to President Bush. Well, I'm a great believer in moral values, but we need to have a discussion, all over this country, about exactly what constitutes a moral value -- I mean what are we talking about?

Because we don't get to make them up as we go along, especially not if we are people of faith. We have an inherited tradition of what is right and wrong, and moral is as moral does. Let me give you just a few of the reasons why I take issue with those in power who claim moral values are on their side:

-- When you start a war on false pretenses, and then act as if your deceptions are justified because you are doing God's will, and that your critics are either unpatriotic or lacking in faith, there are some of us who have given our lives to teaching and preaching the faith who believe that this is not only not moral, but immoral.

-- When you live in a country that has established international rules for waging a just war, build the United Nations on your own soil to enforce them, and then arrogantly break the very rules you set down forthe rest of the world, you are doing something immoral.

-- When you claim that Jesus is the Lord of your life, and yet fail to acknowledge that your policies ignore his essential teaching, or turn them on their head (you know, Sermon on the Mount stuff like that we must never return violence for violence and that those who live by the sword will die by the sword), you are doing something immoral.

-- When you act as if the lives of Iraqi civilians are not as important as the lives of American soldiers, and refuse to even count them, you are doing something immoral.

-- When you find a way to avoid combat in Vietnam, and then question the patriotism of someone who volunteered to fight, and came home a hero, you are doing something immoral.

-- When you ignore the fundamental teachings of the gospel, which says that the way the strong treat the weak is the ultimate ethical test, by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest among us so the strong will get stronger and the weak will get weaker, you are doing something immoral.

-- When you wink at the torture of prisoners, and deprive so-called "enemy combatants" of the rules of the Geneva convention, which your own country helped to establish and insists that other countries follow, you are doing something immoral.

-- When you claim that the world can be divided up into the good guys and the evil doers, slice up your own nation into those who are with you, or with the terrorists -- and then launch a war which enriches your own friends and seizes control of the oil to which we are addicted, instead of helping us to kick the habit, you are doing something immoral.

-- When you fail to veto a single spending bill, but ask us to pay for a war with no exit strategy and no end in sight, creating an enormous deficit that hangs like a great millstone around the necks of our children, you are doing something immoral.

-- When you cause most of the rest of the world to hate a country that was once the most loved country in the world, and act like it doesn't matter what others think of us, only what God thinks of you, you have done something immoral.

-- When you use hatred of homosexuals as a wedge issue to turn out record numbers of evangelical voters, and use the Constitution as a tool of discrimination, you are doing something immoral.

-- When you favor the death penalty, and yet claim to be a follower of Jesus, who said an eye for an eye was the old way, not the way of the kingdom, you are doing something immoral.

-- When you dismantle countless environmental laws designed to protect the earth which is God's gift to us all, so that the corporations that bought you and paid for your favors will make higher profits while our children breathe dirty air and live in a toxic world, you have done something immoral. The earth belongs to the Lord, not Halliburton.

-- When you claim that our God is bigger than their God, and that our killing is righteous, while theirs is evil, we have begun to resemble the enemy we claim to be fighting, and that is immoral. We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us.

-- When you tell people that you intend to run and govern as a "compassionate conservative," using the word which is the essence of all religious faith-compassion, and then show no compassion for anyone who disagrees with you, and no patience with those who cry to you for help, you are doing something immoral.

-- When you talk about Jesus constantly, who was a healer of the sick, but do nothing to make sure that anyone who is sick can go to see a doctor, even if she doesn't have a penny in her pocket, you are doing something immoral.

-- When you put judges on the bench who are racist, and will set women back a hundred years, and when you surround yourself with preachers who say gays ought to be killed, you are doing something immoral.

I'm tired of people thinking that because I'm a Christian, I must be a supporter of President Bush, or that because I favor civil rights and gay rights I must not be a person of faith. I'm tired of people saying that I can't support the troops but oppose the war.

-- I heard that when I was your age, when the Vietnam war was raging. We knew that that war was wrong, and you know that this war is wrong--the only question is how many people are going to die before these make-believe Christians are removed from power?

This country is bankrupt. The war is morally bankrupt. The claim of this administration to be Christian is bankrupt. And the only people who can turn things around are people like you--young people who are just beginning to wake up to what is happening to them. It's your country to take back. It's your faith to take back. It's your future to take back.

Don't be afraid to speak out. Don't back down when your friends begin to tell you that the cause is righteous and that the flag should be wrapped around the cross, while the rest of us keep our mouths shut. Real Christians take chances for peace. So do real Jews, and real Muslims, and real Hindus, and real Buddhists--so do all the faith traditions of the world at their heart believe one thing: life is precious. Every human being is precious. Arrogance is the opposite of faith. Greed is the opposite of charity. And believing that one has never made a mistake is the mark of a deluded man, not a man of faith.

And war -- war is the greatest failure of the human race -- and thus the greatest failure of faith.

There's an old rock and roll song, whose lyrics say it all: War, what is it good for? absolutely nothing.

And what is the dream of the prophets? That we should study war no more, that we should beat our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks. Who would Jesus bomb, indeed? How many wars does it take to know that too many people have died? What if they gave a war and nobody came? Maybe one day we will find out.

