American Power And Responsibility

A lot of big things have been happening recently. Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz died three weeks ago. ISIS killed a Jordanian hostage, Jordan is on the offensive in retaliation, and ISIS is claiming that a Jordanian airstrike is responsible for the death of an American hostage. Israeli-American relations are strained, again. As all these events have unfolded across the globe, one thing has tied them all together—the world has looked to America for a response.

Despite the troubles we’ve been having at home, despite not knowing quite what we should do abroad, despite not knowing what to expect as we prepare for election season, and despite the many mistakes we’ve made, America is still leading. Other countries rely on us, aided by our help and guidance. They get upset when we do not give events the recognition they deserve—as many believe happened in the case of Charlie Hebdo—and Americans are embarrassed when we give such slights. More abstractly, but more importantly, other countries see us as a role model.

Many Americans see their country as being a leader militarily, economically, and politically, and being a leader idealistically is both the foundation and the lasting, overarching reason for all of these. Beginning with our revolution, which still inspires people to democracy and independence over two hundred years later, America has blazed the trail in self-government. The American experiment triggered curiosity from the start, and the world never stopped watching.

That is a huge responsibility.

Being a role model to an individual is big enough. Being a role model to entire countries, to continents, to governments, to billions of people, is not something we can afford to forget. Every decision we make is seen, noted, and emulated. We know that our policies and laws affect ourselves and those that come after us, but they also affect people all over the world, and not only later, but right now. When we legalize abortion, the world notices. When we talk about legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide, the world listens. When we legalize same-sex marriage, the world sees. When we allow one group to kill another by not saying or doing enough against it, the world sees it as us condoning it, accepting it, or, at the very least, not considering it worth our attention or time. Other governments follow suit, and individuals think that such things cannot be so bad, since America is doing it.

This is all bad enough in and of itself without being known as a Christian nation. How are we to argue against immorality and a lack of ethics when other countries can accuse us of going against our own beliefs? How can we be an example abroad if we are not an example to ourselves?

America wants to be the world’s leading nation, and she can be. But as she becomes so, and once she is, she cannot forget the responsibility that comes with the position. She has to earn the spot and deserve to keep it.

With great power comes great responsibility.

This post originally appeared at the International Youth Coalition

Media Source: UK Daily Mail via NASA

The Power Of Perspective

Look at the picture. What do you see? Two dog heads? A mask? A butterfly-beetle hybrid? Symmetry? A blob of ink? Or, like me, did you say, “No!  I refuse to give in to this! I hate these! I see nothing!” and then see dog heads and a mask simultaneously anyway?

Perspective can be a fickle thing. Sometimes, as in the case of the Rorschach test above, the power of suggestion can completely change the way you see an entire picture. If you saw dog heads initially, and that was all you could see, you could probably see a mask and butterfly after I gave them as possibilities. Maybe you could even remove all images in your mind after I mentioned “a blob of ink”. But in many, more serious instances, perspective is not only fixed, but crucial. How you see an inkblot test will not affect your life or that of someone else, but perspectives on what constitutes murder, who deserves life, and when life should end will definitely affect people’s lives. Unfortunately, the harmful, serious perspectives are often the ones that are hardest to change.

The pro-life movement is based on changing someone’s opinion of life and death. But such large issues are the foundation of people’s entire worldviews. In asking them to change how they see abortion, euthanasia, and similar issues, we are asking them to change how they see humanity, dignity, and life itself. Not just when life begins or ends, but what life means and why it is. That is huge. It’s easy enough to say to someone, “Look at this picture. See it this way? Now look at that aspect of it. See it this other way now?” and they say, “Yes, I do see it differently now! I will now always see that in the picture.” But to ask someone to see the world so completely differently as to change their entire life is another matter. You are telling them that they are wrong. You are telling them that people they respect and love are wrong, and that the very people they look up to lied to them. You are telling them that their entire life has been a lie. That the foundation of everything they have known and lived is just…not true. No one wants to be told that. The prospect is terrifying and angering. It puts people on the defensive. Convincing someone to change their opinion of something so fundamental takes more time, more effort, and more patience than convincing them to see a blot differently. It takes more argumentation. It takes more than one conversation. And it will probably take more self-control.

