Everything I Know Is Wrong

Ignoramuses rescued despite themselves.

The New York Times reports today:

Three Western peace workers who were held hostage in Iraq for four months were freed in a military operation today, two weeks after their American colleague was killed in captivity. 

The three men - James Loney, 41, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32, both from Canada; and Norman Kember, 74, of Britain - had been kidnapped last November along with the American man, Tom Fox, in Baghdad.

Mr. Fox's body was found this month. He had apparently been tortured by his captors before being shot multiple times in the head and dumped on a trash heap next to a railway line in western Baghdad.

"Our hearts are filled with joy today as we heard that Harmeet Singh Sooden, Jim Loney and Norman Kember have been safely released in Baghdad," said a statement from the group they were working with, the Christian Peacemaker Teams. "Together we have endured uncertainty, hope, fear, grief and now joy during the four months since they were abducted in Baghdad."

The delegation coordinator for the group, Claire Evans, said by telephone from Chicago that Mr. Loney, a 41-year old Canadian, had contacted his family this morning from the Green Zone, the fortified compound in Baghdad where some American military forces, Iraqi government offices and the American embassy are located.

"He said that they were all in reasonable health," she said, adding that the three men were undergoing medical checks.

The men were freed by multinational forces in a military operation. In London, the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, said that the mission included British forces.

"It follows weeks and weeks of very careful work by military and coalition personnel in Iraq and many civilians as well," Mr. Straw said, adding that it involved a number of countries, including Canadian personnel.

What did The Christian Peacemakers have to say about it? Thank you, perhaps? Not bloody likely.

Pulse24
"We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end.

What an appalling display of their ignorance of Saddam's oppression, Al Qaeda's conscienceless violence, and of ingratitude to their rescuers.

Katrina Relief

Hurricane Katrina has caused untold damage to uncounted homes and businesses. It has profoundly affected many thousands of lives. It is time to step up and help the victims, many of whom have literally nothing left of their old lives.

Hugh Hewitt started it.

Instapundit is rounding up bloggers with suggestions of good, reliable church-based places to donate. If you don't already know where to give so that your money gets to where it needs to be, check here.

NZ Bear is tracking the whole thing.

Remember that the Red Cross already has facilities and staff in most cities and towns in the United States. Money that goes to them can be applied very quickly where it is needed most. Remember also that where you give matters little in comparison to the gift itself. The level of need in the storm ravaged Gulf States is complete. Our help is not a luxury it is a necessity.

Give 'til it hurts.

Terri Schiavo has died

Rest in peace.

Update: More from the Washington Post.

Pontiff forced to accept feeding tube.

In an effort to deny the Pontiff the euphoria that Terri Shiavo is experiencing, Vatican medicos have inserted a feeding tube into the Pope.

AP
Pope John Paul II is getting nutrition from a tube in his nose, the Vatican said Wednesday, shortly after the frail pontiff appeared at his window in St. Peter's Square and managed only a rasp when he tried to speak.

Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said the step was taken to "improve the pope's calorie intake" and so he can recover his strength.

The cruelty of those who are trying to force the Pope to live, by placing him on life support, is unthinkable; shame on them. They should allow the Pope to die peacefully from starvation, just like Terri.

Whether the Pope has a living will is unknown, but based on still pictures of the Pontiff's unsuccessful attempt at speaking before a crowd this afternoon, he might have been trying to say, "I don't want to live this way." Clearly we should abide by his stated wishes and withhold all medical help until we are sure he is dead.

Sound familiar?

What does it mean to be human?

The first time the question of what it means to be human occurred to me, I was four, maybe five, years old. It was during the early sixties and I was watching the news with my father. There was video of the police in Alabama hitting black marchers with clubs, and spraying them with water. I was utterly horrified. Over the next few days I repeatedly asked why this was happening, and because it's difficult for adults to explain something as complex and evil as racism to a small child, they reduced it to its most elemental parts. I don't remember their exact words, it was a long time ago, but I remember what they said: some people don't think that people who have black skin are human. Because I have good parents I knew those people were wrong -- wrong. I remember standing by the television watching pictures of young people -- white people -- going to Alabama to say that black people were indeed people. I remember telling my dad, we have to help--can we go there? My father explained, I'm sure, the financial realities of a young family, and how far it was to travel; what I took away from the conversation was that it would be good to help, but we couldn't go. My mom told me I could help by knowing, in my heart, that those people were wrong -- that everyone is a person.

