The Screwtape Letters

I recently read C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters for the first time. It was definitely one of the more convicting works of fiction that I've read, and as I read, I made up my mind to post probably a hundred different excerpts. But, alas, I don't have the time to post all those excerpts, so we'll have to make do with just a few. In today's excerpt, Screwtape writes to Wormwood (a lower-ranked demon), giving advice on how to tempt his "patient" in the area of churchgoing:

"[I]f your patient can't be kept out of the Church, he ought at least to be violently attached to some party within it. I don't mean on really doctrinal issues; about those, the more lukewarm he is the better. And it isn't the doctrines on which we chiefly depend for producing malice. The real fun is working up hatred between those who say 'mass' and those who say 'holy communion' when neither party could possibly state the difference between, say, Hooker's doctrine and Thomas Aquinas', in any form which would hold water for five minutes. And all the purely indifferent things--candles and clothes and what not--are an admirable ground for our activities. We have quite removed from men's minds what that pestilent fellow Paul used to teach about food and other unessentials--namely, that the human without scruples should always give in to the human with scruples. You would think they could not fail to see the application. You would expect to find the 'low' churchman genuflecting and crossing himself lest the weak conscience of his 'high' brother should be moved to irreverence, and the 'high' one refraining from these exercises lest he should betray his 'low' brother into idolatry. And so it would have been but for our ceaseless labour. Without that the variety of usage within the Church of England might have become a positive hotbed of charity and humility.

I'm thankful that I've never been part of a church which has had serious issues with breaking into different factions--although, perhaps this has been due more to the homogeneity of the churches I've attended than to any amazing level of love and humility. Still, I know I often need to be reminded of the need to express love to my fellow believers by giving in to them in areas where we have differences (even if they attend a different church, and the only way I can practice this is by not looking down on them for being different).

Tradition

Free health care for everybody!

This is not the kind of health care I want.

I posted here about universal health care. The link I have posted above is helping to solidify my opinion that universal health care is a really, really bad idea.

I'd love to elaborate on this, but I'm taking my final section of the CPA exam this Friday, and something tells me that I ought to be studying for that rather than posting on my blog. :-)

Is universal health care a good idea? Or, I'm glad I live in the U.S.

(Let me say right off the bat that I haven't spent much time or effort studying universal health care, and I'm basing my comments here on one article, which isn't very much evidence. The one article, however, does cite some rather interesting--and, perhaps, surprising--statistics.)

Today's Wall Street Journal contained an interesting column by Betsy McCaughey titled "Cancer Killers." (I'm not sure whether you can access the article without being a subscriber.)

Ms. McCaughey takes issue with the American Cancer Society's plans to scrap its ads educating the public about cancer-causing behaviors and the benefits of regular screening in favor of ads promoting universal health coverage. She presents evidence that "shows that universal health coverage does not improve survival rates for cancer patients. Despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the U.S. are most likely to be screened regularly, have the fastest access to treatment once they are diagnosed with the disease, and can get new, effective drugs long before they're available in most other countries." McCaughey cites several studies showing that cancer survival rates in the U.S. are the highest in the world and that U.S. patients are more likely than those in other countries to undergo screening procedures on a regular basis.

But, McCaughey points out, early diagnosis isn't the only factor to consider: the speed with which a patient can access treatment is also critical. From the article:

Long waits for treatment are "common devices used to restrict access to care in countries with universal health insurance," according to a report in Health Affairs (July/August 2007). The British National Health Service has set a target for reducing waits. The goal is that patients will not have to wait more than 18 weeks between the time their general practitioner refers them to a specialist and they actually begin treatment.

18 weeks?! Wow. I wonder how much cancer could spread in the more than 4 months that it would take for a patient to being treatment.

As many problems as the current U.S. health care system may have, I think I'd still choose capitalism over socialism.

Integration

Recently, the Charlotte Observer has been publishing articles and pictures related to its public schools' integration 50 years ago.

It amazes me to see what children were willing to go through--and what parents were willing to put their children through--just so black children could have the same opportunities as white children. I'm glad they were willing to do that; I don't think I would have been.

Check out the articles and pictures posted here. Especially look at the Dorothy Counts photos and story.

Time

I needed this today.

You've got to be kidding.

Let's say, "hypothetically," a person with a blood-alcohol level of nearly twice the legal limit and with marijuana in his vehicle speeds down a highway without wearing a seatbelt and while talking on his cell phone. He crashes into a tow truck that's helping a stalled vehicle and dies. Whose fault is it?

Naturally, the bar, the towing company, the tow truck driver and the person whose vehicle stalled must be at fault.

I can, perhaps, understand suing the restaurant that allegedly kept serving the deceased alcohol for more than 3.5 hours--even after he was already intoxicated. (Although is it really the restaurant's fault that the deceased chose to drink and then drive?)

I don't mean to be harsh, but perhaps this apparent unwillingness of the parents of the deceased to blame him for his actions is part of a pattern; perhaps if the deceased had been taught to take responsibility for his own choices, he would have made better ones. And perhaps he would still be alive today.

Tax for Dummies

I received this via email yesterday. I've no idea whether it was actually written by the economics professor whose name appears at the end. But I think it's worth reading anyway. And perhaps someone could pass it along to the Democrats.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Because it is tax season. . . Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can
understand.


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.


If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like
this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.


So, that's what they decided to do.


The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Because you are
all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.


The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the
$20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that
$20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's
share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to
drink his beer.


So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill
by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each
should pay.


And so:


The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).


Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings.


"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man," but he got $10!"


"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"


"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I
got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"


"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"


The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.


The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down
and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of
them for even half of the bill!


And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax
system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from
a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they
just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas
where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.