Obviously we should not stop spreading the pro-life message just because it is hard to tell and hear. The truth is often uncomfortable and unwelcome. But we have to bear in mind that we are shaking these people’s worlds to the very core and treat them with the care we are asking them to give the unborn and dying. And do not get discouraged if someone does not appear convinced after a single discussion—you are blowing their mind, after all.

Written by BCR Secretary Eileen Wittig. Originally posted at iycoalition.org

War and Politics

NOTE: This is a modified post originally found on Stanton J. Skerjanec's blog, "Arguing with a Firestorm."

If you are involved in the CRs on campus, you most likely appreciate politics somehow, someway. You probably also think political science majors have some high ambitions to be in politics. While this definitely can be true, it's not necessarily the case. Political science and politics are two very different things, and are related only in topic, not in substance. Dictionary.com defines political science as: nouna social science dealing with political institutions and with the principles and conduct of government. It defines politics as: noun the science or art of political government. Sounds similar, yes, but here is where I will define it for clarification. 

Political science is the study of politics, and politics is the practice of power, making political science the study of power. Modern poli sci has developed into a more or less objective examination of a specific social experience, much like sociology or psychology. It uses tests, experiments, data analysis, theories and laws, statistics, models, and countless of other resources to determine and track trends in politics and government. It could be as local as a public policy analysis of preserving the population of fish in Canada, or the permit qualifications of taxi drivers in Madison. It could be the large-scale study of the effectiveness laws remain in correlation to their passage time in Congress, or the examination of how often politicians keep their promises. All of those require collected data and analysis, and then a process of the scientific method, modified for social sciences. From all that is studied conclusions are drawn, usually in order to help make decisions or simply to examine political phenomenons. 

But politics is a certain kind of art. Vulgar to some and exhilarating to others. Sun Tzu's famous military treatise is called "Art of War" for a reason. War has rules, but they're more like guidelines. It takes strategy and skill to become a master general, to outmaneuver and beat your opponents, to win over allies and utilize their strengths, protecting weaknesses. War requires a certain amount of flexibility, knowing when to be ferocious and when to have restraint. 

And you know what they say: politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed.

An Honorary American, this World War Champion knew how politics worked

Politics is deal makers and deal breakers, hand shaking and head shaking, ideas and ideology. It is war and peace, but mostly war, with peace used as a tool of war. Politics is a paradox of peaceful conflict we Americans don't appreciate, or we look down upon with scorn. I mean that we either don't care about politics or we are disgusted with it. In our democratic system of republicanism, instead of spilling blood in order to achieve a victory in government, we spill votes. That's a novel concept! Government victory without physical war? That's incredible, and we don't recognize that. The disgust of politics usually comes from what people see as lies, corruption, and the inability to get along. This is understandable. 

Politics is a complex form of human interaction. It's not enough to be right; you have to convince others you're right. You have to rub some elbows or twist some arms in order to get what you want. This can come in the form of hosting dinner parties, doing some personal favors, or some other form of what is collectively known as "schmoozing." It can be humiliating to some to have to schmooze, but if we see it more as building relationships rather than sucking up to people, then we see it as what is always necessary for any human interaction: connecting to others. On the other hand, this doesn't always work, and the true tactics and strategy come into play.  A politician may have to bargain with a whole slate of fellow politicians in order to achieve a goal, whether that be vote swapping or other quid pro quos. It could be outright force against an opponent via procedural rules or threat of losing prestige and power. 

The disgust of it all is in how debasing it seems, to have to resort to schmoozing or fighting. The thing is, folks, it's only a reflection of regular human interaction (albeit, in a more complicated form). Everyday we attempt to convince others of our ideas. When we can't do that, we try other ways of achieving our goals. Take, for example, four brothers charged with cleaning the bathroom. One assigned to the best post of the mirror and sink. Another to the lesser item of cleaning the shower. Still less the third must clean the toilet. Finally, the worst post assigned to the fourth brother is the floor, including that around the toilet. What person wouldn't attempt to achieve the better post, either by bargaining with his brothers or appealing to a higher power (mother)? Politics is bred into our very interactions. Government politics is simply the manifestation of our inclinations on a public and large scale.


