Military chaplains will NOT do gay weddings after all

We blogged a few days ago about the Navy authorizing chaplains to perform gay marriages in military chapels in states where that is legal.  The resulting outcry has led to a cancellation of that policy, at least for now: Navy revokes guidance on same-sex marriages – The Washington Post.

Presbyterians to ordain gays & swinging singles

The Presbyterian Church (USA) opened the door to ordaining sexually-active gays–as well as other single people who want to be sexually-active outside of marriage–by removing the celibacy requirement for single clergy:

After decades of debate, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on Tuesday struck down a barrier to ordaining gays, ratifying a proposal that removes the celibacy requirement for unmarried clergy, in the latest mainline Protestant move toward accepting gay relationships.

The change was endorsed last year by the Presbyterian national assembly, but required approval by a majority of the denomination’s 173 presbyteries, or regional church bodies. . . .

The measure approved Tuesday eliminates language in the church constitution requiring that clergy live “in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.” The new provision instead requires ministers to “submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life.” Each regional body will decide who it should ordain, and some districts are expected to continue to reject gay and lesbian candidates.

via Presbyterian vote removes barrier for ordaining gays and lesbians after decades of debate – The Washington Post.

Notice that this goes beyond simply allowing gay clergy, though that is what will get all of the attention.  It allows pastors to have extra-marital sex.

The way the church body went about this strikes me as worse than just allowing gays to be ordained.  Statistically, there are going to be more single heterosexuals than homosexuals, and this will permit all kinds of scandalous behavior in the parsonage.  This is worse than accepting gay marriage, since that misguided notion at least locates sex including gay sex within the office of marriage.   This ruling undermines marriage itself.

I’m curious how the Presbyterians construe submitting “joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life” to allow for this.

Trading places with China?

China is undergoing a labor shortage due to its one child policy with its forced abortions, which means that labor costs are climbing.  It may soon reach a point when American companies will do better to keep their manufacturing jobs here.   From Harold Meyerson:

The best news about the American economy isn’t coming from America. It’s coming from China.

The inexhaustible labor pool that has fueled China’s rise as the world’s dominant low-cost manufacturer is beginning to get exhausted. The nation’s decades-old one-child policy has collided with its decades-old industrial development policy to produce something hitherto unimaginable: a labor shortage. China’s labor force will begin to shrink in the next year or two, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.

The result, as the Journal documents, is steeply rising wages — during the past year, up 14 percent in Shanghai; 18 percent in Guandong (China’s industrial belt); and 28 percent in the inland province of Chongqing, a lower-wage region to which manufacturing has only begun to relocate.

The implications for the U.S. economy are potentially major. With labor costs soaring in China and the yuan slowly rising, while in the United States productivity soars and the dollar slowly declines, the economic advantages that American companies reap by offshoring production begin to dwindle. A Boston Consulting Group study released this month on the return of U.S. manufacturing concludes that “re-investment in the U.S. will accelerate” as a result of these trends.

via China’s bad economic news is not necessarily good for the U.S. – The Washington Post.

OK, it’s not quite so simple, as the column goes on to explain.  But still.  Maybe China and other countries will start outsourcing their manufacturing to us.  If China is becoming the new America economically, maybe America will become the new China.  Not that this would be altogether a good thing.

Emergency cell phone messages from the president

Does anyone see anything wrong with this?

A new national alert system is set to begin in New York City that will alert the public to emergencies via cell phones.

It’s called the Personal Localized Alert Network or PLAN. Presidential and local emergency messages as well as Amber Alerts would appear on cell phones equipped with special chips and software.

The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency said the system would also warn about terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

“The lessons that were reinforced on 9/11 is the importance of getting clear and accurate information to the public during a crisis,” New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg said at a news conference on Tuesday.

Verizon and AT&T, the nation’s largest cell phone carriers, are already on board. Consumers would be able to opt out of all but those presidential messages.

via National Emergency Alert System Set To Launch In NYC « CBS New York.

It sounds like a good idea.  So why does it FEEL wrong?

Libertarianism vs. Conservatism

I know some of you are libertarians and some of you are Ron Paul fans.  What do you think of Paul’s proposal at the Republican presidential candidate debate to legalize prostitution and drugs?  What do you think of Michael Gerson’s smackdown of Paul and his proposals?