David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia


For those who understand, no explanation is needed.


For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Reader discretion advised.

I was browsing a news website and ran across a link to today's Supreme Court ruling upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. The following information describing the procedure is copied and pasted directly from the ruling. Don't read it if you have a weak stomach.

Intact D&E gained public notoriety when, in 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell gave a presentation describing his method of performing the operation. Dilation and Extraction 110-111. In the usual intact D&E the fetus' head lodges in the cervix, and dilation is insufficient to allow it to pass. See, e.g., ibid.; App. in No. 05-380, at 577; App. in No. 05-1382, at 74, 282. Haskell explained the next step as
follows:

" 'At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus and "hooks" the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down).

" 'While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.

" '[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.

" 'The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.' " H. R. Rep. No. 108-58, p. 3 (2003).

This is an abortion doctor's clinical description. Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

" 'Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms--everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus... .

" 'The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.

" 'The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp... .

" 'He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.' " Ibid.

Dr. Haskell's approach is not the only method of killing the fetus once its head lodges in the cervix, and "the process has evolved" since his presentation. Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 965. Another doctor, for example, squeezes the skull after it has been pierced "so that enough brain tissue exudes to allow the head to pass through." App. in No. 05-380, at 41; see also Carhart, supra, at 866-867, 874. Still other physicians reach into the cervix with their forceps and crush the fetus' skull. Carhart, supra, at 858, 881. Others continue to pull the fetus out of the woman until it disarticulates at the neck, in effect decapitating it. These doctors then grasp the head with forceps, crush it, and remove it. Id., at 864, 878; see also Planned Parenthood, supra, at 965.

Of course, it is still legal for a doctor to use forceps to pull the baby out of the womb, ripping the baby apart in the process. I'm sure that's much more humane.

I suppose it shouldn't amaze me that many in our society can condone--and even passionately argue in favor of--such atrocities; yet those same people express shock and horror at events such as those that occurred at Virginia Tech this week. While what happened at Virginia Tech was horrible, it somehow seems even worse to stab a helpless baby in the head with a pair of scissors, force the scissors open, and vacuum out the baby's brain.

I find myself tempted to hate the people that butcher babies like that. But really, I'm just like them--a sinner. I am as undeserving of God's mercy and grace as any abortion doctor or any school shooter or any other human being who has ever lived. Praise God for His grace in choosing to save any of us.

Jesus Lives and So Shall I

Jesus Lives and So Shall I
(Christian F. Gellert; tr. John D. Lang)

Jesus lives and so shall I.
Death! thy sting is gone forever.
He, who deigned for me to die,
Lives the bands of death to sever.
He shall raise me with the just;
Jesus is my Hope and Trust.

Jesus lives and reigns supreme;
And, his kingdom still remaining,
I shall also be with him,
Ever living, ever reigning.
God has promised: be it must;
Jesus is my Hope and Trust.

Jesus lives, I know full well,
Naught from him my heart can sever,
Life nor death nor powers of hell,
Joy nor grief henceforth forever.
None of all his saints is lost;
Jesus is my Hope and Trust.

Jesus lives and death is now
But my entrance into glory.
Courage then, my soul, for thou
Hast a crown of life before thee;
Thou shalt find thy hopes were just;
Jesus is the Christian's Trust.

I'm impressed.

Check out this article (originally from the Wall Street Journal, here) and tell me if you aren't impressed with Rontrell Matthews and with Faye Brown.

Today's WSJ has an update on the story. I'm not sure whether you can access the article without a subscription, so I'll summarize: Since the original article's appearance, Journal readers have donated $32,000 to the school and its students. The school, for the first time, has its bills fully paid, and there's even money left over. One person wants to use a $100,000 inheritance to start an endowment.

Also since the original article was published, the SC State Legislature voted down a school choice bill.

So what can we learn from these stories? Well, apparently it's possible for private schools to succeed where public schools have failed. Apparently money doesn't really make that much of a difference in students' success--Capers has been operating on a shoestring budget and succeeding (at least, based on its SAT scores) while SC public schools have continued failing even while receiving increased funding. (At least, I assume funding has actually been increased; the politicians certainly talk about it enough.)

And apparently those evil capitalist Wall Street Journal readers who have donated money to Capers care more about South Carolina's underprivileged children than the majority of SC state legislators, who refused to pass a bill that would help those children escape their failing public schools.

Or maybe it's not a question of caring; maybe legislators just don't understand basic economics (specifically, the often-beneficial effects of competition in a free market) as well as Journal readers do.

But either way, is anyone else impressed with the good things that can happen when people stop depending on the government and just do something about a problem on their own?

"Rights"?

I came across the following sentence in a reading assignment for a class:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights ... asserts that basic human rights to goods such as health and education pre-exist society just as negative liberty [i.e., freedom from governmental restrictions] does.

What do you think? Do we all have a right to health care and education? For that matter (and I hate to say this, since at this point I fall somewhere between conservative and libertarian on the political spectrum), do we even have a right to freedom from governmental restrictions?

I'm pretty sure I can count on Monica for a spirited response here, but if anyone wants to argue an opposing view so I can think about it from both perspectives, that'd be great. Thanks in advance to all my brilliant friends who are going to help me think through this! :)

UPDATE (4/5): Andrew over at Points of View has posted a reply to this topic.

"Women Who Intimidate"

I ran across this article today. The title definitely piqued my interest--not because I see myself as intimidating, but because my mother has told me that I am. (At least, she used to--she seemed to think that's why my having dates was so rare!) And, to be perfectly honest, there are plenty of times when I want to be intimidating. I found it interesting that the author points out the difference between being competent/successful and being intimidating, and how the world tends to equate the two.