But some would still say that politics just doesn't seem right. Something still makes them squirm with revulsion. Why? Why would they take offense to this human trait? The answer, my friends, is for a different post, one that requires a bit different approach to humanity as a whole.

Sir James Munby And Respect, Or Rather, A Lack Thereof

About a week ago, an article on Life News described a law case in England in which a senior judge “ordered” a 13 year-old mentally disabled girl to have an abortion “against her wishes.” Naturally there was considerable uproar. What is England coming to, if she can and will allow her judges to “force” a girl to have an abortion? Thankfully, Life News misreported and exaggerated. The basic facts were correct: an anonymous 13 year-old girl with an IQ of 54 and the mental capabilities of a 7 year-old was impregnated by a 14 year-old boy. Social Services brought the case before Sir James Munby, President of the High Court’s Family Division, when the girl was 14 weeks pregnant.

It is at that point that Life News’s accuracy stops. Contrary to what Life News reported, the girl was neither “forced” nor “ordered” to have the pregnancy terminated. As Law and Religion UK said in their summary of the case, Sir James simply provided the legal permission necessary for the abortion to take place, in accordance with the United Kingdom’s Abortion Act 1967. As they said, “[T]he role of the court is to supply, on behalf of the mother, the consent which, as in the case of any other medical or surgical procedure, is a pre-requisite to the lawful performance of the procedure.” It is true that when the case began the girl was set against an abortion, but by the end of the case she was asking to have one.

However, there is a point that no publication seems to have picked up on. In the course of the hearing, Sir James said that “it would not be right to subject X to a termination unless she was both ‘compliant’ and ‘accepting’. Both, in my judgment, are important. Only the most clear and present risk to the mother’s life or long-term health—neither even hinted at in the present case—could justify the use of restraint or physical force to compel compliance.” Law and Religion rightly interprets his words as further evidence that Sir James did not force the girl to have the abortion done, but his words are actually very disturbing. Sir James has just said that he believes that forced abortion is sometimes justified: “[T]he most clear and present risk […] could justify the use of restraint or physical force to compel compliance.”

It turns out that this is neither his first nor his last time expressing frightening views on birth control. London’s newspaper The Telegraph ran a story about Sir James and his stance on giving contraception to “problem parents,” parents who have a dozen or so of their children taken away by social services. But Sir James does not mention providing contraception to save the children who would be born and then taken way. Instead, he says that “[t]he savings if you can avoid care proceedings are enormous.” He is concerned for the financial state of the government, and apparently thinks that it is not worth risking for children’s lives.

An article in Britain’s Daily Mail, published half a year before the 13 year-old girl’s case was heard, sheds more light on Sir James’ philosophy. In a speech to the Law Society’s family section at their first annual conference, Sir James said, “All are entitled to respect, so long as they are ‘legally and socially acceptable’ and not ‘immoral or socially obnoxious’ or ‘pernicious.’” In other words, only some people deserve respect. But not everyone.

What makes a person legally acceptable? Presumably their legality as a citizen. What makes someone socially acceptable? Actions and decisions made according to accepted social standards. This would mean that illegal aliens, drinkers, drug users, fans of extremely loud music, psychopaths, hedonists, people with criminal histories, and “problem parents” are not acceptable and, according to Sir James, are therefore not entitled to respect. I have no doubt that everyone knows at least one person with at least one of those qualities. Does that person not deserve respect? Don’t you continue to give them respect because they are still a person, and not simply a series of mistakes?

Sir James seems to think that a person should only receive respect based on their worth and quality as a person. If someone is somewhat less than desirable socially, morally, or legally, then they do not deserve respect. Only people who are good, admirable, useful people should be respected.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has an entire article on the respect of the human person. As it says, “Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority. […] If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects.” That last part sounds like what Sir James said about giving contraception to “problem parents” and forcing a mother to have an abortion. And as someone who very consciously only respects certain people, why should he not support forced birth control?

