Lift Up Your Hearts!

In an earlier post on the Lisbon Treaty, I stated

[I]n the U.S. we have seen state laws gradually subsumed more and more by national regulation, so that fleeing to Pennsylvania from a repressive law in New York is not as easy as it once was.  I'm not saying this is always bad, but it can be, and bears watching.

I"m watching, and here's an example I saw today.  The U. S. Supreme Court has nullified a Louisiana law allowing for a sentence of the death penalty following conviction for the rape of a child under 12.

However devastating the crime to children, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion, "the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child." His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.

There has not been an execution in the United States for a crime that did not also involve the death of the victim in 44 years, a factor that weighed in Kennedy's decision.... Kennedy said the absence of any recent executions for rape and the small number of states that allow it demonstrate "there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape."

What's wrong here?  Why are the judges debating the heinousness of the crime, and why are they judging by perceived national consensus?  Shouldn't the question before the Court be, "Is there anything in the Constitution of the United States that prohibits the State of Louisiana from imposing this sentence?"

That, as they say, is why we pay them the big bucks.  Questions of the legitimacy of the death penalty and what might be suitable punishment for a man who repeatedly rapes a five-year-old girl can be debated by the voters and their representatives in each state.  The purview of those nine experts in Constitutional Law is the Constitution itself.

The role of joking in the way we deal with one another is a concern of mine, as I've said before.  Thanks to Groshlink I've found another excellent essay on the topic, The Gospel and Humor by Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City.  Unfortunately, the article is in PDF format, and you have to weave amongst some other articles to read it, but it's worthwhile.  To get you started—and to give those who won't follow the link a taste of what he says—here are some excerpts.

• Your humor has a lot to do with how you regard yourself. Many people use humor to put down others, keep themselves in the driver’s seat in a conversation and setting, and to remind the hearers of their superior vantage point. They use humor not to defuse tension and put people at ease, but to deliberately belittle the opposing view. Rather than showing respect and doing the hard work of true disagreement, they mock others’ points of view and dismiss them without actually engaging the argument.


• There are [also] some people who constantly, bitterly, mock themselves. At first it looks like a form of humility, or realism, but really it is just as self-absorbed as the other version. It is a sign of an inner dis-ease with one’s self, a profound spiritual restlessness.


• There is another kind of self-righteousness...that produces a person with little or no sense of humor.  Moralistic persons often have no sense of irony because they take themselves too seriously, or because they are too self-conscious and self-absorbed in their own struggles to be habitually joyful.


• The gospel, however, creates a gentle sense of irony. Our doctrine of sin keeps us from being over-awed by anyone (especially ourselves) or shocked, shocked by any behavior. We find a lot to laugh at, starting with our own weaknesses. They don’t threaten us any more because our ultimate worth is not based on our record or performance. Our doctrine of grace and redemption also keeps us from seeing any situation as hopeless. This groundnote of joy and peace makes humor spontaneous and natural.


• In gospel-shaped humor we don’t only poke fun at ourselves, we also can gently poke fun at others, especially our friends. But it is always humor that takes the other seriously and ultimately builds them up as a show of affection. “We are not to be perpetually solemn.  We must play.  But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously—no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption.” (C.S. Lewis, “The Weight of Glory”)

Scott Adams strikes again, with a definitely nerdy variation on this popular saying:

You may have noticed I've been posting a lot recently.  At one point I decided to try to write a post a day for the month of June.  There were two reasons for this.  The first—and this doesn't matter for those who use feedreaders, but not everyone does—is that I want to give people a reason to stop by frequently; if you don't write anything new, people get out of the habit.  At least I did, before I let Bloglines keep track of things for me.

The second, more compelling, reason is the accumulating backlog of things impelling me to write.  Books lined up for review; interesting tidbits of news and commentary I figure folks might otherwise not encounter; and the everyday happenings in our lives, which is my attempt to close somewhat the 1000 or more (sometimes much more) mile distance between us and those we love.  The only problem with this system is that the list grows even as it shrinks.  But at least I'm holding my own this month.  I suppose I could post more often (this is actually my second post of the day), but there is more to life—like laundry, as the persistent dryer buzzer is now reminding me.