I felt confused; how could those adults be so stupid as to be unable to see that people were, well, people? I didn't know about prejudice, or bigotry, I thought they must simply be ignorant--not ignorant with bad connotations, I was a child--I assumed they simply hadn't learned it yet. It wasn't until years later that I learned how wrong I was.

As I confront once again, because of the way Terri Schiavo is being treated, the issue of what makes us human, I find in myself the same feelings of confusion I felt as a child. How can people be so blind as to be able to ask questions about "quality of life," as if only a certain quality of life makes one human. Are people human only when they have full use of all of their limbs and faculties? What about paraplegics? Quadriplegics? People with low IQ's? People with blue eyes; brown skin? When a stroke victim cannot speak, are they less human; when they re-learn speech, have they somehow regained their lost humanity; when they are paralyzed in one half of their body, does that mean that the value of their life is cut in half? Or is their life, as I believe, just as valuable as ever, but a little more difficult?

Who has the right to ask these questions of the value of a life, except the person who's life it is? How would you feel if I decided that your life was not of a high enough quality to satisfy my standard, and that you must be starved to death -- for your own good. Appalling isn't it? Yet that is exactly where the laws in our land have stranded us.

Terri's beliefs about her quality of her own life, and whether it is worth living, are unknown. The type of documentation used to indicate these preferences in our courts is unavailable in her case. Her estranged husband/guardian says she would not have wanted to live this way, but her friends and family disagree; they say that Terri would never choose death. A standoff (at least morally). Any choice that could possibly be made has an equal chance of being a mistake.

For me though this is not a hard choice -- no Gordian knot here -- I know what makes us human. We are born human, and we die human. In between birth and death, regardless of what happens to us, we are human. Our souls make us human, and one does not treat humans the way we are treating Terri, unless, in a worst case scenario, we are absolutely certain they want us to. But we are not certain; there are grave doubts; doubts about every aspect of the decision. If we are going to make an error, when it's a issue of life and death --and in this case there is a 50% chance of an error -- we must err on the side of life.

That is the only moral choice.

Ralph Nader: 'Save Terri'

My friend Tim sent me this with a simple statment-- "Ralph Nader has earned my respect."

Ralph Nader: 'Save Terri'
In a joint statement, Nader and Wesley J. Smith, author of the book "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America," enumerated what they see as the many injustices in the Schiavo case.

They said the courts, under "color of law," have imposed a slow death by dehydration on Terri, giving every benefit of the doubt to her death, rather than her continued life.

Not only has Terri's feeding tube been removed -- but no attempt has been made to let her try drinking by mouth.

"Terri swallows her own saliva," Nader and Smith said. "Spoon-feeding is not medical treatment. This outrageous order proves that the courts are not merely permitting medical treatment to be withheld, it has ordered her to be made dead," Nader and Smith said.

They also noted that experts are split on whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state or whether she can improve with therapy. "There is only one way to know for sure -- permit the therapy," they said.

What do we do now, just wait for her to die?

The Supreme Court has refused to hear the Schiavo case.

Yahoo! News
The decision, announced in a terse one-page order, marked the end of a dramatic and disheartening four-day dash for her parents, Bob and Mary Schlindler, through the federal court system.

Justices did not explain their decision, which was at least the fifth time they have declined to get involved in the Schiavo case.

I'm having problems being rational about this; dying is not a legal event, it's a spiritual event. That the courts view this case as a hot potato is understandable; that they ignore, singing "la-la-la" with their fingers in their ears,  the slightest possibility that they could have made a mistake about the condition of a person (a person!), or the motivations of her guardian, is unconscionable. But that's what they've done.

It occurs to me that the argument over whether the responsibility for this kind of decision lies with the courts or not, has been answered by the courts themselves. They have refused to hear the case, congressional direction notwithstanding.

I'm ashamed that the courts in our system of government, which do so many things right, couldn't (wouldn't) even take another look, and possibly save the life of someone who may be in there. I'm disappointed, and angry, on so many levels I don't know how to proceed. I may write more after I think about what this really means to our future. After all, when the Supreme Court chooses not to decide, they still have made a choice; this sets a precedent.

Americanism--and Its Enemies

Ever since the 2004 presidential election, and the... well, if it had been the religious right doing it I would've called it soul-searching, but coming from the secular left perhaps... brow-beating by the blue states over what exactly "values" are, I have been appalled at how little the left understands the right.