Posted by mattalexander at 9:27 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The Sorrows of Empire

In a desperate attempt to feel as though I accomplished something other than not harming my daughter over this summer, I've done a lot of reading of the last few days. One book I wen through was The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson. I read about this book in a post by Dale over at Theoblogical. Btw, Dale has been doing some great posting, particularly over the summer. Check it out.
This book is an exposition about America's descent into empire from near the turn of the last century up until today. I'd call it a damning critique, which ends up becoming, but it's not really written that way. My impression was that Johnson let the facts speak for themselves. Unfortunately, conditions are so deplorable that any relatively neutral presentation of them reads as a damning critique. People, things are in bad shape. America admits to holding over 750 military installations around the world; there are likely scores more hidden below other flags or clothed in secrecy. The behavior of both those running these places and those living at them is the best answer I can offer for the post-9/11 question, "Why do they hate us?" No, it's not our freedom they hate. I could go on and on, but Johnson does a much better job. You should really consider reading this book. It ain't fun, but it's information anybody living in this country really ought to know.

Posted by mattalexander at 7:20 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 25, 2006

Incredibly Suspicious

This is quite fishy. In a new program offering grants to low-income college students, evolutionary biology has been removed as an eligible major. The Department of Education claims it was a clerical error, but I'm skeptical that a major in the middle of a list could accidentally be erased, and a major in a topic so politically volatile, at that. It just seems like too much to be a coincidence.

As I was writing this, a tanget came to mind. A couple months ago Stephen Colbert (yay!) interviewed Lynn Westmoreland, a Republican representative from Georgia. You can see it here. The part I'm thinking of isn't the hilariously uncomfortable part when he can't name the ten commandments, even though he's a co-sponsor of a bill to put the ten commandments in halls of justice. The part I'm thinking of is when Colbert asked him what he thought would be a suitable way to tighten the governmental belt to deal with the deficit. Without hesitation, he answered the Department of Education. Now, I didn't expect his response to match what mine would be--like, 95% of the DoD--but his response really caught me off guard. His answer was so confidently to the point, it seemed like he was a member of an established, respectable (in their own minds?) camp that feels the Department of Education ought not exist. Does anybody know if such a group exists, and what their rationale is? I suspect it's a pro-voucher, anti-big government sort of thing, but that's just a hunch. Anybody know?

Posted by mattalexander at 6:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A Way Through the ESC Morass?

This could be a momentous breakthrough. Some scientists have managed to harvest embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo. This is actually a thought I had about a year ago when I learned about testing done on embryos before implantation during IVF. I guess I wasn't the only one. Fortunately, those who also thought of it knew they way around cell biology much better than me. : ) It will be interesting to see how this plays out politically if it proves to be a fruitful technique. The obstinance of both far right politicians and many Catholic bishops frustrates me. I want to avoid a utilitarian slippery slope here, but I think this gets rid of the objection most have to this science. It'd be very nice to end a topic that causes journalists and others to consider Roman Catholics and the president close bedfellows. We shall see.

Posted by mattalexander at 2:54 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 23, 2006

Putting the Iraq War on Trial

This Time.com story is interesting. A soldier is facing court martial becuase he refused his deployment to Iraq on the grounds that the war being fought there is illegal. Apparently this is a new tack. It seems most often people have a change of heart, religion, conviction, etc. that sends them pacifist, or something like that. Not this guy. (He still supports the war in Afghanistan.) It's about the legality of the Iraq debacle. I don't see how they are ever going to rule on the legality of this war, particularly considering this country's reticence to consider international law as of late, but apparently it's enough to make military higher-ups sweat. I guess if this plebe's thoughts and motives are approved judicially, commanding officers fear many will follow. Said one officer, "It's just dangerous in our Army to allow that to happen." Uh, duh. However, I've seen first-hand how the military brainwashes people, so I don't think a large scale mutiny in Iraq will happen. People reprogrammed into killing machines have little capability of thinking for themselves once they get through some time in uniform. This might prove interesting to follow though.

Posted by mattalexander at 8:36 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 22, 2006

Legal Justice in Argentina?

Let us hope. I felt it important to qualify this justice as "legal". The few of you who visit this site probably understand why. If you don't, let me know. Otherwise, I'm gonna go play with my daughter. : ) Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Any time I think of the horrible dictatorship that existed in Argentina, I always think of Cavanaugh's Torture and Eucharist. This is possibly the best book I've ever read.

Posted by mattalexander at 7:56 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 21, 2006

Apple Report on iPod Manufacturing

I have a confession to make. I'm addicted to all things Mac. I love my iMac. I love my iPod. I'm sure I'll love the MacBook I'm about to get to replace my damaged PowerBook. I'm hooked. However, through the development of this infatuation, I've somewhat stifled a voice inside of me questioning if my lust for flashy Apple products clouded my better judgment to make sure I wasn't enjoying these things at the expense of workers in the developing world or at the expense of the environment. Well, Apple just added another item to my things I love. They recently released a Report on iPod Manufacturing. It turns out there was some concern over conditions at a facility that manufactures iPods, so Apple send a team to do a comprehensive review. This report is the result. Quite impressive, an both its mostly favorable assesment and its candor. Worth checking out. Maybe all big business doesn't have to be evil.

