http://www.centerforajustsociety.org/ Where faith, law, and policy meet. Word on the street are references to the best articles on the Internet pertaining to faith, law and policy. en-us Copyright 2007. Center For A Just Society. All Rights Reserved. Mon, 12 May 2008 02:35:42 EST 60 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/images/header/CJSheader1.jpg http://www.centerforajustsociety.org/ http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3568
Here’s the website. Will all heaven break loose...

Click here to read the rest of this article: Evangelical Manifesto Revisited and Revealed.





Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees.]]> Fri, 9 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3568 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3567 Is the U.S. economy in a recession? If it is, how long will it last—and how much will it hurt? Six American Enterprise Institute economists offered differing assessments at a panel discussion last week, ranging from Charles W. Calomiris’s view that “severe recession risk is minimal” to Desmond Lachman’s prediction of “several quarters of negative growth going forward.” Other panelists—including former Federal Reserve monetary affairs director Vincent R. Reinhart—addressed the Fed’s role in credit markets, specifically its March bailout of Bear Stearns. Meeting for the first time since their December 2007 panel, the AEI scholars took a fresh look at the health of the economy. In a paper discussed at the December conference, Calomiris argued that “it is too early to conclude that the U.S. banking system will find itself unable to reallocate risk in an orderly fashion, and end up having to dramatically curtail the supply of credit.” Last week he pointed to signs today that banks are reabsorbing off-balance sheet items and that their liquidity risks from asset-backed commercial paper and special investment vehicles are contained. Calomiris added that banks have sufficient access to capital markets and that “corporate balance sheets are strong.” Kevin A. Hassett offered an analysis of whether the economy is in recession based on a statistical model he is helping to develop. In December and January, Hassett said, the economy was not in recession. The data “took a marked turn for the worse in February,” he added, although “it’s not obvious that we’re in recession yet.” Hassett also noted that the possibility of an impending recession combined with the 2008 presidential election might lead to “tax policy uncertainty” in the financial markets, which in turn might harm growth.... Click here to read the rest of this article: The Dreaded R-Word.


Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees.]]> Fri, 9 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3567 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3566 "What could possibly go wrong?" That's what members of Congress probably thought when they started shoveling bigger subsidies at ethanol producers. Now, with food riots erupting in some parts of the world, we have our answer: a lot. Other factors -- a weak dollar, high energy costs, low crop yields in places such as Australia -- have played a role in this crisis. But diverting food to fuel is clearly a contributor, and it exacerbates the situation. How serious is the problem? According to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, without emergency intervention "we risk again the specter of widespread hunger, malnutrition and social unrest on an unprecedented scale." The world needs more food -- especially corn, large amounts of which are being used for fuel. People, of course, consume corn, and it's in nearly every processed food we buy. Livestock, too, feed on corn. Some chickens eat 40 pounds of it in a matter of weeks. So a jump in the price drives up prices in just about every aisle of the supermarket. Not surprisingly, the U.N. found that the market prices of cereals, dairy produce, meat, sugar and oils rose 57 percent from March 2007 to March 2008.... Click here to read the rest of this article: Food and Federal Fuel Follies.


Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees. ]]> Fri, 9 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3566 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3565
An intrepid reader sent me this on-line syllabus from a bioethics course at the University of Washington Medical School. I checked on the link protocol and the author Nancy Jecker, Ph.D presumes that the right to refuse wanted life-sustaining treatment already exists. From the syllabus:
While you will hear colleagues referring to particular cases or interventions as "futile", the technical meaning and moral weight of this term is not always appreciated. As you will make clinical decisions using futility as a criterion, it is important to be clear about the meaning of the concept.
Futilitarians often deny that Futile Care Theory is about money. They deny it is about ideology that presumes some lives not to be worth living. As the following quote shows, it is about both:
The goal of medicine is to help the sick. You have no obligation to offer treatments that do not benefit your patients. Futile interventions are ill advised because they often increase a patient's pain and discomfort in the final days and weeks of life, and because they can expend finite medical resources.Although the ethical requirement to respect patient autonomy entitles a patient to choose from among medically acceptable treatment options (or to reject all options), it does not entitle patients to receive whatever treatments they ask for. Instead, the obligations of physicians are limited to offering treatments that are consistent with professional standards of care....
Click here to read the rest of this article: University of Washington Medical School Teaches Futile Care Theory as if the Right to Refuse Wanted Life-Sustaining Treatment Already Exists.Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees.]]> Fri, 9 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3565 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3564 Fri, 9 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3564 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3563
Last night I met a perfectly friendly and intelligent young couple, both graduates of my mater ferox, Catholics both, with a young daughter whom they intend to teach at home.  The wife told me cheerfully that she'd recently attended a small reunion of local Princetonians, and she was the only woman present who was a "stay-at-home mom."  That's the phrase that people use, and I wasn't going to quarrel with it then -- we were milling about after a graduation ceremony in honor of ten homeschooled seniors.  We had a few jests at the absurdity of believing that to spend most of one's time in the company of someone deeply beloved, free to read or play music, or to put the home in trim for one's own use or for hospitality or for the pleasure of someone else deeply beloved, or to go outside for what she called, putting emphasis on the unusual phrase, "fresh air," is somehow a great sacrifice, worthy to be acknowledged by solemn nods from those who are not making it.  Her friends, she said, mainly employed nannies, and as far as I can see, the name "nanny" is given to someone who will temporarily treat one's child with a certain amiable kindness, but who will move on in a year or two, and who will therefore not be a deeply felt part of the child's life.  In other words, the nanny is not really a nanny, but, to pick up the bitter phrase from Hemingway, isn't it pretty to think so?  It occurs to me that the friends are the ones making the sacrifice -- or are making their children make the sacrifice. It's too bad, besides, that we have that moniker, "stay-at-home mom."  It sounds rather like "stick in the mud," and is used with something of the same modest embarrassment as is the faintly insulting "homebody."  It seems to describe somebody who lacks the imagination to do anything other than stay at home.  I'll get to "mom" in a moment.  But the first thing to note is the assumption that everybody automatically has a "home" to stay at or not to stay at, that being the question.  Really?  I guess everybody has a house, but a home is a different thing.  When I was a graduate student I slept in a dormitory room, and then I shared a house with a couple of guys, and then I rented a house by myself, but in no case did I live in a home.  Home was where I went for a while when school was out.  The young woman does not, in fact, "stay" at a home that preexisted her decision not to leave it.  Her dwelling there has made it a home.  It's an old fashioned way to look at it, I know, but haven't we all been invited into plenty of houses that are as sterile and as un-homely as a hospital, or a faculty lounge, or a waiting room at a brokerage firm, with standard prints on the walls and silk flowers on the table? Then there's that word, stripped of reverence and of deep ontological significance, "mom".  It's affectionate, but for that very reason it shouldn't be used among strangers -- unless the point is that we don't take it seriously.  My children call me Daddy, but I don't go around calling myself a daddy, because I'm more than that, and so are the other men who have children and take care of them.  They are fathers.  Their wives are mothers.  We are commanded to honor our fathers and mothers.  We may do so within the family by calling them Daddy and Mommy, if the circumstances fit.  We cannot do so by calling ourselves daddies and mommies, unless we are talking baby-talk to toddlers.... Click here to read the rest of this article: What's In a Name?
Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees. ]]> Thu, 8 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3563 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3562
Today, Gardner and Clark evaluate government policies aimed at altering consumption habits. Previously, they discussed increasing food prices and whether global trends in overall supply and demand portend a coming era of scarcity. Later in the week, they'll debate the emergence of China and India as major resource consumers and more. Managing our "full world"
By Gary Gardner Commentators have noted that a gas-tax holiday would encourage the use of gasoline, a vital resource. True enough. Less noted is that the proposal would also further stress the atmosphere -- another vital resource because of its central role in regulating our climate. The proposals by John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton would, in sum, mismanage at least two precious resources. In a "full world" characterized by greater competition over resources (see my Monday post), the United States needs leadership that understands the value of the planet's natural endowment and works to preserve it. Washington can do many things to conserve resources, starting with exercising its own fiscal and regulatory powers. Imagine our candidates shelving the tax-holiday idea and debating instead how to reshape transportation to provide cleaner and cheaper mobility choices. Subsidies for hybrids? More investment in public transit and less in highways? Inexpensive initiatives such as public bike-rental programs, which are all the rage in Europe? More parking spaces for car-sharing programs? These would help address voters' concerns about expensive transport, acknowledge a shift to an era of more expensive driving and conserve oil and healthy atmospheric space in the process. Governments can also shape markets to conserve resources. Carbon markets like the one created by the European Union harness the efficiency of a market to address the vital environmental goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Water markets can be designed to conserve water and provide for basic needs by allowing an affordable lifeline level of service to all, with escalations in price as demand increases. As demand for finite resources climbs, governments will need to set boundaries for a variety of resource markets, from catching fish to harvesting timber to mining copper....Click here to read the rest of this article: The Right Price to Pollute. Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees.
]]> Thu, 8 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3562 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3561 If when you think of slavery, you imagine a distant, bygone era, ponder this conversation: Florin: That’s not a lot. For one night, I make two hundred Euros off her. . . . She’s very clean. A very nice girl—you won’t have any problems with her. Whatever you say, she will do.”
Skinner: Two thousand seems like a lot.
Florin: No, for two months that’s very inexpensive! The girl is very nice, she is not doing drugs. She is good at what she is doing.
Skinner: How about something else? A trade. A motorcycle—I can see that being about the value.
Florin: A car, maybe. Not a motorcycle. A good car.
Skinner: A Dacia? But only if I’m buying the girl for three months. And the car will come with 50,000 kilometers.
Florin: OK.
Skinner: Could I leave the country with her?
Florin: What if you leave me with my eyes in the sun? [a Gypsy expression for being stood up] I don’t know if you’d be back with her. I need a deposit. But I can get a Romanian passport for her. Investigative reporter E. Benjamin Skinner recorded this conversation with Florin, a pimp in Bucharest. You can listen online, if you have the stomach. In his new book, A Crime So Monstrous: Face-to-Face with Modern-Day Slavery, Florin represents the worst of the worst: selling not only a sex slave but an abused, scared, suicidal girl with Down syndrome out of a sewage-infested store, caring little how much she is beaten and raped. All for less than $2,400. Skinner’s eyes, though only thirty-two, have seen much. According to former assistant secretary of state Richard Holbrooke, Skinner is the first person to observe the sale of human beings on four continents. Skinner’s interest in slavery goes far back. As a boy in Wisconsin, he attended Quaker meetings where he reports learning as much about Harriet Tubman and William Lloyd Garrison as he did about Jesus.... Click here to read the rest of this article: A Crime So Monstrous.Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees.]]> Thu, 8 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3561 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3560 It's time for the annual "American Idol" column, written this year with a heavy heart. Let's not kid ourselves: Something's not right. "Idol" remains, by far, the most powerful force in television. The show is such a ratings behemoth that Fox, for the first time, is likely to finish the season as the nation's most-watched network. Rupert Murdoch must be pleased that his plan for world domination is going so swimmingly. Fox's success comes with an asterisk, since all the broadcast networks have seen their ratings suffer: Viewers drifted away during the long writers' strike and didn't come back. CBS's "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," for example, is down 19 percent. "Idol" is doing comparatively well, but its ratings have slid 7 percent. And there aren't any writers to blame. Granted, any of the other networks would love to be burdened with a "slumping" show that averages an astounding 28.7 million viewers. But once the needle starts pointing south, it's hard to turn things around. This season might not mark the beginning of the end for "Idol," but it certainly looks like the end of the beginning. What's the problem? Theories abound. My pet hypothesis is that viewers have found another reality show they prefer watching. I'm not talking about "Dancing With the Stars" or the utterly incomprehensible "Deal or No Deal." I mean the race for president. Our unfolding pageant of democracy has everything: vivid characters with compelling life stories, frequent opportunities to judge the candidates' performances, do-or-die evenings when your favorite is in peril of being voted off the show.... Click here to read the rest of this article: American Idol and the Presidential Race. Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees.]]> Thu, 8 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3560 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3559 By Gregory Clark and Gary Gardner, Los Angeles Times