Paul was the only candidate at the debate to make news, calling for the repeal of laws against prostitution, cocaine and heroin. The freedom to use drugs, he argued, is equivalent to the freedom of people to “practice their religion and say their prayers.” Liberty must be defended “across the board.” “It is amazing that we want freedom to pick our future in a spiritual way,” he said, “but not when it comes to our personal habits.”

This argument is strangely framed: If you tolerate Zoroastrianism, you must be able to buy heroin at the quickie mart. But it is an authentic application of libertarianism, which reduces the whole of political philosophy to a single slogan: Do what you will — pray or inject or turn a trick — as long as no one else gets hurt.

Even by this permissive standard, drug legalization fails. The de facto decriminalization of drugs in some neighborhoods — say, in Washington, D.C. — has encouraged widespread addiction. Children, freed from the care of their addicted parents, have the liberty to play in parks decorated by used needles. Addicts are liberated into lives of prostitution and homelessness. Welcome to Paulsville, where people are free to take soul-destroying substances and debase their bodies to support their “personal habits.”

But Paul had an answer to this criticism. “How many people here would use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody would,” he said to applause and laughter. Paul was claiming that good people — people like the Republicans in the room — would not abuse their freedom, unlike those others who don’t deserve our sympathy.

The problem, of course, is that even people in the room may have sons or daughters who have struggled with addiction. Or maybe even have personal experience with the freedom that comes from alcohol and drug abuse. One imagines they did not laugh or cheer.

Libertarians often cover their views with a powdered wig of 18th- and 19th-century philosophy. They cite Locke, Smith and Mill as advocates of a peaceable kingdom — a utopia of cooperation and spontaneous order. But the reality of libertarianism was on display in South Carolina. Paul concluded his answer by doing a jeering rendition of an addict’s voice: “Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don’t want to use heroin, so I need these laws.” Paul is not content to condemn a portion of his fellow citizens to self-destruction; he must mock them in their decline. Such are the manners found in Paulsville.

This is not “The Wealth of Nations” or the “Second Treatise of Government.” It is Social Darwinism. It is the arrogance of the strong. It is contempt for the vulnerable and suffering.

The conservative alternative to libertarianism is necessarily more complex. It is the teaching of classical political philosophy and the Jewish and Christian traditions that true liberty must be appropriate to human nature. The freedom to enslave oneself with drugs is the freedom of the fish to live on land or the freedom of birds to inhabit the ocean — which is to say, it is not freedom at all. Responsible, self-governing citizens do not grow wild like blackberries. They are cultivated in institutions — families, religious communities and decent, orderly neighborhoods. And government has a limited but important role in reinforcing social norms and expectations — including laws against drugs and against the exploitation of men and women in the sex trade.

via Ron Paul’s land of second-rate values – The Washington Post.

Sin tax for obesity

More creative taxation ideas, combined with the impulse for the government to make us better:

An Illinois lawmaker says parents who have obese children should lose their state tax deduction.

“It’s the parents’ responsibility that have obese kids,” said state Sen. Shane Cultra, R-Onarga. “Take the tax deduction away for parents that have obese kids.”

Cultra has not introduced legislation to deny parents the $2,000 standard tax deduction, but he floated the idea Tuesday, when lawmakers took a shot at solving the state’s obesity epidemic.

With one in five Illinois children classified as obese and 62 percent of the state’s adults considered overweight, health advocates are pushing a platter of diet solutions including trans fat bans and restricting junk food purchases on food stamps.

Today, the Senate Public Health Committee considered taxing sugary beverages at a penny-per-ounce, in effect applying the same theory to soda, juices and energy drinks that governs to liquor sales. Health advocates say a sin tax could discourage consumption, but lawmakers are reluctant to target an industry supports the jobs of more than 40,000 Illinoisans.

“It seems like we just, we go after the low-hanging fruit, where its easy to get,” said state Sen. Dave Syverson, R-Rockford. He said the state needs to form a comprehensive plan to address physical fitness and disease prevention, rather than taking aim at sugary drinks.

via Ill. lawmaker says raising obese kids should cost parents at tax time.

What do you think about extending the principle of the “sin tax”–currently levied at alcohol and tobacco–to “sugary” soft drinks?  (Is obesity, let alone smoking and drinking, an actual sin?)  Or to taxing parents for having overweight children?  Are the parents sinning and in need of punishment?  Should the tax code be used to police the behavior and choices of citizens?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X