Confessions of a Medical  Heretic, by Robert S. Mendelsohn, M. D. (McGraw-Hill, 1979)

A quick review of this so I can get it off my desk and back on the bookshelf:  There's no doubt that modern medicine has lengthened and improved our lives; the underside of that story is that modern medicine has also shortened our lives, and in many ways diminished their quality.  If you're not already half convinced of the second part of that statement, you'll find Dr. Mendelsohn's style hard to get through.  I believe him, and I still wanted to scream by about the 40th time he beat to death his otherwise illuminating analogy of modern medicine as a religion.

It's worth reading, however, especially if your faith in doctors, hospitals, and prescription medications is strong.  A little exposure to the harm that has been done in the name of health care is enough to let in some creeping doubts that nationalizing this commodity is the right path to take. At the very least it will make you a little more alert next time you step into a medical facility.

Sceptics will be quick to point out that the book was written in 1979, but if anyone thinks the basic situation has improved in the last 30 years, I'll point out that while progress has been made in some areas, the underlying philosophies and approaches remain.

I am not denouncing all of modern medicine, much less renouncing it.  Mendelsohn himself has good things to say, especially about emergency medicine.  But even religion shouldn't be taken completely on faith.  An awareness of the dangers lurking behind hospital doors can be very good for our health.

I love student recitals.  Our kids attended the Suzuki Music Institute of Central Florida for nearly 10 years, so I think I've heard more than my share of recitals.  Granted, the quality of music and musicianship was nothing compared with the Eastman School of Music recitals we subsequently enjoyed, but I can honestly say I was never bored, not even by the beginners, nor by hearing the same beginning songs again and again.  It was fun hearing the differences, not only from one child to another, but particularly as each child grew and advanced from one recital to another.

Nonetheless, I know that to many people the phrase "student recital" evokes horrifying thoughts of squeaks and off-pitch notes and shaky rhythms, over and over again as student follows student in a seemingly endless parade of classical or modern pieces the audience doesn't know and doesn't understand.

Acutely aware of this herself, when the director of the Ellison School of Music planned a summer recital for her students, she was determined that the event be both memorable and fun.  Last night we attended their Kaleidoscope Summer Concert, and can say without a doubt that it was both.  I say that even though I would like to have heard more classical and modern music that I didn't understand.  :)

Seating was at tables, cabaret-style, with delicious food (and real lemonade) from the Tropical Heat Organic Market and Delicatessen.

Pre-, post-, and entr'acte music was provided by the amazing duo of professional musicians Ashley Lochead (vocals) and Dan Flick (guitar/violin).  There was also a special guest appearance by a delightful young guy named Justin who really should be a professional singer himself, and a brief but memorable vision of beautiful, blond singers with equally beautiful voices across three generations.  In addition to singing, the show featured interpretive dance, skits, and lovely costumes.  The students ranged in age from maybe six to adult, including some high school students of considerable talent and training.

For the younger set, there was—perhaps understandably—a heavy emphasis on songs from recent Disney movies, with the older singers concentrating on "golden oldies" from the 40s and 50s, musical theater, movie music, and some just plain fun songs, like "Taylor, the Latte Boy."  No doubt you all are 'way ahead of us, and are already familiar with that song, but if not, you can find it on YouTube.  One particularly memorable song/skit was a collaboration between two older boys and a little girl on "I Just Can't Wait to Be King" and "Hakuna Matata" from The Lion King.

It was altogether a delightful evening, more like a good place for a Saturday night date than an occasion to show proud parents what they're getting for the money they spend on music lessons.  If you're in town for the next recital, you don't want to miss it.  And judging by the quality of the singers in this performance, if you're looking for voice lessons in the north Orlando area, you don't want to miss the Ellison School of Music.

We throw the term "witch hunt" around pretty loosely, but when it comes to child abuse accusations, apparently it's more accurate than not, at least in one Canadian city, where school officials reported sexual abuse of one of their students on the basis of a psychic's suggestion.  As Random Observations noted, the last time we accepted that kind of evidence in North America was during the Salem Witch Trials of 1692.

In this case, the child's mother was able to refute the accusation successfully, because the nature of her daughter's disability, combined with the fact that her elementary school had "lost" her several times, had prompted her to equip the girl with a GPS and a continuous audio monitor that provided clear evidence that the accusation was false.  How many other parents could have proven their innocence so easily?