Today, Clark and Gardner discuss increasing food prices. Previously, they debated whether global trends in overall supply and demand portend a coming era of scarcity. Later in the week, they'll discuss the emergence of China and India as major resource consumers, government policies aimed at altering consumption habits and more. A minor inconvenience for Americans
By Gregory Clark Undoubtedly, the crazed policy of producing ethanol from Midwest corn -- a policy that saves little fossil fuel because so much oil is used in growing and converting corn to ethanol - contributes to high food prices; so have greater demands from strong income growth in China and India. But much of the recent price spike may be transitory. For U.S. consumers, high food prices are a minor inconvenience; we should actually welcome them. Despite the alarmism and wild runs on 20-pound bags of rice at Costco, higher prices are good. While a catastrophe for the poor of Africa, high food prices are a mere inconvenience for us because we are so rich. As people get richer, the share of their income devoted to the raw materials in food -- as opposed to the preparation and serving of that food by supermarkets and restaurants -- declines to a tiny fraction. The raw materials for food (the amount paid to growers) account for 1.4% of all U.S. purchases. Food prices at the farm double -- so what? Our incomes decline 1.4%. Much more pressing for many Americans is the subprime mortgage crisis and the attendant financial losses on the real estate market. Housing prices nationwide have declined in real terms by 15% since their peak in 2006. That represents a loss of $2.7 trillion in wealth, or about $9,000 per American. Rice costing $1.30 a pound is trivial compared to this upheaval of many lives....Click here to read the rest of this article: Paying More to Eat. Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees.]]> Thu, 8 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3559 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3558 By Wesley J. Smith, Secondhand Smoke

Texas is ground zero for Futile Care Theory because of its pernicious law that permits ethics committees to refuse wanted life-sustaining treatment over patient/family objections. Readers of SHS will recall that when such a decision is rendered, families have a mere 10 days to find alternative care, which can lead to desperate situations, as I have reported on several occasions.

