April Smith and the Great Picture Show - "Colors"

I've been listening to this song non-stop for a week now. Enjoy!

April Smith and the Great Picture Show - "Colors"

Photos from the Beautiful Blog that Could Be

So as you probably know if you read this blog regularly, my wife Erin has a blog that is infinitely funnier and better than this one. However, she only posts about twice a year, perhaps just to periodically let me know that she can kick my ass whenever she wants to, but simply chooses not to.

As important as this is for me to understand, it sometimes bothers me that the public is missing things that could be on her blog: such as her wonderful photography. So I decided to post a few photos of hers that I found while exploring our hard drive. Enjoy!

(If I do say so myself.)

ErinScottPhotography.com

Does the Constitution Protect Non-Citizens?

In the last few years, we have all heard critics of the government claim that the right of Habeas Corpus has been suspended for the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. I have always viewed this claim with some skepticism, because it has been my understanding that the Constitution only protects American citizens ("we the people"), and not to terrorists or prisoners of war. Last week, this argument came crumbling down when I read a Salon article about this very topic.

Now let me say here that I'm not a big fan of Salon. The publication leans far too left for me, and tends to do so with such arrogance that I often have a hard time separating the facts from the patronizing outrage. This is particularly true of Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald's writing, and the article in question (which he authored) is no exception. The underlying tone of the article is "only an ignorant idiot could possibly disagree with me," and that kind of thing just isn't helpful. But his points are excellent, so I thought I'd quickly summarize them here as objectively as I could:

1. The U.S. Supreme Court, in 2008, issued a highly publicized opinion, in Boumediene v. Bush, which makes clear the Constitution does not only apply to Americans. The Boumediene Court held that it was unconstitutional for the Military Commissions Act to deny habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees, none of whom was an American citizen (indeed, the detainees were all foreign nationals outside of the U.S.).  If the Constitution applied only to U.S. citizens, that decision would obviously be impossible.  What's more, although the decision was 5-4, none of the 9 Justices—and, indeed, not even the Bush administration—argued that the Constitution applies only to American citizens.

2. There are millions of foreign nationals inside the U.S. at all times—not only illegally but also legally: as tourists, students, workers, Green Card holders, etc. Doesn't the Bill of Rights apply to them? If a foreign national is arrested and accused by the U.S. Government of committing a crime, can they be sentenced to prison without a jury trial, denied the right to face their accusers, have their property seized without due process, be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and be denied access to counsel? Anyone who claims that the Constitution only protects American citizens, but not foreigners, would necessarily have to claim that the U.S. Government could do all of that to foreign nationals. Would it be Constitutionally permissible to own foreigners as slaves on the ground that the protections of the Constitution—including the Thirteenth Amendment—apply only to Americans, not foreigners? Obviously not.

3. The Bill of Rights says nothing about "citizens." To the contrary, many of the provisions are simply restrictions on what the Government is permitted to do ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...or abridging the freedom of speech"; "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner").  And where rights are expressly vested, they are pointedly not vested in "citizens," but rather in "persons" or "the accused" ("No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"; "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense").

There are, of course, certain Constitutional rights that are clearly reserved only for citizens—such as the right to vote or to hold elective office—but when that is the case, the Constitution explicitly states that to be so ("The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States...").  Indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment, in the very same clause, demonstrates the distinction between "citizens" (which only includes "Americans") and "persons" (which includes everyone), and proves that the former is merely a subset of the latter.

Summarized from "Susan Collins spreads central myth about the Constitution," Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com, 2/1/2010

I should note that this argument only addresses the question of whether or not the Constitution applies to non-citizens—it does not close the case on the Constitutionality of Guantanamo. There are many other factors at play, such as whether U.S. federal courts have jurisdiction over areas that are not on U.S. soil, the prisoner's status as POWs, terrorists, or enemy combatants, and the Geneva Conventions. However, so far the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Guantanamo detainees on more than one occasion, and after hearing Greenwald's argument I think I understand why.

Image: micmol

The Union of Two Forgivers

"A happy marriage is the union of two forgivers."
Ruth Bell Graham

This quote came up at my wife Erin's and my small group meeting Tuesday night, while we were discussing 1 Peter 4:8-11, which is (to me) one of the most beautiful passages in the Bible about love. Our group spoke about how the line "love covers over a multitude of sins" is a perfect picture of marriage, because every marriage is the union of two hopeless sinners, and the ability to forgive your partner is probably the most crucial skill a spouse could have.