Posted by mattalexander at 2:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 20, 2006

Our Trip to Boston

Bren, Lizzie, Wahoo, and I just returned from a few days in Boston. It ended up not being the easy-going, relaxing vacation we had planned on, but that's okay. We saw tons of stuff instead. Now that we're traveling with an infant, we stopped at Yale and Brown/RISD on the way to Boston. The northeast is fun. I got to check off three more states I've been to within a matter of hours. (I'm now up to 32!) Better yet, we got to a state other than New Jersey for the first time since moving to New York. Check out our pics. Very patriotical. Enjoy.

Posted by mattalexander at 7:16 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 15, 2006

Amy & Andy's Visit

My sister and brother-in-law just left last night after visiting us here for a few days in the city. It was great for Lizzie to finally meet her aunt and uncle, and it was fun to show off the city and see a few places I have yet to see. Park Avenue Cafe was, as always, fabulous, and its pay-your-age deal is the best local secret we have to show off to friends and family, especially younger ones. : D We also got to send Bren off from her last day of Work at Assurant, Inc., and see The Producers on Broadway. I know I'm missing a few things, but you can fill in the gaps by checking out the Flickr slideshow of pics from their visit. Enjoy.

Posted by mattalexander at 10:23 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Sunday's Sermon

Sunday, Riverside Church, the church Bren and I attend here in New York, had a guest speaker, Dr. Robin Meyers, pastor of Mayflower Congregational Church in OKC and professor of rhetoric at OCU. His sermon was a harsh critique of this country and the Church. It was good enough that I felt compelled to put it online. You can find it here. I'm not sure to what extent I agree with his calls to recapture "our country", since I'm not sure America was ever, or should be, "ours". But his criticisms of both America's disastrous turn of late and the Church's complacence in the face of these atrocities, for which it will be held to account, got me listening, so much so that I'll definitely check out his new book, Why the Christian Right is Wrong.

Posted by mattalexander at 10:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 11, 2006

I Still Don't Like the Braves...

But I applaud this decision. The Braves will no longer invite Focus on the Family to sponsor Faith Nights at its games. About time more people started speaking out against this group's hate.

Posted by mattalexander at 9:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

I'm SOOOO Getting This

Parenting my way is fun.

Posted by mattalexander at 7:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 8, 2006

Cool Idea

It'd be nice if this plays out. Type of thing we should fund research into, eh? ...Hello? ...Bueller?

Posted by mattalexander at 8:23 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 6, 2006

"...It's Not Really Science"

This CNN story about academics questioning conventional wisdom concerning the events of September 11, 2001. Now, I consider these thinkers incredibly fringy (I think I just created a word), and I'm not posting to prove their case. Rather, I was struck by line in this story. Says one of the group's critics, "It's science, but it's politically motivated. It's science with an ax to grind, and therefore it's not really science." This seems to me to be an enormous double standard. I'd argue these conspiracy theorists are about as fringy as those scientists who provide "data" that global warming is a hoax, yet the latter are appropriate sufficiently that they're thought has been used as rationale for holding on yet a little longer before dubya's administration decides if climate change needs to be addressed at the federal level. So, if we're going to listen to fringe scientists bloviating about the lie that is global warming, why not listen to those who suggest we're not being told the truth about 9/11. Well, I think the answer is incredibly obvious--the climate change wackos are funded by industries likely to profit greatly from the status quo. If, somehow, 9/11 conspiracy theorists stood to profit from their thought, perhaps we'd hear a little more serious consideration of their arguments. These people are probably as full of it as the energy companies' "scientists", but it would be nice for the government to explicate a bit more the events of 9/11, particularly if it's dragged its feet on implementing much of the Commission's recommendations. Okay, enough double-standard-pointing.

Posted by mattalexander at 6:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 4, 2006

Conyers' Cajones

I wish it didn't have to be so partisan and that the facts could speak for themselves, but then again that'd require a lot more intelligence and moral fiber for that to be the case. Regardless of the partisan politics, I find John Conyers' report (get a good summary here) on egregious offenses by W.'s regime commendable. I'm not a big fan of Democrats, and I certainly do not place my hope with them, but it'd be great to see a little retribution and a stop to the madness spread in the name of freedom.

As quoted in this TPMMuckraker post, Conyers said of the report,

"We're not trying to play Department of Justice or prosecutor. We're trying to put [these charges] on the record before too much other history blurs this," Conyers told me. "[We are] making sure that what we see as at least a couple dozen violations of federal statute do not go unnoticed. . . . We're trying to make sure that we have the fullest record of this, so that this won't be the work of industrious historians ten years from now."

Given the numerous "historical" accounts on the justification for the invasion of Iraq proffered in forty months, I think setting the record straight before the revisionist historians get more of their dirty hands on it is a good thing. Now there's some preemption I support. (Never thought I'd write that sentence!)

Posted by mattalexander at 10:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack