France Bans Public Prayer

http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2011/sep/16/french-minister-vows-enforce-law-banning-prayer-ou-ar-1399285/

Yesterday I learned that France has banned public prayer - prayer on the streets. Although I don't know the implication of the laws for Jews and Christians (or any religion who finds it acceptable to pray quietly or standing up), this law appears to mostly apply to the Muslim population who spread out mats and bow down on the sidewalk to pray.

This law comes after a string of laws in the last decade aimed at curbing religion in "secular" France. At first the French government took on a role similar to our ACLU - trying to seek out and destroy all religious images that appeared in any "public" setting (read: no crosses at school). In this step they outlawed headscarves that Muslim women wear, but in April they tightened the ban on headscarves to be any where in public at all (as opposed to a public state-run institution).

Although the growing Muslim population in France appears to be the main target of such laws, as Christians and lovers of freedom, it is our responsibility to take a critical look at what is happening over the sea. Of course, I have two main questions when I see these new laws:
1. When are the laws going to crack down on Christian practices? (Like, when will they force any religious institution out of the country or keep people from going to church)
2. Laws like these targeting a religious group appear eerily similar to laws the Germans used to target the Jews. It has been less than a century since World War II. Does no one else notice the similarities? (By the way - even Germany itself has been issuing disturbing comments about its Muslim population).

Of course, disturbing to me as this law is, I find almost more disturbing the comments I read about it - comments mostly made by Americans. (Note: I read an article yesterday that was not the link I posted. When I posted the link, there were no comments on that particular article.) I'd like to address those comments here because I think that people in the free world need a splash of cold water in the face to see that something like this happening in France is to be pitied not emulated.

First of all, a popular and apparently reasonable comment was that the pray-ers were taking up city space and sidewalk space. This comment doesn't appear to be malicious towards religion but applauding the practicality of the law. However, even this reasonable comment deserves attention. Here in America I have seen many instances where large groups of people take up sidewalk space for various reasons. We allow protesters and people who pray outside of abortion clinics. We have TV's in public where people may gather if there is breaking news. Funeral processions are led through the streets by police, slowing down traffice. And if there was overflow at a church because of a popular speaker, wedding, or funeral, I have no doubt people would be standing in the streets. Now, we have some ordinances, like in the case of people praying at abortion clinics, that people cannot block sidewalks or loiter. And common decency dictates that you try to stay out of the way. But if France had issued an ordinance saying you cannot block a sidewalk when you pray it would be different than banning praying in public. Some pictures I saw showed the pray-ers crowded into an alley with cars, filling the alley up. Now, if those cars were not theirs this does present a problem, but we don't know all the facts. Perhaps they drove the cars to the mosque. Perhaps they jump up and get out of the way when the car owner comes back. If they are not blocking the car's way, I see no problem with their praying in the alley.

Another comment that popped up was that there are similar laws in many Muslim countries that target Christians. While that is the case, it doesn't seem to stand to reason that non-Muslim countries must be equally as brutal. What ever happened to turning the other cheek? We must protect the freedoms of the people we disagree with as well as the people we agree with. How will Muslims come to know Christian love if we prevent them from practicing their religion? This is perhaps the touchiest part of the issue for me. We have heard for years about theocracies in Muslim countries and dictatorships in the middle east. I disagree with their government and the burdens they place on their people. But when we talk about France we are talking about a democracy - an ally of the United States - that at least pretends to advocate freedom. Further, when people in the United States show support for such policies, they are undermining our own Constitution which protects freedom of religion! We cannot force freedoms in other countries, but we can protect them in our own.

The last set of comments were usually the most mean-spirited. You know those commentators who sprinkle their comments with cuss words and crudities? People who write comments like these usually use arguments that imply you are an idiot if you disagree. In the case of this article, the comments tended to be along the lines of, "Religion is stupid for anyone," "Islam should not force people to pray," "The Muslims are trying to force their religion on me," and "I get so disgusted when I see those people praying - I should not have to see that."

As to comments like the first two I listed, who is anyone to judge what another religion teaches? We can disagree as reasonable people without resorting to insults. But it is the second two comments that were more common and more disturbing. We already have a group of people in America who think that someone practicing his religion is the same as that person forcing his religion on someone else. But there is no force. The observer isn't even technically forced to see it. He can see someone praying and walk the other way. But if he chooses to watch, that does not mean he is being forced into the religion itself. Perhaps it is the inner workings of his own heart that make him so adverse to public displays of religion. The self-described atheist may feel as though he's missing the poing of something higher than himself. A religion that has high moral values - such as modest dress, temperance, charity, and self-control - may threaten his way of living for the moment. Still, this is not forcing anything upon him. And, of course, those of us in other religions should watch out - Muslims are in the spotlight now. How long until it is Christians?

Besides, what about religious people who have atheistic ideas "forced" on them? The morals of atheism are much more prevalent and forceful in today's society than any display of prayer or religious artwork. For instance, on movies and TV we see immoral behavior and are told to accept it. People dress in immodest clothing in broad daylight. News organizations and schools teach a science that leaves no room for God. Is this not forcing atheistic ideas on us? I find these trends more disturbing than seeing someone bow down for prayer, even if it is a different religion than I practice.

One more item. I have heard a lot of support in America for banning headscarves, and I disagree with these laws as I do with the law banning prayer. But the reason most Americans support the law is because they feel the headscarves are demeaning to women and "we have moved past that." But who are we to judge a woman's religion? While it is true, I am sure, that some women in this culture do not choose to wear the scarf of their own free will, most do. Most consider it a sign of obedience and modesty. I look at anti-headscarf laws as I would look at a law that said all women must wear short skirts and bikinis in public. I would be upset and threatened if I was told I could not dress modestly - and it would keep me indoors. Laws against headscarves in public could keep many educated Muslim women from pursuing careers and leading otherwise normal lives, simply because they believe strongly in their sense of modesty! Religion and culture are interwined, and it is true that many of these women grew up learning about the codes of dress in their religion. But that does not make them brainwashed any more than any Christian, Jew, or Buddhist is brainwashed by his parents. Once we are adults, we are all free to choose whether to continue in the religion of our parents or move on to something else.

Overall, I think Americans need to take a look at this law and consider how they would like it applied to themselves. As Christians we should stand with the Muslim community on this one, before the tables turn and the government comes after us. As Americans of all religions - including atheists - we should consider our freedoms - free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion - and know that one day each of us will be in the minority. We will all, at one time or another, have an unpopular view. We protect our freedoms not because we all like each other and like to listen to each others thoughts. We protect them because it is the right thing to do.

The Boycott

It's kind of funny how the world works. A few weeks ago, almost by accident, I discovered that a company that is near-vital to my current life situation, one that I do business on a regular basis, one whose competitors don't hold a candle to, donates money to Planned Parenthood (PP).

I had been aware that there is a group of pro-life activists out there who research PP donors and boycott them. (Their website is www.fightpp.org) But the list is locked down and must be purchased, and so I never got involved. I could claim ignorance before. I cannot now. And in learning about this company, I learned about more - one which, though less vital to my current existence, turned my stomach. And so I purchased the list. (Some are turned off by the requirement to purchase the list but I can justify the organization's reasons - not only do they use the money to fund their research and campaign, purchasing shows that you have a greater commitment to the boycott, which I will explain below).