I have certainly found this to be true in my own marriage—I am daily awed by my bride's ability to forgive. Our culture loves to tout communication as the number-one key to a happy marriage, but give me forgiveness any day. It's no coincidence to me that men are called to love their wives as Christ loves the church, and the quintessential Christlike quality (the reason Christ came to this earth) is forgiveness.

This idea was wonderfully expressed in a book Erin and I read in the months before our wedding called As for Me and My House by Walter Wangerin Jr. If you're looking for a thoughtful book on marriage, one that features an old, wise, eloquent, compassionate, honest, humble, married pastor telling his story rather than "25 easy steps to a successful marriage," this is the book for you. I would recommend it to anyone.

Top 5 Things Which Have Recently Blown My Mind

1. Stray dogs in Russia ride the subway by themselves, getting on and off at the appropriate stops and even riding in the first or last car because they're the least crowded.

2. Three crazy facts about placebos:

1. The placebo effect is getting stronger, and researchers don't know why.
2. Taking a placebo can not only convince you you're being helped by a real drug, it can also convince you you're experiencing that drug's side-effects.
3. As I've long suspected, walk signal buttons, elevator close-door buttons, and office thermostats are effectively placebos.

3. The Bush Administration flagrantly faked news reports praising its prescription drug benefit legislation in 2004. Why oh why didn't I read the news in college?

4. America's best-selling car? The Cozy Coupe.

5. Ostriches don't stick their heads in the sand, bees don't violate laws of science, and lemmings don't commit suicide.

Feminism Isn't Dead

I have to admit I get a little annoyed when I read articles claiming that feminism isn't relevant anymore, that we live in a post-feminist world. For example, here's a blog post on "equal rights for men." Here's another blog post arguing that the salary gap, glass ceiling, and (get this) sexual harassment aren't issues for women any more, the problems now are that men have more fun and more fun sex than women. Finally, here's a woefully sexist syllabus from a course taught by a popular economics professor in which he teaches why "the standard history of gender"—Throughout human history, males arbitrarily forced women into a subordinate role.  At long last, feminist thinkers began 'raising awareness' of the plight of women. Through great struggle women are at last, like men, able to pursue their dreams and ambitions, though of course full equality is still a long way off.—is wrong.

I'm sorry, but I think this is just a bunch of bull. Yes, I will concede that women have made great strides in the West, and continue to do so here and to some degree all over the world. But in our increasingly global society, women's rights and the righteous ambitions of feminism still have much ground to cover. Women do two-thirds of the world's work for 5% of the income. One third of women in the U.S. military have been raped (8% of those charged with sexual assault in the military have been prosecuted, compared to 40% in civil courts). Last year a journalist in Sudan was sentenced to forty lashes for wearing pants and a blouse. A British woman in Dubai reported being raped last month and was thrown in jail for illegal drinking and having sex outside of marriage with her fiancé. In the West, women in positions of power in organizations are set up to fail by their bosses. A fifteen-year-old girl was gang-raped at a high school in California last October while twenty students looked on and did nothing. I could go on.

Here is a hopeful lecture by author and activist Isabel Allende about the plight of women in our society today. Her thoughtful, often humorous words about the importance of women and women's rights in our world are full of passion and truth.

TED: Isabel Allende tells tales of passion

The idea that women have achieved even relatively equal social status with men in our world is simply untrue. Yes, we have come very far, but we have very far to go. When I think about this lecture and the stories I mentioned above, I can't help but feel that post-feminism needs to die.

A Commercial I Wish I'd Seen Before My $6 Haircut

A few years ago I wrote about my experience with Great Clips, king of the $6 haircut. After this year's Super Bowl, during a fantastic episode of Undercover Boss, the following commercial aired with a wonderful message I wish I'd heard before that fateful trim.




Office Depot $6 Haircut Commercial


While we're on the subject of Super Bowl ads, the uplifting ones that follow were my favorites this year. I liked that they took exception to the anti-wife tone which a lot of the other ads seemed to have.

Google - Parisian Love
Dove for Men

Quotes: Television, Property, and Serious Comedians

"Don't you wish there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence? There's one marked 'brightness,' but it doesn't work." Gallagher

"My position as regards the moneyed interests can be put in a few words. In every civilized society property rights must be carefully safeguarded; ordinarily, and in the great majority of cases, human rights and property rights are fundamentally and in the long run identical; but when it clearly appears that there is a real conflict between them, human rights must have the upper hand, for property belongs to man and not man to property." Teddy Roosevelt

"Everything is changing. People are taking comedians seriously and politicians as a joke." Will Rogers

Religious Freedom and Gay Rights

If you have listened to any of the often vituperative conversation surrounding the issue of same-sex marriage, you have no doubt heard someone claim that giving marriage rights to homosexual couples does not infringe on the freedoms of anyone else. While in most cases I believe this is absolutely true, I think there are certain situations in which it's not so clear.

We live in a country which from its inception has heralded freedom for its citizens to exercise their religion and beliefs as long as they do not infringe on the freedom of others, and this includes those who believe that homosexual love is immoral and those who believe it is beautiful. The messiness comes when one group says to the other, "I refuse to serve you because of your sexual orientation," or, "I refuse to employ you because of your religious beliefs."

I've already stated that I think same-sex marriage will be legalized across the U.S. in my lifetime. I also think that situations in which these two groups clash will most likely be decided on a case-by-case basis in the courts, using pragmatic and somewhat arbitrary justifications for the decisions made, as is the justifiable and understandable nature of our court system. I further think that most of these cases will be decided in favor of the same-sex couples if same-sex marriage is completely legalized, based on precedents already set in anti-discrimination law.

However, the truth remains that these situations are messy. If a psychologist refuses to give a same-sex couple marriage counseling, is he/she infringing on the couple's freedom? If the psychologist is fired for refusing, are her freedoms being infringed upon? Ethically, politically, morally, legally, sociologically, philosophically -- it's puzzling to say the least.

Here are ten such examples from a 2008 NPR story about this issue. If you're interested, give them a read, and try to decide what you think. In my opinion, what you believe about these issues is going to matter more and more in the years ahead.

Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.

Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.

Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.

NPR: Gay Rights, Religious Liberties by Barbara Bradley Hagerty, June 16, 2008

Image: baekken

A Century of Economic Debate in One Easy Rap Battle

In a recession, everyone starts thinking about economics, and I'm no exception. You may have heard a lot of folks out there claiming that Obama's $787 billion stimulus package is just another attempt by a liberal Democrat to increase the size of government and spend the U.S. into oblivion. The truth is naturally a little more complicated than that, and it's rooted in the ideas of a turn-of-the-century economist named John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was one of the first and most popular economists to argue that during an economic crisis, the government could flood the market with money to kick-start the economy and reverse a rapidly cumulative economic downturn. Classical economists, such as Friedrich von Hayek and later Milton Friedman, argued that the government trying to influence the market in this way would ultimately lead to inflation, cheap credit, debt, and bad investments. In the long run, classical economists argue, the market will correct itself in an efficient way without large government spending measures. Keynes famous response to the classical perspective was, "In the long run, we're all dead." How many years of unemployment are citizens willing to weather until the market corrects?

Hayek/Friedman's ideas were largely respected and adhered to in the U.S. from the late 70's until our recent crisis emerged two years ago, due in part to influential figures such as Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan. But the recent economic downturn has caused a great deal of skepticism regarding the classical view, and current figures such as Obama and Paul Krugman have trumpeted Keynesian ideas once again. The debate is over a century old, and it's incredibly hard to determine whose perspective is more helpful. Keynesian economists say the New Deal brought us out of the Great Depression and helped us avoid a similar disaster last year. Classical economists counter that revised monetary policy by the Fed, lower taxes and tariffs, and essentially market correction ended the Great Depression and the current stimulus package is only spiraling our debt. I tend to lean towards the classical side, but the arguments on both sides are complex, intelligent, and strong.

But now to the fun stuff. Last week a music video director from Spike TV and a popular economics professor got together and released the following video, which frames this century-long debate in the form of a hilarious rap battle between Keynes and Hayek. As white nerd rap goes, I think it takes its rightful place among such classics as Mac or PC, Lazy Sunday, White and Nerdy, and of course, Robot Cat.

Econstories.tv: "Fear the Boom and Bust"