A local man makes his living selling political propaganda, including campaign buttons.  Like a mercenary soldier, he plays all sides.  He feeds off bumper sticker philosophy, thumb-your-nose attitudes, and mocking humor.  It's not exactly the world's most useful occupation, certainly not among the more charitable.  But from the reaction to his "If Obama is president, will we still call it the White House?" button, you'd think Jonathan Alcox was a substantially lower form of life than drug pusher or Mafia don, just barely above child pornographer.

Barack Obama does not deny—indeed, he profits from—his partially African heritage.  I fail to see anything at all racist about that button; if being aware of someone's ancestry is racist, then we all are, including Obama's supporters, and the term has no meaning other than as an epithet to throw at our opponents when we run out of rational arguments.  If truth is no longer a defense, what hope have we for justice?

In the interest of full disclosure, I love word play, and am thus predisposed to finding that button amusing.  I wouldn't wear one, but can see the humor and not the offense.

Alcox has other buttons that I find far more beyond the pale. For example,

Another one that Alcox said sells particularly well features George W. Bush next to a chimpanzee beneath the words "The dangers of cloning."

If the same button sported Barack Obama instead of George W. Bush, it would be no less offensive—but also no more.  Yet selling that button would push Alcox below the child pornographers in some eyes.

Now that's racism.

I've had some adventures with palmetto bugs, but I'll take them over scorpions any day.  Check out "Et tu?"s Hospitality in my Home for your morning internal excercise, and better-her-than-me thanksgivings.

Thanks to Andy B.'s suggestion, I just installed the latest version of Firefox.  No verdict on it as yet—it was an easy install, and some of it is seamless, some really cool (such as the security information you can get by clicking on the title bar icon, though the number of websites that identify themselves has been disappointing), and some annoying (changed appearance of some of the icons, which will take some getting used to for someone with the kind of visual memory I have).  Some of the big new features include lots of things you can do from the title bar, and I see that how bookmarks are organized has changed; also, security has supposedly been significantly enhanced.

So far I've liked the evolution of Firefox, unlike Netscape which got more and more annoying with each new version, as they added features I didn't want and which ate up more and more memory and disk space.  Time will tell with 3.0.

Last night we enjoyed an outing to the Texas de Brazil restaurant.  This is not what I would normally call my kind of restaurant:  although I find salad bars, buffets, and all-you-can-eat establishments appealing for their wide variety and options, the high price and the encouragement of overeating make them generally unattractive to me.  However, our friends had two-for-one coupons, which brought the $45-per-person price down from the outrageous to the merely ridiculous-but-acceptable-for-a-special-occasion.  So we celebrated Father's Day one day late.

Was it Brazil?  No.  The theme was Brazilian, with the churrasco-style grilled meats brought to the table on huge skewers, but the salad bar included sushi, and while the bar had suco de maracujá it was not sem açúcar, so I was not able to indulge in my favorite Brazilian drink.

Was it delicious?  Yes.  The first meat to come by our table was the filet mignon, which was so good that we never had more than a taste of any of the other meats.  The salad bar, bread, and side dish offerings could have kept me happy (and overstuffed) without any meat at all.

Was it worth $45/person?  No.  Half that?  Yes, for a special occasion.  Porter pronounced it one of the best restaurant meals he's had in a long time—and with his travel schedule, he gets a lot of restaurant experience.

Did we overeat?  Yes, but it could have been worse.  I calculate that if I had stopped five bites sooner I would not have been wishing we'd parked the car further away.... 

We've been nibbling on the basil, parsley, and Thai basil from our garden, and the hot pepper plant has been producing prolifically and steadily for a year now, but this week saw the first harvest from our radish, lettuce, and stevia plants.  The radishes aren't quite ready yet, but the baby lettuces were spicy and delicious.

I've never grown stevia before, and didn't know quite what to do with the leaves, but I cut one stem, stripped off the leaves (maybe a dozen), and poured not qute a quart of boiling water over them.  I let that cool and then put it in the refrigerator.  Next I took a quarter cup of juice of a fresh lemon, poured it over a glass full of ice, added about half a cup of the stevia infusion (filled up the glass), and stirred it all together.  It was a delicious concoction.  Still tart, but that's how we like our lemonade.