The right, on the other hand, understands the left a little bit better out of long necessity. The overwhelming influence the left has wielded in the media and, until recently, the political arena, has made it an absolute necessity for the right to come to a working knowledge of what makes the left tick.

That or be crushed.

The fact that the right prevailed, by electing George Bush, against the combined might of the mega-dollars raised through the new 527 loophole provided by the McCaine-Feingold campaign finance "reform" bill, plus the Democratic Party's largest fund-raising effort ever, and the concerted, coordinated, and even fraudulent efforts of the DNC's publicity department, otherwise known as the mainstream media, shows how effective the right's "working knowledge" of the left is.

But the left; they just don't get the right at all. The values that the right holds most dear seem to frighten the pants off of the left (though they wouldn't be frightened if they really understood what the values were). The ludicrous lengths that liberals seem willing to go in order to crush the slightest evidence of Judeo-Christian influence in any public institution, despite the fact that the history of the United States springs almost complete from Judeo-Christian values, shows how far apart left and right are. That the left accuses the right of trying to create a new, Christian theocracy because they want to have a sculpture of the tablets of the ten commandments (from which much of our law stems) outside a courthouse shows how much they misunderstand the values of the right.

The irony of the matter is that the values that the left is using to justify the elimination of Judeo-Christian influence, stem from the Judeo-Christian ethic. In particular: protection of the weak. What they seem to have forgotten is that the majority needs protection, too. That the goal is not suppression of the majority, but elevation of the minority; not crushing the strong, rather strengthening the weak.

The central issue, the crux of the matter, is illustrated by the difference in the ways the left and right perceive our nation. The right sees the United States as a wholly unique and special country, better in most ways than any country in history - made so by our values. The left sees us as largely responsible for the ills of the world - because of our values.

This difference in viewpoints has baffled me for some time, but my bafflement came to a head when I realized, post-election, how really far apart the two views are. Until recently I had the idea that, if only it could be explained well enough, each side would understand the other. After all, their core values are much the same. I know, I was a liberal, and am now a conservative, and my values have not changed; only my assessment of how effective their different methods are at achieving the goals intended. At this point I'm not sure if one side can understand the other on a large scale and, though the demonization of conservatism by the mainstream media is currently the chief, but by no means only obstacle to better understanding, the roots of the discord run deep.

Joe Carter, who's excellent blog Evangelical Outpost should be regular reading, e-mailed to point out a very interesting article in Commentary Magazine, around which he has organized a blogging symposium. David Gelernter, who, in addition to writing for Commentary, has written for The National Review, and The Weekly Standard (and who you may remember as a survivor of one of the uni-bomber's attacks) has penned a piece entitled Americanism--and Its Enemies. In it he endeavors to find the roots of Americanism - a wonderful, and elusive, quasi-religion - in part by tracing the history of its enemies.

"By his enemies you shall know him" is another way of saying that, if you beat around the bush effectively enough, you'll end up with a pretty good outline of the bush. Gelernter creates a pretty good outline of Americanism by defining its enemies. His definition of "Americanism" is close to what I mean when I say that conservatives feel the United States is "a wholly unique and special country, better in most ways than any country in history - made so by our values."

Gelernter believes that Americanism is the direct decedent of Puritanism or, more specifically, that Puritanism turned into Americanism.

Many thinkers have noted that Americanism is inspired by or close to or intertwined with Puritanism. One of the most impressive scholars to say so recently is Samuel Huntington, in his formidable book on American identity, Who Are We? But my thesis is that Puritanism did not merely inspire or influence Americanism; it turned into Americanism. Puritanism and Americanism are not just parallel or related developments; they are two stages of a single phenomenon.

Gelernter's very next sentence is, "This is an unprovable proposition," and (at least from my position, which is to say "complete ignorance" of Puritanism) I would have to agree. Nonetheless I found some things that spoke to me in his analysis.

The idea of an “American creed” has been around for a long time. Huntington lists its elements as “liberty, equality, democracy, individualism, human rights, the rule of law, and private property.” I prefer a different formulation: a conceptual triangle in which one fundamental fact creates two premises that create three conclusions.

The fundamental fact: the Bible is God’s word. Two premises: first, every member of the American community has his own individual dignity, insofar as he deals individually with God; second, the community has a divine mission to all mankind. Three conclusions: every human being everywhere is entitled to freedom, equality, and democracy.