Yet Sir James’ self-described dislike of immoral people does not correspond with something the same Daily Mail article reported. Sir James said in a speech in London that “Happily for us, the days are past when the business of judges was the enforcement of morals or religious beliefs,” and that it is “Victorian” for judges to rule in favor of “virtue and morality” and against “vice and immorality.” Apparently the questions of morals and vices, their qualifiers, and their consequences should be left to the people. But only until something goes wrong and the courts have to deal with the effects.

Written by BCR Secretary Eileen Wittig. Originally posted at iycoalition.org

To Lay Down One's Life

Imagine the following scenario: your little sister needs an organ transplant, and you are a match. The surgery would save her life, but there is a high probability of your own death. What would you do?

Now imagine this one: you are a pregnant woman, and you have just learned that you have cancer. You could go through chemotherapy and radiation which would save your life but kill the baby, or you could forgo treatment, carry the baby to term, and then die yourself. Which do you choose?

Now this: You are a husband with children. You come home from work and find a man in your home, threatening your wife and children with a gun. You can attack the man and risk your life, or you can give in to all his demands and potentially endanger your family. Which would you do?

Finally, this one: you are walking down the street, going home after a long Monday at work and a single watery beer with your friends. You pass an alley and hear what sounds like a scuffle. You peek around the corner of the building and see two very muscular men in a fist fight. As soon as you blink, one of the men falls to the ground as the other stands over him and pulls a switchblade from his pocket. You don’t know if you’re about to witness a murder or just a lesson in street life involving scars, but the man on the ground is terrified. You don’t have time to call the police or even attract enough attention from other passerby to back you up. All you have time for is a decision between walking away and making your presence known. If the man with the knife realizes you’re there, he could run away, attack the fallen man anyway, or throw the knife at you. You have three seconds to decide. What do you choose?

These are situations no one wants to be in—having to decide whether to die to save another person’s life. No matter the choice, someone will live, and someone will die. Possibly you. Unfortunately, the time for deciding is usually limited to a few seconds. We all know what we would like our choice to be, but no one is sure they would really do it. And there is no law, whether institutional or natural, to guide our decision. In John 15:13 we have the famous passage, “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” Yet the Catechism of the Catholic Church also says that there is a “natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life,” and that “[l]ove towards oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality,” which is why suicide is wrong.

Watching another person die is terrible, but doing anything that would cause our own death is even harder. Our repulsion from self-destruction is based partly on the fear of the unknown but even more so on our instinct to survive. Making conscious decisions that will end in our death goes against everything in us. It contradicts the hardwiring of the body and the desire of the mind. People are capable of surviving horrific conditions for incredible lengths of time—the concentration camps of World War II and the gulags of the Soviet Union are proof of that—which would not be possible if we had not been made with the physical ability and the mental desire to survive. Dying for any reason, even to save the life of another person, means that we are going directly against ourselves.

Yet our desire to live is another reason to die. Just as we do not want to die, so no one else does either. And we know that. This is why we hate murder. Death goes so completely against human instinct that we do not want anyone to experience it, especially if we have the power to stop it. We go to great lengths, doing whatever we can, to help people avoid death. Scientists perform risky experiments, doctors perform surgeries for hours on end, and families spend fortunes on medical care. In the case of families, the willingness to sacrifice is understandable—they do not want to lose someone they love. But in the case of doctors, the willingness is less obvious. They put themselves through great physical and mental strain to save the life of someone they may never have met. They see the suffering and the flirting with death, but there is no personal connection. Yet they spend their lives stooped over surgical tables, bloodying their hands to save people. Scientists’ reasons are even less explicit. They do not even see the people their work saves. They do not touch them, they do not hear them. They do not meet the scared families. Yet they spend their lives in laboratories, pouring over microscopes and calculations to save people. This is not to say that the sacrifice of a doctor or a family is any less than that of a scientist, but to point out that everyone, even complete strangers, does what they can to save the lives of other people.