In honor of Father's Day, I present an article that's a bit more challenging than my normal light fare.  It's from John Mauldin's InvestorsInsight financial newsletter, and is actually an excerpt from a book called A Roadmap For Troubling Times by Louis-Vincent Gave.  The article is The Problem with the Euro, and the excerpt begins a bit down the page, at "The Change in Policy."

It's heavy going, but one interesting thing I took from it, thanks to some help from my own Personal Economist (aka Porter) is this:  Countries, unlike people and businesses, don't go bankrupt—because they can always print more money.  Yes, that brings on inflation and a whole host of problems, but it keeps them in business.  However, this is no longer true of the countries of the European Union.  France, which is struggling under a national debt of 70% of its GDP, can no longer cover itself by printing more francs, since its present currency, the euro, is outside of its control.  Many other European countries are in similar straits.

In the mid 1990s, Europe's leaders got together and, in essence, said: "wouldn't it be great if we all got to borrow at the same rate as Germany?" And everyone around the table agreed that this would be a good thing. The decision was thus taken to a) create a currency which would resemble the DM, b) that this currency would be managed by a central bank with a mandate very similar to the Bundesbank's and c) that countries around the Euroland would strive to harmonize their fiscal policies (Maastricht Treaty rules and Stability and Growth Pact) to ensure the long term survival of the Euro. At the time it was also envisaged that the collapse in interest rates in certain countries (Italy, Belgium, Spain...) would give a tailwind to growth which would allow governments around the more indebted EMU countries to tighten their belts and clean up their fiscal houses.

The collapse in interest rates happened, as yields converged to the German rate... but unfortunately, the clean-up in fiscal houses did not. In fact some countries like France cashed in the "growth dividend" and voted themselves greater benefits such as the 35-hour work week.

There is a credit gap between fiscally strong countries like Germany, Ireland, Finland, the Netherlands, and Austria, and fiscally weak countries like France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Belgium, and those of Eastern Europe, and it is increasing.  This is manifested by the fact that the yields on bonds issued by the various governments differ despite the fact that they are all denominated in euros.  For instance, German bonds yield less than Italian bonds because they are perceived as less risky.  This difference is the "spread."

[A] widening of spreads represents the worst of both worlds for European banks. For a start, it puts their balance sheets under pressure. For seconds, it cuts down their income as the writing of CDS on Europe's weaker sovereigns slows to a crawl. For Europe's policy-makers, the widening of spreads poses a serious challenge which, if left unchecked, could cut to the very credibility of the Euro and the European construction exercise. It could also trigger a negative spiral such as the one we saw in the US whereby as the cost of borrowing increases on the weakest signatures, rolling over debt becomes more problematic, hereby inviting higher spreads etc.

This widening is a sign that the market is starting to acknowledge that the promises have not been kept. Thus, the best thing for Europe's governments would be to start keeping the promises that were made ten years ago. [Emphasis in the original] But of course, the main problem with that solution is that it implies that Europe's governments will have to tighten their belts over the coming quarters, i.e.: at the worst possible time in the cycle. After all, it is always hard for a government to pull back and shrink its size of the GDP cake... but in an economic slowdown, it is close to impossible.

It is all the harder to do when there is little political will for far-reaching reforms.... And we should make no mistake about it: reforming Europe's welfare states will take real sacrifices. Take pensions as an example: for years, most European countries have run a pay-as-you-go system whereby people of my generation will pay directly for the retirement benefits of my dad's generation.... In other words, Europe's pension systems are usually massive pyramid schemes; they work as long as the base grows and ever more people contribute to the bottom of the pyramid. The problem, of course, is that in a growing number of European countries, the base is no longer growing.

[T]he credit crunch which has thus far mostly only engulfed the US is starting to make its way into Europe. And soon enough, Europe's banks will likely be reporting losses and write-downs....

A few years before his death, Professor Milton Friedman declared: "It seems to me that Europe, especially with the addition of more countries, is becoming ever-more susceptible to any asymmetric shock. Sooner or later, when the global economy hits a real bump, Europe's internal contradictions will tear it apart." Today, one should question whether the "real bump" is being hit and whether Milton Friedman will end up being proven right.
 

This bears watching; the EU may have more problems than Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty.  I certainly hope this isn't Friedman's "real bump."  And that bit about the government pulling back and tightening its belt?  The United States isn't that much better than France when it comes to national debt vs. GDP.  Are any of our presidential candidates listening?