My list arrived in the mail and was easy to read. I quickly ran through it and highlighted companies that I do, did, or would reasonably expect to do, business with. There was also a list of "dishonorable mentions" - not-for-profit groups that also donated money to PP (who would have guessed that when you "donate" these groups just redirect your funds for you). It also included a schedule for me - it had divided people who subscribe to the list into categories, and we are all asked to write letters to different companies on a weekly basis. I see the value in this idea - that way the company is always being reminded. However, I wasn't sure what to do with the list - many of the companies on my schedule were those I did not do business with. Without being slightly dishonest, threatening to boycott a company I would never normally buy from doesn't seem to be much help.

The list also promises to update me on new additions and, more importantly, subtractions. For instance, Mrs. Fields and Kohl's have recently been removed from the list. It is important to know so that we can - and even should - begin buying from these companies again. They are the prodigals! Although I like Kohl's, and although JCPenny's and Sears (as far as I know) were never even on the list, I should favor Kohl's in my shopping now so that they can see the difference the end of the boycott made. On the other hand - we don't want to accidentally send a letter to a company that is no longer supporting PP.

Anyway, I have some observations about how this boycott thing works, I'd like to write about because I find it interesting. I would like to devote some time to the companies themselves and their replies - if any - but only on my Pro Life page. The reason is that I think we have a responsibility to boycott these companies, even if we don't write letters, because of where the money goes, I know that if someone finds out a company name and then ignores the information, then they have a conscience issue - so that is why I will only write the names on the other page.

Writing these companies is a unique and paradoxical activity. First of all, there is the challenge of pointing out how incredibly disappointed I am, while still being polite. But also, I want to be (honestly) complimentary toward the organization. Essentially my message is this - I love your product and always have. I appreciate your desire to give back to the community, but I don't agree with how you are doing it. When you stop, I will buy your products again, and even go out of my way to do so.

As I mentioned above, some of these companies are very hard to boycott. For some, it is a mental, emotional, or financial boycott. I couldn't believe that family organization was on that list! That company's competitor is so expensive and has terrible service! But then you have to think, "Am I willing to pay for abortions? How many babies am I willing to kill to save money?" But other companies are almost impossible to boycott! There is a company on this list that is so ingrained in every day life, that it would almost be like boycotting water! (Another reason I don't give out names - if it's unavoidable, how can you live with the guilt). Some companies are those that I would never buy the product, but I find myself using at work (software - for some reason there are a lot of software companies). Others are media outlets, such that I never actually give them any money - they make all their money from advertisers but depend on ratings. So how do I know if I am contributing to their ratings?

What I have found is that setting ground rules is essential. For instance, I only boycott the actual company, not those that sell the products. For instance, Wal-Mart is a major retailer, and it carries a lot of these products because they are popular with customers and because it offers choice. At this time, I choose not to boycott Wal-Mart because they are not on the list, and that is a good thing. In the same way, if I am boycotting a television network, I am not going to flat-out boycott everyone who advertises on that channel. Or boycott a company who donates to a charity that donates to PP.

Another ground rule is about how to treat the company you work for. Most of us don't have enough power in our company to make decisions like charities to donate to, although we can always try to influence from the inside. One website I went to said not to quit your job if you're company is on the list, unless you are a revenue producer. I slightly disagree. I would attempt a few times to change policy from the inside, while looking for a new job in the mean time. But there are other issues with your work place - like I mentioned before, software. I can't change what software my company uses, nor can I decide which office supplies we buy. I can still write letters, but I have no actual power behind the letters.

I have decided, whenever a charity on the list asks for money, that I will donate money to a charity not on the list - and then I can write the charity and show them my choice.

So far I have been lucky to not have to make life or death decisions based on this. I don't take any regular pharmaceutical drugs, but many pharmaceutical companies are on this list, and many make unique life-sustaining drugs! I honestly don't know how I would handle this ethical dilemma, except I think I would ask my doctor if there was anything even close that another manufacturer made. But these situations make the company's position even more disturbing - it is as if they are holding you hostage to help pay for PP, just as we are forced to pay taxes which go to PP as well.

Some companies are such that their presence on the list doesn't surprise me, and I don't think we CAN make much of a difference - even economically. Maybe they sell "adult products." Maybe their CEO is a known advocate of population control or other liberal type agendas. Some sell pregnancy tests, which can be used by PP but also by pregnancy crisis centers - they are a product for both. We can still boycott the company due to ethical reasons, but it may never make a difference because they see their donations as in-line with their business model. I just learned also that many of these companies are based in Europe - where the abortion mentality has been ingrained much longer than in the U.S.

While I am alarmed at sickened at some of the companies on the list (so-called "family" companies), I am also surprised at some NOT on the list. Not that I'm complaining. The biggest surprise is animal oriented companies and charities (I don't remember seeing the Humane Society). As I said, I'm not complaining, and I think it shows that most companies have better charities to donate to - PetSmart, for instance, would be donating to the Humane Society and not bothering about PP. But I also know some very strong pro-animal and pro-environment people are also for population control, and I can see the connection. It comes down to, "Love animals, hate humans." But that is not what I see on the list, so I like that.

This is a very serious boycott, and I have already found times when it is difficult to follow - but I do. It makes me think about other types of boycotts - some people boycott non-green companies, companies that use sweatshops, or non-American companies. Such morality based boycotts are hard - they consume every aspect of our life, and we have to trust God to take care of us if we have to make difficult or financially insecure decisions. Still, I have do to what I have to do - and I hope that very soon I can report a company coming off the list!

Social Media

"Kids these days just don't know how to communicate." Even as my parents' generation begins to embrace social media outlets, they still bombard me with cliches like this. I most recently heard this when both my cell phone carrier and my dad berated me for emailing tech support rather than calling them.

I saw email as a more convenient way of fixing my problem - explain the problem, wait for a reply, and follow the steps outlined. I could still go about my business without inevitably waiting on hold for hours and then talking to someone with a heavy accent. (To be fair - I later had to call the customer service line and with the exception of the lady judging me for initially emailing, the service was quick and understandable). My dad saw my choice of email as an attempt to avoid personal contact.

There is certainly a generational problem here. My general philosophy is, "If I cannot do it via the internet it's not worth doing." What I mean by that is, if I need to purchase something, ask for help, look for directions, addresses, or phone numbers, or even look at a restaurant menu, I would rather be able to do it online. Obviously that doesn't mean I hole myself up in my house and never leave. But like many in my generation, I have found the internet useful for conveniently placing help requests, searching for the best price, and making purchases without in-your-face salesmen trying to get me to upgrade (the popups do that for me).

Whether this strategy is right or wrong, it is the way of the future.

Further, people in my parents' generation don't like social media. They see it as inferior to real life interactions - including telephone. I suppose they never stop to think that telephone itself is a form of social media that has evovled. It is true we are social people - we have a real need for interaction and that includes physical touch and presence. Having a cell phone, email, and facebook at my disposal allows me to keep in touch with people I would otherwise lose track of. It allowed me to not go crazy from loneliness when travelling on the road. Not only is it "good enough" when you are physically unable to connect with friends and family, it is a great tool to facilitate those meetings when they do happen.

In other words, I don't think our generation has a problem communicating at all. Okay, so, "What r u up 2?" may fly in the face of all grammar nuts out there (like myself, actually). But if kids actually think that these are correct spellings, that is a failing of the education system, not social media. (Further, language DOES evolve - words are created to reflect the language of the day, and in some cases grammer can be revised to reflect popular useage). Instead, people are communicating much as ever. We are just using different methods.