But dying to save another is an extreme act of sacrifice. It is so extreme that we call it “the ultimate sacrifice.” There is nothing more demanding, more completely selfless, than this. We are in awe of those who give that much, but the stories also scare us because it makes us realize that we may be faced with a similar decision. When we hear stories of soldiers sacrificing themselves for each other we hail them as heroes, but we do not criticize those who instead choose to live themselves. We admire saints like Maximilian Kolbe and Gianna Molla who died to give their friends or children life, but we do not condemn those who do not do likewise. The Church even says that it is acceptable for a terminally ill pregnant woman to have treatment or procedures done that would save her life but indirectly cause the death of the child.

Thus we are left with social and moral support for both choices—allow the other person to die, or allow ourselves to die. Yet despite the wrenching decision, we have the comfort of knowing that whatever we choose, it will be right, and we will be saving a life. In the meantime, we can all pray that we are never forced to make a decision either way.

As someone with younger sisters, I like to think that I would risk a life-threatening surgery to save either of their lives. As a young woman who hopes to have a family someday, I’m terrified at the thought of leaving my children without a mother, but I hope I would choose my baby’s life over my own if I developed cancer while pregnant. As someone who hopes to have a strong, protective husband for myself and my children, but also as someone who would (presumably, hopefully) rather be hurt myself than see any of them get hurt, I really don’t know what I would want my husband to do if my children and I were being threatened. And as a young woman who could probably be broken in half by the vast majority of men in the world, but also as one who does not like to see people get beat up, I would probably step out into the alley from around the building, say something in a very small voice, and hope that either an ex-military police officer or my guardian angel saved me. But hopefully I’m never faced with any of these situations.

Written by BCR secretary Eileen Wittig. Originally posted at iycoalition.org

Drugs and Alcohol: Apples and Oranges?

The following is the powerpoint presentation from Benjamin Rioux's presentation on drug policy from the recent forum.  His excellent presentation is incomplete without the oral portion, but the visual element is quite edifying.

My Response to the State of the Union Address

By: Benedictine College Republicans' Vice-Chairman, David St.Hilaire

Last Tuesday night I spent an hour and a half watching President Barack Obama speak to the Cabinet, Congress, the Supreme Court, and to the nation about the state of our country.  Now, it is no secret I am no big fan of President Obama, and I didn't have very high expectations for this address.  His past SOTU addresses have been full of largely empty words and sometimes just plain lies.  Rarely has he actually laid out any definitive plan of action when it comes to solving America's problems. But I was honestly hoping that he would at least state some solid plans for the future (even if I didn't agree with them), if only to put on a good face for the rest of the world.  Unfortunately, he didn't do that.  So, without further ado, here are some of my thoughts on a few things he did say...

The Job Market and Income Equality

President Obama spent a good part of his speech on jobs and wages.  One of the first things he said was that America has "the lowest unemployment rate in over five years; a rebounding housing market, [and] a manufacturing sector that's adding jobs for the first time since the 1990s [...]"  What he left out was that the unemployment rate is still at 6.7%...only .6% lower than it was in 2008.  And if you add discouraged workers to that number, it goes up to 13.1%.  I realize that the President was trying to take an optimistic look at things, but I don't think it is completely realistic to claim that things are so much better.

Another thing the President stressed was his concern over income inequality in America.  One of his strongest, most definitive points was that he wants minimum wage to be raised to $10 an hour.  In fact, he said he will sign an executive order that will increase the minimum wage of all federal employees to $10.10/hr.  Now, while this sounds like a praiseworthy plan, I think he has overlooked several things.  First of all, what about small businesses that don't have any money to spare?  There are many small businesses that would be either forced out of business or have to lay off workers if they were required to pay all their employees $10/hr.  Secondly, an increase in minimum wage would cause an increase in the cost of goods and services.  Big companies, such as Walmart, are definitely not going to absorb the cost themselves.  Instead, they will raise their prices. Obama used Costco as an example of a store that raised their wages without increasing prices.  However, if all companies were required to raise their wages, they couldn’t all be counted on keeping prices the same.  I believe that this inflation of prices would somewhat cancel out the higher wages.