Here are some statistics, from the CIA's World Factbook, of the public debt as a percentage of GDP for several countries. (2007 estimates):  United States 60.8%, Switzerland 45.3%, France 64%, New Zealand 20.7%, Italy 104%, Brazil 45.1%, China  18.4% (though I'm not sure what this means in a place like China), Canada  68.5%, United Kingdom 43%, Greece  89.7%, Russia 5.9%, Germany 63.2%, Kenya 40.5%, Israel 80.6%, Egypt 105.8%, Japan 195.5%.  I'm not at all sure what to make of these figures.  Perhaps, like infant mortality statistics, they are so flawed by measurement and recording differences as to be meaningless.  But I note two things:  (1) The U.S. isn't the only nation with a debt problem, and (2) the world is doing a lot of robbing Peter to pay Paul—or, more accurately, robbing Peter's children to pay Paul's parents.

If you can tough it out through the financial matters, the article is well worth reading. 

A week ago we paused in the middle of grouting our new entrance tile to turn around and watch the Space Shuttle Discovery sail through the clouds.  This morning the twin sonic booms informed us it was time to turn on the television to watch Discovery's return home.

And you thought the thrills of living in Florida had something to do with not shoveling snow.

Ireland's 3 million voters will decide on a document representing the 490 million people in the European Union.

You can look at it that way, and when you do, it sounds unfair that the success or failure of the Lisbon Treaty, which would create a new governing treaty for the European Union, should stand or fall based on what the Irish decide.  But so it is with democracy; in a close race, one person's vote can decide the fate of an entire country.  Not that it ever does, but it could.

I don't know enough to judge the Lisbon Treaty itself; it may be good or bad in the main, but I can say I am pleased that Ireland is standing by its own constitution, which requires that anything affecting the Irish constitution be decided by the Irish citizens themselves.  The Dutch and French people have already been railroaded by their own governments.

After voters in the Netherlands and France rejected a previous EU constitution in 2005, no other EU country dared to put such matters to their voters, instead pushing it through their national parliaments. Dutch and French voters have no direct say on the current treaty.

Certainly there are advantages to EU membership, but I'm glad that Switzerland has maintained its independence.  I first saw some of the negative consequences of joining the EU on a visit to France, where I learned that the culture of the small, independent French farmer is under attack by the EU.  The French government, appreciating the value of local, independent farms for both cultural and national security reasons, has been subsidizing the farmers.  I know government subsidies can introduce unfortunate market kinks—and I don't appreciate our own government's subsidies of large agribusiness corporations—but even a "small government" person such as I can see the importance of spending money to protect a valuable, endangered species.  But the EU says French farm subsidies are unfair to other member countries, and would rather have France import its food from Eastern Europe.

I know that some are hoping the EU will put a stop to Germany's draconian laws against homeschooling, and no one (except the German families) would like more than I to end that repression, but even I can't help feeling queasy at the thought of an external government dictating their laws.

The new treaty may be a good one for all I know, but I'm glad the Irish government has the courage (and constitutional responsibility) to let their own people vote on matters that will so greatly affect their future.

Not that democracy is everything.  People can all too easily be beguiled into voting against their own best interests, to say nothing of the best interests of their neighbors, their country, and the world.  That's probably the reason I hate to see the European countries giving up their independence.  Many freedoms can be more or less guaranteed by a governing body, or not, but when push comes to shove, true freedom rests on being able to say, "No, thanks" and walk away from a repressive situation, be it a job or a country.  That's why it's said that economic freedom is one of the most basic human rights there is, because it enforces the others.  A German homeschooling family can currently escape German's persecution by moving to England, as some have done.  They shouldn't have to do so, but they can.  But what if they couldn't?  What if the UK and France and Switzerland and Germany and Hungary and Lithuania were all subject to the same rules?  Well, they could come to the United States. Unless we, too, put ourselves under the authority of another governing body that might have different views on the rights of families.

Homeschooling is just an example, which I use because the right to educate one's own children is especially dear to me.  But there's a lot more to this issue than that.  Alliances among nations are tricky things.  Or among states; in the U.S. we have seen state laws gradually subsumed more and more by national regulation, so that fleeing to Pennsylvania from a repressive law in New York is not as easy as it once was.  I'm not saying this is always bad, but it can be, and bears watching.

In any case, I'll be eager to see how the Irish people decide.