Another objection is the TMI aspect of social media. This is an objection to WHAT we communicate. But we must remember, again, that what we say also evolves. Our general style of speaking to each other has become less formal over the ages. Even before we could post TMI on facebook, we tended towards announcing it to our friends, family, and coworkers in person. This TMI comes in forms such as facebook status updates and blogs. The former I tend to see as a mini-creativity festival. Can you say something quirky and funny to amuse your friends and semi-friend? The latter is a great way to express your opinions, whether people read them or not, or to stay in touch with friends and family long distance ("Today little Millie took her first steps, see the photos!"). Those who tend to be crude or too-open in real life will tend toward the same on the internet, and those with standards will continue to hold them.

In other words, I think that people complaining about the mass usage of social media are comparable to people complaining that we don't know how to write in cursive or ride horses anymore. While I don't think face-to-face conversations will ever go out of style, complaining about the method we use to communicate seems to be akin to complaining about progress in general. Ultimately each generation will choose its outlet, and the generations before and after will wonder at it!

On a similar note, social media etiquette seems to be a point of contention as well. Frankly, it seems I have bad cell phone etiquette. I guess you are not supposed to talk while walking down the street or in any public place. I am sorry, but that's the very reason I have a cell phone - to be able to have a conversation with someone when I normally would not. I'd like to know who has determined what is and is not rude when it comes to cell phones. It seems to me that the cell phone users tend to break "all the rules," which means the rules need changed. In other words, many of the so-called cell phone etiquette rules seem to have been set up by those who don't use cell phones.

Now, I agree some places are just too much - like restaurants. But no cell phones in public at all? I live alone and am alone much of the time. Although I would like that to change, I cannot live in perfect isolation. Many times that I find myself on the cell phone when people would prefer I not be, it is because I am in a place where people have companions. At the grocery store or in the cafeteria, people are enjoying conversations with real-life friends or coworkers. But I have none with me at the time, so what is so wrong about enjoying a conversation with a friend who is not there? In other words, the only difference between those who are "polite" and "impolite" is whether the person they are talking to is there physically or not.

And I am not sure why talking on a phone while walking down the street would offend anyone. It is the same concept as above. I am not one to just enjoy exercise because I can - and so I like to take walks and talk to people. When I cannot have a real person because of distance or scheduling issues, then I call a friend or family member to talk to. A walk down the street by myself without anyone to talk to would bore me to tears and become real work at that point.

In other words, I think that those who use the social media should set the standards. If a group of teenagers are sitting at a table texting while eating dinner and none are offended, then perhaps we should see that as the new norm - for the future generation. Granted, texting while eating dinner with grandma would be considered rude. But those who are actually using the product do not take offense.

And my final point is about instant gratification. It is true, we are too connected. Just like I refuse to take a walk without being "entertained" (because that is really the heart of it), many of us cannot go for extended periods of time without being connected. While I don't know if this is good or bad in itself, it can lead to an instant gratification mindset, which can be dangerous if we allow ourselves to be instantly gratified in other ways. In other words, it is good to force ourselves to take breaks from social media and cell phones - even me - in order to teach ourselves discipline. But to have discipline taught to us by an older generation who never exercised such discipline themselves (their self-gratification was lower tech but existed nonetheless) is a little demeaning.

So the point is - stop judging old men! You can join the social media train or not, but don't pretend that it is somehow inferior to the communication methods of the past. Like any form of communication, it is only as good as its users. And, since apples don't fall far from their trees, if you have a problem with the users, you might want to consider exactly why that is.

Unbelieveable

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/House-GOP-Lists-25-Trillion-usnews-2718863982.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

Here is a link that should make every American angry. Some of us believe in more government spending than others, but a listing like that on this link, and those listed below, is enough to drive anyone mad. We may each have our own pet projects on this list that we like, but as a whole, every single one of these items should be scrapped. It is my hope that a large portion of these ideas are put into place.

"Stimulus" Repeal: Eliminate all remaining "stimulus" funding. $45 billion total savings. - This makes sense. Many governments try to squeeze everything they can out of a budget in order to be given the same or larger budget the next year, which creates waste. Not just the stimulus, but all projects should be accountable to unused funds.

Eliminate federal control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. $30 billion total savings. - Any federal organization that operates as a business, collecting fees and such, should be expected to survive on its own. The Post Office and the Federal Reserve both operate outside of the US Budget. Not to mention the incredible problems both these organizations have caused our country in the last several years.

Repeal the Medicaid FMAP increase in the "State Bailout" (Senate amendments to S. 1586). $16.1 billion total savings. - This is one of those items that people would probably scream over. However, consider this. States have to balance their budgets (just look at what's going on in Wisconsin), but the Federal Government has TRILLIONS of dollars in debt. Would it not be better to allow each state to handle the replacement of these federal funds in the way it sees fit? They can raise taxes or cut expenses, but it would be their ultimate choice. Further, budget conscious states would not have to shoulder the burden for states that require more hefty federal assistance.

More than 100 specific program eliminations and spending reductions listed below: $330 billion savings over ten years (included in above discretionary savings figure).

Here is the full list of cuts:

Additional Program Eliminations/Spending Reforms

Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings. - Public broadcasting utilizes a combination of Federal funds and donations (and corporate funds) to operate. So why do we even need tax dollars to go here? Make it compete on the market - I am sure there are tons of corporations willing to donate in order to have their name mentioned once or twice. Further, is it really so wrong to have advertisements on these stations?

Save America's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.

International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings. - Why are we giving money to Ireland? I just watched a web broadcast about taxes in Ireland, and to hear Ireland tell the story, they are doing great! Why would we just ship money over there if we are the ones with huge debt problems? Why not just use this money to incentivize corporations to repatriate to America? I have a lot of respect for the Irish, and because of that respect, I really don't see Ireland as a country that needs our charity.

Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.

National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings. - Frankly, I think that arts should have to stand on their own. Who says what art is, anyway? There seems to be a mindset that people will not buy the great art and it needs to be subsidized. But by that definition, is not "art" just anything crummy enough that no one wants it? I think that "art" is something that I would be willing to PAY FOR and hang up in my living room. Further, this money sometimes goes toward creations that are just sick - remember Piss Jesus? The picture of a crucifix in urine? No one's tax dollars should have to go to that.

National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings. - Doe anyone even know what this is?

Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.

Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings. - Once again, a corporation should survive on its own. The airlines are constantly struggling to turn a profit, and we don't bail them out.

Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually. - Preposterous! 68 duplicative education programs! We spend so much money on education, and no one thought to check to see if the job was already being done?!

U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.

Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.

Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings. - Congress going green! I say cut it by 75%. (Admit it, they need notepads to doodle on and play hangman while people are debating on the floor).

John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.

Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.

Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.

Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings. - Again, I would say cut this even more. I would make states pay for any travel expenses incurred by their representatives. Senator Moran, I am happy that you were elected, and I love it that you like Kansas so much that you want to come back every weekend. But if you expect me to pay for it - and for people in other states to pay for it - then you are mistaken. By all means, stay the weekend in D.C!

Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.

Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.

Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.

Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.

Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings. - What does that even mean? I am picturing people wheeling sand onto beaches in a constant but futile effort to keep the beach from eroding away.

New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.

Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings.

Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings. - See, this is an item I could get behind in certain circumstances. Start-up costs for rail programs are beyond most mid-size city budgets. But at the same time, how could this be done that is fair to the states? Why should people in Wyoming subsidize a high speed rail in Kansas City? Cities do have bonds for these types of things.

Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings. - I wanted to find out what this was, so I googled it, of course. I was taken to the "Office of Population Affairs." Another national committee of some sort that I have never heard about. Why not defund that while we are at it? So I usedc their search engine to find a "family planning" center "near me." Sure enough - Planned Parenthood. This is just despicable - federal money being used for abortion providers. The House actually did just pass the budget that defunds Planned Parenthood, and we will see if it passes the Senate.

Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.

Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.

Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.

Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.

FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.

Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.

Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually. - This may be an item we cannot do without, given the recent regime change in Egypt. However, assistance to foreign countries should be given carefully and following the Bush protocol. That is, the purpose should be to create allies and prevent terrorists and promote freedom. Also, specific goals should be set as to how to use the money, and there should be accountability with the receiving government.

U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.

General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings. - I think D.C. should be able to raise money the way any other city would. The fact that the Federal Government operates there should not stop this. In fact, it should help - D.C. could levy a property tax on the White House! All the monuments should fall under national park service jurisdiction. Tourism and business travel should provide nice streams of revenue.

Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings. - See above.

Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.

No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.

End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services. - Was not this supposed to end when Obama took office?

Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.

IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.

Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings. - THAT should outrage every honest taxpayer in America!

Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years. - We are seeing this in Wisconsin now. Taxpayers pay union workers, who are required by the union to fork over a portion of their salaries in dues, which are then funneled to political candidates for their campaigns. Many good, honest, union workers disagree with the ideology of the people their dues go to elect, and at least half of the rest of Americans don't like the idea of their taxes becoming free campaign money for the "other side."

Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.

Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.

Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings. - Say what?

Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.

Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.

USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.

Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.

Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings. - Once again, let's think about the free market here. If the FDA can create a certain type of ruling on what an organic item is, then companies can and will find ways to fit the description. Customers who are organic-happy are already willing to pay a premium for organic food, so if the organization that labels the food as organic has to be a real business, so be it. Organic food prices may go up, but that is the choice of the consumer.

Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.

Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.


One final note - the fact that most people don't recognize most of these items is a huge red flag. It means that:

1. They are not working - if they were working, we would have heard of them. Everyone knows what the U.S. Military or Customs is.

2. They are helping a very small, obscure subset of the population or a special interest group.

3. They are complementing or doubling up on other efforts already in place, including established charities, business, and other government programs.

Read the list again, and if you think you can live without even half these programs, I think it's worth considering dropping them all. We can alwas re-fund special programs, but we can do it this time in a reasonable manner! Let's get realistic with the national budget.

One more thing - crying about the fact that these cuts are a drop in the bucket does not mean that this spending is responsible! Yes, we need to address entitlement programs, but we also need to clean up our own budgets. I cannot imagine having this many wasteful, useless items on my personal budget - why do we want our tax dollars being put to such use?

Conscience Clauses

Conscience Protections

Last Friday the Obama Administration, through Health and Human Services, eliminated important conscience protection laws that provided healthcare workers with protection from employment discrimination if they chose not to dispense or prescribe for abortion drugs or contraceptives. This sudden change is a dangerous step towards outright religious discrimination in this country, and comes from an administration that fights religious viewpoints and Americans ability to express them at every turn.

I thought a lot about conscience protection clauses since hearing the news. It's a complicated piece of work, and in short I think the courts should enforce religious freedom as defined in the constitution - that government can't legislate religion.

But just to mention the complexity, think of a few examples where religious freedom is NOT protected.

The movie Sergeant York is based on a real-life man who wishes to sit out of World War I because he has read the Bible and found it to say that "killin'" is wrong. After a review of his case, he is told to fight anyway, and he goes on to be a war hero as he uses his sharp shooting skills to save his platoon. One reason that York's case is rejected, I believe, is that thousands - millions even - of other Christians have read the same Bible and still engaged in killin'.

This is a kink in conscience protection clauses. For instance, if York had been a member of a notably pacifist church like the Quakers, would his case have been accepted? His story shows the importance of courts deciding cases rather than laws legislating. If the answer to my last question was "yes," then draft-dodgers could say they had joined the Quaker church. On the other hand, if it is "no" then it opens up the door for Quakers to be drafted into armed service. A court is able to look at individual circumstances and try and judge the heart of the person who is conscientiously objecting.

In the terms of a Health Care worker, would a Protestant refusing to dispense birth control be afforded the same protections as a Catholic? I am not aware of any Protestant churches that have an official stance against birth control. The new law protects mainstream Protestants, most of whom object to abortion but not to birth control. Frankly, the legislation is a major blow to Catholics and Mormons who wish to work in the health care field, as they are the only organized religions I am aware of who have moral objections to birth control.

Another question is the extremity to which the religious views interfere with the job. A muslim who has to pray five times a day may not be able to carry out a job that requires continual alertness, such as being a policeman (remember the scene in Robin Hood where Robin Hood was being attacked while his friend prayed?) or an air traffic controller (although breaks could be scheduled with due replacements during these times) or even a surgeon (I have heard of surgeries taking hours upon hours). But when reasonable, these requests should be accomodated.

When I worked in public accounting, religion was interesting. At training we had Mormons - who cannot work Sunday and Hasidic Jews. The Jews could not work Saturdays, and could not engage in the training that was scheduled for that day. They were accomodated. Both groups - the Mormons and Jews - could not work one day a week in an industry that required 6 - 7 day weeks. I always wondered about it. They were not officially discriminated against, but in a way, they could have been. My teams always chose to work Saturday and take Sunday off. If there was only one Jew on the team, what would have happened? The Jew could have been isolated by his choice to work Sunday instead. Further, during intensely busy times, the firm would have to honor the religious person's need to have a day off, but resentment would be created among the team. Work would not get done. Deadlines may even not get met. There is no way the company could fire these people for their religious beliefs, but I also do not doubt that these traditions put a strain on both the religious people involved as well as their managers.

More hypotheticals: Let's say I was asked to audit a company that performs embryonic stem cell research. Our office actually had a client like this. I would conscientiously sit out. I don't think my firm could punish me for that. On the other hand, if I were to have interviewed with a smaller accounting firm who told me, "We do work with primarily two clients - Planned Parenthood and an embryonic stem cell research lab. The rest of our clients are small. Most people end up on one of the large clients." If I took the job and then insisted on having only the smaller clients, it would be difficult to believe I actually had a religious problem with the clients, and my client preferences would get in the way of my job.

I mention this because the protections for health care providers can be seen in a similar way. If a person works for an OBGYN and refuses to dispense birth control (provided that the OBGYN is not a private, pro-life doctor's office), this objection would get in the way of the health care worker performing his job - so much birth control is dispensed in these settings. On the other hand, it is unreasonable of the government to make everyone dispense birth control, even if the person involved works in a family practice setting or hospital, where he can reasonably carry out the rest of his duties without performing this one act.

And that becomes the heart of the matter. What the administration has done is effectively limited the Health Care field to a certain set of religious beliefs, excluding Catholics and Mormons. I already know of Catholics who aspired to be doctors, nurses, or pharmacists but were pushed back because of the connections of the health industry to abortion. Some objected to taking vaccines required to work in hospitals because the vaccines were created using research on aborted babies. Others knew that working in pharmacies would require them to dispense birth control and other abortifaceants, which went against their moral beliefs. And if these aspiring doctors make it to their rotations, even if their eventual field of study is not OBGYN, they still may be asked to work in a Women's Health Clinic or public hospital where their morals will be challenged.

And in my opinion, it goes directly against the Constitution for the Federal Government to deny an entire career field to a group of people because of their religious belief.

Another hypothetical example: A fundamentalist Christian becomes a science teacher. She does not believe in evolution and refuses to teach it. However, she is able to teach most other sciences and a large portion of biology without broaching the subject. Some may say she should not have chosen to go into science. Others may say she should not have chosen to teach. I think that she should be able to do both if they are her passions. Schools can reasonably work around this. She can just not teach it and fill in holes where relevant. She can be assigned Chemistry and Phsyics classes. She can have another teacher substitute (although everyone knows the kids will still be taught evolution). But if it goes against her beliefs to teach it, she should not have to.