In the American creed, both premises and all three conclusions refer back to the Bible, especially the Hebrew Bible. Americans have defined the “community” of the premises more and more broadly over the years, until it has grown to encompass the whole population of adult citizens—thus bringing the premises gradually into line with the universal conclusions. Today there is pressure to define the community more broadly still, so that it includes (for example) illegal as well as legal residents.

Freedom, equality, democracy: the Declaration held these truths to be self-evident, but “self-evident” they were certainly not. Otherwise, America would hardly have been the first nation in history to be built on this foundation. Deriving all three from the Bible, theologians of Americanism understood these doctrines not as philosophical ideas but as the word of God. Hence the fervor and passion with which Americans believe their creed. Americans, virtually alone in the world, insist that freedom, equality, and democracy are right not only for France and Spain but for Afghanistan and Iraq.

Gelernter's creed also embraces preordination, or manifest destiny.

We can go further. To sum up Americanism’s creed as freedom, equality, and democracy for all is to state only half the case. The other half deals with a promised land, a chosen people, and a universal, divinely ordained mission. This part of Americanism is the American version of biblical Zionism: in short, American Zionism.

Though Gelernter includes the Calvinist belief in predestination in his version of the American creed; I do not. The thread by which Americanism hangs is fragile indeed. Take as an example the narrow margin of conservatism over liberalism in the 2004 presidential election; or the 129 vote "victory" of Democrat over Republican in the Washington state gubernatorial race. It is a close run thing, day by day. To say that our dominance is preordained, or that inevitably we will spread freedom and democracy to the rest of the world, is overly hopeful and, more importantly, it interferes with my belief that God gave us freewill. Beyond that let me say that, though we are not preordained to spread God's gifts of freedom and self-determination, it's our duty to try to help every person be free.

If Gelernter fails to exactly parallel my views on why I think America is wholly unique and amazing (and I'm pretty sure that wasn't his goal), he doesn't miss by much. His tracing of Americanism's roots in Puritanism is, though beyond proof, still a good place to start in thinking about what makes the left and right think so differently about the same things. Though I don't agree with all of his conclusions the article is definitely worth reading.

 

Oh, and I enjoyed this interesting historical note:

The same day the Declaration of Independence was adopted, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were appointed as a committee to propose a seal for the brand-new United States. Given what we know about Americanism, it is hardly surprising that they suggested an image of Israel crossing the Red Sea and Moses lit by the pillar of fire, with the motto: “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” (The seal was never adopted, but a copy of the recommendation survives in the papers of the Continental Congress.)

 

Give 'Till it Hurts

The tsunami in Asia is, without a doubt, the worst tragedy our world has been through in my lifetime; perhaps in anyone's lifetime. It's scope boggles the mind and dwarfs the soul. Looking at the disaster from a human perspective it seems impossible to help that many people half a world away, yet we must do something.

Captain Ed has a clever plan. He's rallying the blogoshpere to help people join together behind one of the world's best relief organizations, World Vision.

At Captain's Quarters, we're declaring January 12th World Relief Day. I ask that CQ readers donate their take-home pay for January 12th to the tsunami relief effort at World Vision. Obviously, we cannot hope to match the funds raised by governments -- but we can show what a handful of determined private individuals can do to help. If you can't afford to donate all of your take-home pay for that day, please donate what you can.

Whether you're a blogger or a reader, you're part of the blogosphere. Give what you can, and encourage others to give as well. If you can't afford to give, say a prayer.

Atrocity

Despite having been declared illegal by our legislation, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton says that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is unconstitutional and "the act poses an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion."

San Francisco Chronicle
Partial birth is not a medically accepted term, but as defined by the bill it is the "intentional delivery of a fetus until, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of the breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus."

I want to know exactly where in the Constitution we find the "right" to do this. What kind of world do we live in? I can't even imagine a world in which I would be so different from who I am now that I would think this was OK. What kind of “doctor” would condone and participate in the serial decapitation of babies?

Evidently the Chronicle felt that they should edit out some of the more graphic parts of the AP story. Here is the fuller version, here is the edited version. Among the missing passages is the description of the "procedure" that I quoted above.

We have heard the left screaming about atrocities until we can't even hear them through their own noise. I want to hear the left scream that this is an atrocity. Until they prove that they know what an atrocity is they don't have a leg to stand on.