Obama also touched on the wage gap between men and women.  He claimed that women only make 77 cents on the dollar, compared to men.  While this is technically true, it fails to look at all the facts.  Women, as a whole, make 77 cents for every dollar men make, but if you factor in that women work different jobs than men, different hours than men, and different professions than men, the real figure would be about 91 cents on the dollar.[1]  So, while women do make slightly less than men, it is not as big of a deal as Obama is making out of it.

Healthcare

Where to begin? The President spent about 600 words of his 6,900 word speech on healthcare, in specific, the Affordable Care Act.  He mostly used these words to promote the healthcare law, without really giving too many details about it.  He announced that 12 million Americans have signed up for healthcare (both private and Medicaid).  Of course, nothing was said about how six million people have lost their previous plans and doctors, or about the massive failure of the Obamacare website, but that was to be expected.  He also scolded the Republicans for passing 40 bills to overturn the law.  “Let’s not have another 40-something votes to repeal a law that’s already helping millions of Americans […] the first 40 were plenty.”  This was one of the things I agreed with him on.  As much as I oppose the healthcare law, I don’t think there was any point in the House passing that many bills when they knew they would never pass the Senate.  It just made the Republicans seem whiny and desperate.  It also must have been an enormous waste of time and money.

Overall, I was surprised that Obama didn’t spend more time touting his healthcare law.  I think it is fair to say that the Affordable Care Act is his biggest accomplishment as president, so I was expecting it to take up a good portion of his speech.  I suppose he thought there were other, more pressing issues to discuss, now that the law is nearly in full effect.

The Environment, “Climate Change”, and Energy

            A large chunk of the address focused on America’s energy situation.  The president celebrated the fact that we are becoming more and more energy independent.  He promoted the use of natural gas and solar power.  Then, he dropped a bombshell.  He said, “The debate is settled.  Climate change is a fact.”  Really, Mr. President? On what do you base that assertion?  I think that statement is a little hard to prove. While the climate is indeed changing, it isn’t exactly a scientific fact that humans are causing it.

“I Have a Pen and a Phone”

            Several weeks ago Mr. Obama proclaimed that he “has a pen and a phone,” meaning that he wasn’t going to sit around and wait for legislation to be passed in order to do the things he wanted done.  On Tuesday he reiterated that message when he said, “I’m eager to work with all of you, but America does not stand still – and neither will I.  So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.”  He said this right in front of both Houses of Congress…yep, all 535 of them.  I was sitting there thinking, “Something is not right with this picture.”  Obama had just told them that he didn’t need them and that he was going to bypass them whenever he felt like it and as much as possible…and they stood up and applauded.  Say, what?  The fact that our president stood in front of the country and proclaimed that he was going to disregard the Constitution and the checks and balances in order to promote his own agenda is frightening, to say the least; especially when Congress not only doesn’t do anything to stop it, but actually applauds him when he announces it.  The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves right about now.  This was the exact situation they were trying to prevent when they came up with the three branches of government.

Conclusion

            In conclusion, Obama’s 5^th State of the Union Address fell tremendously short.  He made a large number of empty, vague promises for the future, and failed to say anything really substantial.  He had a lot of good rhetoric, but very few specifics.  As we have come to expect with the president, it was a very good speech when it comes to its delivery.  No one can deny the fact that he knows how to give a good speech (at least when he has a teleprompter, anyway).  However, it seemed to me that Obama was just repeating the same things he has been saying for the past five years.  But where are the results?  His speech also gave me cause for alarm, most notably, in that he seems hell bent on overstepping his Constitutional powers in every way possible.  It also seemed like he was saying a lot of things that were not in line with things he has said in the past.  But, that is a topic for another day.  So, I will leave you with that.

            God bless you all, and God bless the United States of America!

(Originally posted on David's blog, Patriot on the Plains)

---

[1] http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-s-gender-pay-gap-is-myth-it-s-just-not-true-experts-say