In the same way, I think doctors, nurses, and pharmacists should be able to not prescribe or dispense birth control if it goes against their beliefs. They should not be fired if they refuse to prescribe it. They should not be passed over for a job if they refused to dispense it.

What a dangerous precedent to set - the Federal Government mandating which religious beliefs are valid enough to protect and which are not considered legitimate. It is my hope that Congress can overturn the ruling with stricter legislation, or perhaps that the courts will, as I know that many health workers will begin to litigate if they are fired as a result of this act. However, I fear more for the next generation - the health care workers that will not enter the field - that are already not entering the field - because of this blatant religious discrimination by the U.S. Government.

Land of the free, home of the brave. The administration should be ashamed of itself!

I'm Halfway There

I'm halfway there, and if that counts as compromise, then I am going to call it that.

With the national deficit skyrocketing, the debt going only up, not down, and statistics saying that soon 40% of all federal spending will just be to pay interest on the debt, I am ready for a change. And I think most Americans are. But most aren't ready for what that looks like.

The ever-present debate has two sides - do you lower spending or raise taxes (or both) and which bad option appears good in a recession? I have always, ALWAYS, been anti-spending, whether in a recession or not, whether we had a "balanced budget" or not. But what about raising taxes?

Let's look at the other side. Barack Obama wants to raise taxes. He does - anyone who listens to him talk can tell. First of all, he campaigned on not raising taxes on people making less than $250,000. However, when he had to sign the extension of the Bush tax rates in 2010, suddenly his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class changed into a (now-broken) promise to RAISE taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year.

Now, if he were wanting to raise taxes to help cut the deficit, I would maybe be a little more understanding. But instead we see a habit in this president of outrageous out of control spending. In addition, he has already come out as critical of Republicans in Congress who wish to cut a lot of domestic spending programs (option 1 above). What he says is that these cuts are a drop in the bucket. But so are taxes raised on the upper-class. So if deficit reduction is his goal with the proposed tax increases, he should be willing to work with the spending cuts the Republicans propose - perhaps they can both get their way if they work together.

But I said I'm halfway there. The reason is, while I support deep spending cuts and generally am opposed to any tax increase, I might be willing to see a combination used to help bring down the deficit, if done right.

First of all, straight tax increases - increasing the rate of tax charged on a given bracket for instance - chill my bones. The rates don't ever seem to go down, and the numbers just depress you. The more you make, the more you pay, and innovation and hard work are repressed. On the other hand, the tax code is incredibly large because of all the deductions (also known as "loopholes") that are offered.

As an accountant, and having been through Tax Indoctrination Class (also known as Income Tax I) in college, I am less opposed to the complexity of the tax code as I would normally be. Much of what is in the tax code is meant to drive social and economic behavior. As someone who doesn't think government should interfere much in life, I can't say I support the tax code being this way. However, it is "closer" to a free-market system than just implementing demands. For instance, isn't it much better to have the government pay you $1,500 if you install an energy efficient appliance than for them to come knocking on your door and say, "We're here to install your new energy appliance. We'll be done in about four hours."

If we were to raise taxes (while reducing spending) one way would be to simply flat line the tax code. I support a "fair" and a "flat" tax, but what I am saying is simply keep the bracket system we have and erase deductions. Some deductions like mortgage interest payments may be hard to get rid of, but the great thing about getting rid of it is that someone else will have to get rid of something they don't want. When everybody hates the idea, it may be close to being a good compromise. (The only deduction I would not get rid of would be charitable contributions - that is because charity and government overlap in so many areas, if you get rid of this deduction, government may need to step in to take over lost charity revenue, which would be counter productive).

Also I think that everyone should have a share in the tax system. That means, heinous as it sounds, I would raise taxes on the lowest income people. Not much. I think if people paid a minimum of 1% income taxes - no matter how little they made - then they would have a more vested interest in where the government spends its money. Cutting social programs would be easier if everyone involved was saying, "My money goes to WHAT?" As it is, almost half of Americans do not pay any income tax.

Late in 2010 Obama had a team come up with ideas to cut the deficit. In my opinion, their ideas were good, and I would be willing to accept some of the proposed tax increases (they suggested getting rid of some tax deductions as well) if they implemented the proposed spending cuts. But realistically, their ideas were too little, too late. The president is right in one regard - spending cuts make up such a small portion of the deficit. Any real reform has to come from social security and medicare.

I think our generation is ready for that. I have been ready since I was eight. George W. Bush tried to get us ready. But I really do think that when we are paying to support retirees who got us in to this mess and never saved a dime for retirement, and our taxes start to go up to make up for the smaller generation, then we will really start to panick.

The deficit commission had ideas that I think should be implemented, and even more dramatically. Namely, raising the retirement age. Social Security was implemented back when most people died soon after retirement. Now people are healthy and able to work when they are in their late sixties. I think the retirement age should be raised one year every five years. That allows people to actually reach retirement but helps stave off our national debt problem. I think people in my generation understand that they would rather retire as old as 72 than to pay 14% of all their income and never get that money back.

The point is, I'm to the point that I'm willing to compromise and accept a little bit of both: spending cuts and tax increases to help the deficit go down. And if I'm halfway there, that means a lot more people are there because I'm not exactly what you would call a moderate. Also, if I can come up with ways to decrease the deficit, certainly people in Washington can do it.

On Reading Decision Points - Medicare Part D

I was working in a pharmacy when Medicare Part D took effect - it was interesting trying to get seniors to sign up and to understand what was going on. My generation's frustration with seniors who refuse to learn how to use the internet came to the surface as I imagined all the grannies and grandpas tying up phone lines while they were explained things that could easily be learned in a quick internet search (my general philosophy is that if I can't find it on the internet, it's not worth doing).

I remember being frustrated with seniors who entered the "donut hole" and then complained about it. They were getting their drugs covered, which was new to them, so they should take what they can get! I get very short-tempered when Medicare and Social Security issues hit the news because I know my generation is paying for it all but will probably never see any benefits of it.

So, yeah, a $400 billion expansion of a hated entitlement made my blood boil, especially as it was implemented under my favorite president. But after reading his side of the story in Decision Points, I have to give him a little more credit.

One purpose of the program was actually to save money. As he said in his book, at the time Medicare would not cover preventative drugs but would cover expensive surgeries after a problem had occurred. In other words, why not cover the blood pressure medicine to avoid paying for the heart attack. The logic is sound, and if it had saved Medicare money, I would have been all for that.

In addition, many problems I had with the program were the result of Democrat interference and "bipartisan" compromise. I understand that sometimes compromises are needed to get things done in Washington, and that they are a way to keep the minority party represented. However, in my experience compromise means "expensive" as interest add on and on to a bill. I would have preferred that the president pull out of the bill if it ended up costing ANY money instead of saving money in the long run on preventative care.

Still, I am glad that, having read his thought process, I now understand where he was coming from. One of the biggest disappointments coming from this president turned out to have been a reasonable idea after all.

On Reading Decision Points - No Child Left Behind

I'm not going to lie, I was never opposed to No Child Left Behind, no matter how many teachers of friends of teachers I heard complain about it. Even when taking some of the qualifying tests myself, I didn't resent the legislation. One reason that I accepted the great "unfunded mandate" was because the "unfunded" part spoke to me more than the "mandate" part. The other reason was that I was recently out of the public school system when it became news and knew first hand its limitations.

Of course, one major limitation in the form of the teachers' unions has become clear to a majority of people in this economy. Teachers constantly demand more funding with less results, when, as a student, it was clear that some teachers just weren't effective but retained their jobs due to strict union rules.

In his book, president Bush reminds his readers of something I never forgot and never understood when No Child Left Behind was criticized. The program was implemented in Texas before it was signed nationally, and it was a huge success. Now, if congress changed some of the ins and outs, that is one thing. Also, any time a larger government like the federal government intervenes in a smaller government, like a city or state, there are bound to be beaurocratic nightmares. That's why I don't generally like government involvement.

Another issue that people brought up with the program, Bush also addresses. It was the idea that teachers spent all their time "teaching to the test." The test was a comprehension exam of the basic skills our children should know before going on to the next grade. So if you teach these skills, then what is the problem?

Frankly, I think that the people who set the standards add a lot of fluff. I know I experienced a lot of nothingness when I went through school. We learned all about endangered pandas and the environment, and yet when we read aloud in groups it was excruciating listening to other kids stumble through basic books.

If students, and therefore teachers, are tested on basic reading and math skills, then that is what students will learn. I don't see a problem with that.

I read about president Obama's new education initiatives and, based on the limited knowledge I have of it, I don't have a problem with it. But I was very disappointed to hear that No Child Left Behind is about to be left behind. In my opinion, it was a well-thought out program that seemed to be working, as long as other kinks in the system were worked through.

On a similar note, in the current education debate I learned something I had not before thought of. The way the education system is set up - in the suburbs - allows high achievers to, well, achieve. But average students do not fly as much. I'm not sure what the solution to the disparity is. I know that in European countries, where education is much better overall, kids are given aptitude tests going into 8th grade or so. That determines where they go to secondary school, which means their curriculum is tailored to their means.

In America we do not do such testing because we don't want to hurt any child's feelings by sending him to a school that doesn't prepare him for college. But at the same time, so many students either drop out or don't to go college when, instead, they could go to a trade school and make a decent living without the debt of college.

A real drawback to this system is that the state determines a child's potential. But at the same time, right now all children are falling behind.

In my suburbian school, I had several GREAT teachers and, although I was not often challenged by my classes, I thoroughly enjoyed the learning process. It pains me to hear of the sad state that the majority of American schools are in, but I know that there are shining star teachers out there who can teach to the level our kids deserve. And I don't think we need to throw tons of money into the system to get these results. I think No Child Left Behind was a great step in the right direction, and I just hope we're not stepping backwards now.

March for Life in Photos - 2011 Estimated 300,000 In Attendance

Here are the girls from my room, from left to right Sasha, Carrie, Becky, and Sarah.

Beautiful and creative sign one of the young men in our group penned.

The last line on this sign says "Yet we kill unborn children?"

"Hey, Obama! Your mama chose life!" We had this chant going for a section of the march, at least a hundred of us nearby were shouting it. President Obama has one of the worst records in defending human life of any president since Roe v. Wade. He was the only senator who did not sign on to the bill to end the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion. He stands by decisions of doctors to allow babies to go without medical care if they are born as a result of a failed abortion. And on Saturday, as hudnreds of thousands were traveling to Washington D.C. he was talking to a group of pro-abortion women promising to allow abortion to continue under his watch.

Ironically, Obama fits the stereotype of a person in danger of abortion, had he been conceived after Roe v. Wade had made abortion legal. His mother was in college and unmarried when she became pregnant with him - pregnant by an african during a time of extreme racial tensions. Yes, his mama chose life, so who knows if a future president or Nobel Peace Prize winner is being aborted.

The House has introduced the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," given the numerical designation H.R. 3. Please contact your legislators - both in the House and Senate - to tell them you support this act! Not only will it creater stricter laws about taxpayer monies going to pay for abortions, such as was debated in the recent Health Care legislation, it will defund Planned Parenthood, which receiveds over $300 million in Federal Funding a year. The current monies are supposed to go towards non-abortion services that Planned Parenthood provides, but everyone knows they just get pooled. Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America, and any extra funds they get just help them to continue to provide more and more abortions.

What a beautiful sign! What joy these five women feel - four who feel the peace of having made the right decision for the care of their child, and one who now has four children who may never have been able to have any.

New Germany - the unborn are second-class citizens being methodically slaughtered in the womb. In addition, those who stand up for them are being silenced, such as the silence of news organizations who turn their heads to our march.

What a beautiful way to say she regrets her abortion! I am so glad this woman chose to heal, and that she now is trying to prevent women from making the same mistake!

The March for Life 2011

Every year around January 22, tens and hundreds of thousands take to the streets of Washington D.C. to protest the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. The rally / protest, known as March for Life is largely ignored by the media - both traditional outlets and more conservative outlets. In fact, if you didn't go yourself or know to Google it, you just might never know it happened.

I know that on Monday, January 24th 2011 there were no less then 27,000 people on the Washington Mall. I know that because before the March, they packed into two stadiums that hold that many people for a youth rally. I also know that the 27,000 is a minimum because I didn't go to the youth rallies at all. But I went to the March. And so did as many as 300,000 other people.

When did we start ignoring 300,000 of anything? There are 30,000 people protesting in Egypt, and it makes the news in America. This was ten times that (albeit a peaceful protest).

After the march I was invigorated to give more attention to my pro-life blog, and to helping the fight for life in any way I can. But today I write to show that the March took place. That it happened. And that there are hundreds of thousands of people who believe in this so much that they make a quick trip in the dead of winter not to sight-see but to pray and march and use our freedom of speech and assembly to protest a decision that they believe to be wrong.

Although the only historical site I saw on my trip was Ford's Theater, I felt awed to be in the nation's capital. I was in the heart of Democracy. America, in my humble opinion, still remains the freest country in the world, and Washington D.C., with all its flaws and corruptions, still remains the heart of the country.

But as I walked to the Supreme Court, I realized there were flaws. I don't think the country needs any kind of revamping - because I think any form of government is going to have flaws, and lots of them. But there I realized that the nine justices on the Supreme Court have a concentration of power that can be almost dictatorial. Roe v. Wade is not the only case that has shown the power of the Supreme Court, but it shows it very well.

The only way for the people, the supposed rulers in our democratic republic, to change Roe v. Wade is to either collect together a supermajority of votes to change the constitution, or to find a way to perfectly time the appointment of pro-life judges to the Supreme Court with a case of import that may cause the court to change course. Both are unlikely. As to the first option, it seems a little odd that nine justices, many who no longer serve, were able to rule over millions and millions of Americans - over half by most estimates - who believe abortion to not only be morally wrong, but to be murder.

As I approached the Supreme Court, I saw all the guards standing outside like statues, dressed in black uniforms. I applaud the guards - they are doing their job, and making sure a fight does not break out, either because of our rally or because of the counter-protestors on the Supreme Court steps. I am sure as they stood there, they had to think about their position in this battle of hearts and minds - I hope that our side put on an honorable showing. I think that both sides did, and although I find the pro-choice argument sickening, I appreciate that we were able to engage in healthy debate.

But seeing all those guards brought to mine other, less free, countries, where armed guards walk the street day in and day out. And I realized that, great as our country is, there is a kind of sick imbalance of power which allows the Supreme Court, symbolized by these guards, to authorize the killing of millions of unborn babies a year. But we were doing it differently - we were there to bring about change peacefully.

The temperature was in the twenties. It was cold. I hope that people who saw us or knew of us took that into consideration. I hope that they understand that this topic means so much to us, that we are willing to give up two precious vacation days, hundreds of dollars, and a lot of luxuries to go on the march. To try to get the attention of the country. And in doing so, we are not "out to get women" or trying to be oppressive "anti-choice" people. We are crying out for justice for the unborn children in America, and asking for recognition of the pain that abortion has caused millions of women and men as well.

Ultimately that is why we were there - to change hearts and minds. The hearts and minds of legislators, the court, Americans, and women in crisis situations. And if even one heart was changed, then I will be happy with what we did.

On Reading Decision Points - Embryonic Adoption

One of the first things President Bush did, much like one of the first things President Obama did, was to tackle the question of federally funding embryonic stem cell research. His book outlines his thought process and all the input he tried to receive along the way. In the end, his decision was to award grants to scientists researching embryonic stem cell lines that were already in place but to use the rest of the grants on non-embryonic stem cell research - research which paid off with better and more ethical results than embryonic stem cell research.

I disagree with his final decision, although I appreciate that he tried to create a decision that would be bipartisan but respect his morals - including the sacredness of human life. I have two problems:
1. I don't think that it is the government's job to fund ANY kind of stem cell research or other scientific project. I think that the funding of science should be private, especially as scientific breakthroughs tend to have just as much potential return as any other investment.
2. One danger of researching new cures using embryonic stem cells is the potential for success. I am surprised that, at least in his book, the president did not seek input on what would happen if a scientific breakthrough was made using embryonic stem cells. It is so much easier to accept disease when there is no cure, but what about when the cure is unethical? Why bother researching using embryonic stem cells if, using the president's morality as well as my own, once a breakthrough is reached, no more embryos are allowed to be killed in order to advance the cure? It really seems both illogical and unethical to research along lines that may not yield results. Under this line of reasoning alone, I would create an all-out ban on embryonic stem cell research, federally funded or not.

But what stuck out in the President's autobiography about his stem cell research was his discovery of an agency that placed embryos left over after In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) procedures with a new family. These embryos would otherwise be frozen forever or used for stem cell research. Children adopted such are called "snowflakes." Although I applaud these efforts ethically, I find myself confused at these proceedings.

First of all, we must understand that IVF is not considered a life-affirming method of becoming pregnant. However, for some the draw to have what they want, when they want it, becomes too much. There is a biological desire in us all to see our genes passed on, and when we find we cannot do it naturally, we seek alternative methods. Another reason for wanting IVF I will discuss later.

However, IVF is an expensive and dangerous process - dangerous for the babies. Let's say a doctor fertilizes 12 embryos. He may then implant six in a woman's uterus, leaving six left over to be frozen, adopted, or used in scientific research. (Left-over embryos may be kept if the parents want a second or third child). The chances of these embryos growing into fetuses and completing a healthy pregnancy are low. Many women experience pregnancies outside of IVF in which an egg is fertilized but does not implant. These short-lived pregnancies are fairly common and may be as high as 50%. It stands to reason that IVF pregnancies may suffer a similar rate of failure to implant.

Let's say that three embryos implant. Many times, these three embryos grow into healthy babies - and that is one reason for the sudden upswing in multiple births I have noticed recently. However, if too many implant - perhaps all six - a doctor may recommend terminating a few of the babies. The recommendation is made both for the health of the mother, the safety of the other babies, and the sanity of the parents who may be facing raising six children.

This is why IVF is such a controversial procedure. It attacks natural life at every turn. If you believe, as I do, that life begins at conception, then you can see how betwen 50% and 75% of the embryos conceived are discarded at the parent's whim.

Ethically, I don't know the response for adopting someone else's embryos. I believe that, expensive as each procedure is, if one or two embryos were implanted in the adoptive mother, this would not create the need for abortion, nor would endanger the embryos. Therefore, I can see it being ethical. On the other hand, one could say that saving the frozen embryos until science may be able to birth them without further endangering their health (more than a natural pregnancy would) may be the most ethical decision. Given a choice between destruction for scientific research and loving adoption, the second choice is glaringly more ethical.

But ethics aside, I find the very idea of adopting someone's embryos...odd. First of all, if a parent is looking into adoption, why not adopt one of the millions of born babies or fetuses around the world? By this I mean a child that is either in more immediate danger of abortion or who is living in abject poverty.

Of course I already know some objections. Adoption is a long, expensive, and potentially painful process (if birth parents choose their mind). While IVF is also expensive, it may be considered by couples to be a "more sure" thing. Further, if they are pro-life and believe life begins at conception, then the value of a child will not be based on how far he or she is along in fetal development. (By the way, one of the miracles of life is that a baby's gender, along with all his genetic coding, is determined on the day of conception - knowing that our unborn babies have genders, even if we cannot determine them yet, should be just one more reason to support the belief that life begins at conception).

But another reason I find this odd is that couples who participate in IVF are the exact opposite of your typical adopting mother. Most mothers who place their child with adoptive parents are unwed, young, or financially incapable of raising a child. Parents who participate in IVF are generally married (or couples, in the case of homosexuals) and have the financial means to raise a child, as evidenced at the very least by their ability to pay for the procedure.

Many pregnant women shun the idea of placing their child for adoption because of the lack of control. They don't put it that way, but it comes down to that. Parents have a natural love for their children, and it is hard to give one away, even if you know it is best for the child. However, giving away an embryo created during IVF is completely opposite this philosophy. It represents having the means and ability to care for a child, but not the desire. It is almost a, "Whatever," attitude towards the adoptive parents, "Sure, you can have my child. I'm not going to use it."

I did think of one major reason why a genetic parent might choose to place his or her embryo for adoption. When a homosexual couple or couple who cannot conceive because of a problem with one person's gamete, the embryo created uses a sperm or egg donor and only the original sperm or egg from one parent. As such, all embryos created are only "half" the couple's. It seems easier to give away a child created by this method if only one parent was actually involved in the creation of him or her.

Don't get me wrong, I don't fault the adoptive parents for their route here, but it seems a little sick of the genetic parents. And I think the genetic parents were very good to make the choice to adopt - rather than try to justify the killing of the embryo "in the name of science." It is a better choice to save the child's life.

Of course, down the road, if the parents want another child, will they have to engaged in a new round of IVF, having given away their remaining embryos?

I think this is a practice that is just interesting to think about - it calls to mind so many questions, some of which I have not written out. IVF in general can verge on the creepy, with the large potential for destruction of life and the "test tube baby" feel. Adding the additional prospect of adopting an embryo makes the process even more interesting to the amateur bioethicist.

Follow Up to Affirmative Action Post

Yesterday I posted about President George W. Bush's search to find a Supreme Court Justice. As I thought more on the process, I thought about the odd situation that presidents are put in when it comes to selecting justices - essentially there is one thing everybody wants to know about the potential new justice - pro life or pro choice?

This is given the euphamism in the press of "litmus test." While the phrase could refer to any belief, the most incindiary topic of this century, when it comes to Supreme Court justices, has been abortion and Roe v. Wade.

If ever there were a case of media bias, you would be able to note it in the way that the press ask presidential candidates their philosophy on supreme court justices. A pro-life presidential candidate may be forced to say he will not use a litmus test, while we all know that he can still end up with a pro-life choice (on purpose)! Essentially he sidesteps the question because he know he will be villified if he answers honestly.

On the other hand, a pro-choice presidential candidate has only to say, "We have a precedent in this country in the case of Roe v. Wade, and I expect any justice I nominate will respect that precedent." You see, by using big words like "precendent" and "respect" he essentially answers, "Yes, I do have a pro-choice litmust test," without saying so outright. And his answer is brilliant.

In the mean time, the pro-life president searches for supreme court candidates, secretly throwing out pro-choice applicants. In fact, he may throw a few pro-choice candidates onto his list of "potentials" in order to appease the pro-choice media, knowing full well he intends to discard them.

Given this climate, and my thoughts on George Bush's search for a female supreme court justice, I thought how I might address the "litmus test" question while still being true to myself.

"Miss Presidential Candidate - if I may - if elected, do you plan to use a litmus test when selecting Supreme Court justices in order to load the court with pro-life judges who will attempt to reverse the legal precedent of Roe v. Wade?"

"Litmus test seems like an oversimplification of the problem of finding a judge to sit on the highest court in the country. So many factors go into determining whether a candidate is capable for the position, and if he or she is the best choice. Certainly I would want the person best qualified for the job.

However, that said, I also have certain beliefs that I cannot deny or pretend are unimportant, including the value of human life. If elected President, I would swear to protect the lives of all Americans, to my ability, including the unborn.

One of the advantages of being President is access to an almost unlimited number of qualified candidates for any position, and the responsibility of the President is to choose just one. I believe it is possible to find highly qualified candidates for the position of Supreme Court justice that are also defenders of life. I believe that choosing to make this an important qualification in no way jeopardizes my ability to choose an exceptional justice.

As such, I would be dishonest to my beliefs if I said that I am not going to consider it an important criteria in looking for a justice, but do not be afraid - I will still select Supreme Court justices that are every bit up to the standards of the current court, and whose intelligence and demeanor will make their cases for them, when the time comes."

I suppose that one might say it is more important to get elected than to get into a controversy. It is more important to skirt the issue and give the standard question, so that you may have the chance to be elected and make the final decision. But on the other hand, isn't it also important to rally the base? Isn't it important to tell the people that you stand for something, and that something is life itself? Isn't it important to let the pro-life voters know you will not let them down, and at the same time warn the pro-choice voters not to expect you to rally to their cause?

It doesn't really matter, as in the end we will elect whom we will elect. But it seems to me there should be a way to win either way.

On Reading Decision Points - Affirmative Action

I am going to summarize a story that George W. Bush told in his autobiography, "Decision Points." When Sandra Day O'Connor decided to retire from the Supreme Court, the president asked for a list of potential replacements from all types of backgrounds. He narrowed this list down to five - of which one was a woman. From there he narrowed the list to three - and the woman did not make the top three. He finally picked a judge, John Roberts, but was forced to use this pick to replace Chief Justice Rehquist who had died suddenly.

For some reason - perhaps because he was a Republican and knew he would be under more scrutiny, perhaps because it was what he truly believed - he felt that he should replace O'Connor with a female so that the court would not be completely male. Instead of turning to the woman who had made the top five list, he continued searching for another woman to fill the spot. The choice he made was completely villified. The poor woman had to withdraw her nomination because of unjustified bad press.

In the end, the president picked the second choice on his original list of three - a man.

This story, in my opinion, is a wonderful example of the dangers of allowing affirmative action to crowd out rational judgment in our lives. Imagine that the president was just simply any old employer and review his steps.

1. He had an opening. He asked his staff to pull up strong resumes from people of various backgrounds - including differing races, genders, job histories, religions, and so on. Using criteria he had set up in place for the job, they narrowed the list.

2. They narrowed and narrowed. There were probably many women on the original list, but with each narrowing some dropped off (as did some men). By the time the final five were cut down to three, two, or one (depending on how you look at it), there was just one woman to cut. There were four men to cut. How's that for fairness for you? Still, the point is that the president performed his due diligence and came up with two candidates that stood out - both men.

3. When the president chose to have a woman for his second justice, he once again began the search. This made no sense to me - he had a ranking of candidates from his previous search, why not just pick the second on the list? Or why not pick the woman who had made the top five? The answer to the second question is easy - because she was not the best choice. As it stood, the best choice was a man. The president went in search of another candidate who could be both a best choice and a woman. The problem was, he had already pulled the most qualified candidates in the country in his original search. Was it possible he had missed someone?

4. He thought so, but the rest of the country did not. In narrowing his search to women, he also allowed himself to look narrowly AT women. Based on his version of events, it seemed he was so desperate to find a qualified woman, that he threw caution to the wind in his choice.

Now, I am not saying that there are no qualified women out there to sit on the Supreme Court. It may very well be the case that there are qualified women who did not share in the president's philosophical outlook (I can name two because they both became justices during his successor's presidency). Perhaps we can criticize that both the president's and his advisors' circles did not include enough females to produce as candidates. The reasons can never be known - and I do NOT think that the top three choices were men because of some sort of bias.

In fact, my point is that bias in the other direction, looking specifically for a woman, ended up hurting the president. And, had his choice been confirmed, she may have hurt the Supreme Court - if the criticism of her was fair.

I'd like to point out this little story as a lesson against the use of affirmative action in any respects - because if it can backfire against the most powerful man at the world, someone who has access to a pool of the best and brightest candidates, it can backfire any and everywhere else.

On Reading Decision Points

I never really intended to write so many book reviews in this blog. But, reading is something I do - whether it's the news websites or books or my new Kindle(!), it's one of my favorite ways to ingest information (as opposed to the TV). And so, I find myself in the middle of at least three books that I feel a need to share thoughts on.

I have always respected George W. Bush, and have said so. One reason is that he went after two of my deepest fears as a child: Sadaam Hussein and Social Security. True, he was unsuccessful with the second item, but I know the circumstances were beyond his control - even the most powerful man in the world is not all-powerful.

Of course, Bush's outspokenness abou his faith has always impressed me. Before I speak of specific in his book, Decision Points, I would like to pull out an example. As a new Catholic, I was stunned to read some of the president's memoirs regarding pope John Paul II. For instance, although not a Catholic himself - nor bound by Catholic teachings - he asked the pope and the Catholic church in general to continue its strong leadership in lessons of morality for the United States and the world. Also, he said that at the funeral of the late pope, his wife told him, "Now is the time to pray for miracles."

I wrote in my own story of coming to the Catholic faith how the pope, and probably John Paul II played a role. I felt that the belief of the holiness of this man by people who were not even Catholic justified to some extent the Catholic beliefs about him. How could he be holy and also a liar? The president's memory of the burial impacted me because it helped to confirm what I already knew. As Christians we are all on the same side - most Christian denominations agree with Catholic Christians on teachings of morality, and we can see someone devoted to God and agree on that. Catholicism and fundamentalism are intertwined in close ways, and without knowing it, the former president helped point it out.

But to continue - after Bush won his second term, I tuned him out. This wasn't an insult on my part - it was actually a complement. I felt he could run the country, and I didn't need to worry about checking the daily news or talk radio to see what was going on. I knew about the protestors, and I wished he would have defended himself against some accusations. In his book, he explains he thought it was beneath him. But I also had fun watching his and Donald Rumsfield's press conferences, where they sidestepped trapping questions of the media like pros, Bush always with that little smile on his face.

(By the by, I have always seen something of Harrison Ford in George Bush - perhaps that laid back accent and half-smile. If there were ever going to be a big time movie made about him, I would love to have Ford play him. Unfortunately, their generations are backwards, which I suppose is acceptable, given that Hollywood would probably never honor the president with that type of attention).

Already just a few chapters in, I have noticed some topics the former president brings up that inspire me to write. So I will follow this post with a few more topical posts about his book.

(Oh, and as a general critique, the book is well-written in that it is clearly in his voice - his own words. What I find interesting is that the first few chapters mirror a biography I read of him soon after his election in 2000 - the data was the same, but it was interesting to hear what he pulled out and thought was important to share).