Now there is a new case of a teenage girl named Sabrina Murray whose sinus surgery went terribly wrong, leaving her comatose. From the story in the Houston Press (proving once again that the "alternative" newspapers are doing the best journalism today):

Within about three days of the second surgery, [mother Beatrice] Lopez says, doctors "started talking about our options. And we started getting scared, because the options were not good."

Lopez and [step-father Brian] Murray say that doctors and hospital staff began pressuring them to withhold treatment and feeding, which would ultimately starve Sabrina to death. To the parents, this was unacceptable. They wanted their daughter to live. "I was very disappointed with the way Memorial Hermann handled things," Lopez says. "They put it out on the table that we were being selfish....

Click here to read the rest of this article: A New Futile Care Lawsuit.




Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees.]]> Wed, 7 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3558 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3557 Reader Lorlee Bartos here in Dallas sent me this link to a sobering Mother Jones cover story from a couple of months ago detailing the meaning of the rise of China's economic leviathan for the global environment. Really, read the whole thing. Here are some key excerpts: The catch is that China has become not just the world's manufacturer but also its despoiler, on a scale as monumental as its economic expansion. Chinese ecosystems were already dreadfully compromised before the Communist Party took power in 1949, but Mao managed to accelerate their destruction. With one stroke he launched the "backyard furnace" campaign, in which some 90 million peasants became grassroots steel smelters; to fuel the furnaces, villagers cut down a 10th of China's trees in a few months. The steel ultimately proved unusable. With another stroke, Mao perpetrated the "Kill the Four Pests" campaign, inducing the mass slaughter of millions of sparrows and a subsequent explosion in the locust population. The destruction of forests led to erosion and the spread of deserts, and the locust resurgence prompted a collapse of the nation's grain crop. The result was history's greatest famine, in which 30 to 50 million Chinese died.

Yet the Mao era's ecological devastation pales next to that of China's current industrialization. A fourth of the country is now desert. More than three-fourths of its forests have disappeared. Acid rain falls on a third of China's landmass, tainting soil, water, and food. Excessive use of groundwater has caused land to sink in at least 96 Chinese cities, producing an estimated $12.9 billion in economic losses in Shanghai alone. Each year, uncontrollable underground fires, sometimes triggered by lightning and mining accidents, consume 200 million tons of coal, contributing massively to global warming. A miasma of lead, mercury, sulfur dioxide, and other elements of coal-burning and car exhaust hovers over most Chinese cities; of the world's 20 most polluted cities, 16 are Chinese.... Click here to read the rest of this article: China as Isengard. Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees.]]> Wed, 7 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3557 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3556 Wed, 7 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3556 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3555 By Albert Mohler

A little boy with an extra chromosome was born on April 18. His name is Trig Paxson Van Palin and his new home is the Alaska Governor's Mansion in Juneau. His mom is Governor Sarah Palin, who along with her husband Todd, has welcomed Trig as their second son and fifth child. Governor Palin has already made a mark on the political scene. A high school basketball star and beauty queen, she was elected Alaska's governor in 2006. She is often mentioned as a potential running mate for Sen. John McCain. The Palins' other children include Track, their oldest son, who now serves in the U.S. Army. They also have three daughters, Bristol, Willow, and Piper. Trig made news long before he was born, as Alaska's citizens learned that their governor was pregnant. Then, for the Palins, the story got more complicated. This past December, Sarah Palin was told that her baby was likely to have Down syndrome -- just one extra chromosome.... Click here to read the rest of this article: Welcome to the World, Trig Paxson Van Palin.


Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees.]]> Wed, 7 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3555 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3554 By Kelli Schaffner, Politico

Robin Atchley, a mother of four in Ballground, Ga., said her son offered to give up his lunch money so she and her husband could make the mortgage payments.

Needless to say they didn't let him. The family sold their house last year so they wouldn't be foreclosed.

UI law Associate Professor Katie Porter met with Atchley and the U.S. Senate subcommittee of administrative oversight and the courts to discuss current problems with mortgage loans and the servicers that provide them.

She was one of four witnesses to discuss what needs to be done about lack of conversation between borrowers and servicers.

The subcommittee invited Porter to the hearing because of her work on mortgage-servicing companies. She completed a study last fall in which she found unreasonable discrepancies between what mortgage servicers, or lenders collecting payment from homeowners, were charging borrowers and what the borrowers thought they had to pay.

"[We've had] too many horror stories, too many investigations, too many sanctions for us to simply take the word of company spokesmen that says 'mistakes were made,' " Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said during the hearing....

Click here to read the rest of this article: Prof Tells Senate Panel About Mortgage Bills.




Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees.]]> Wed, 7 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3554 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3553 By Stephen H. Webb, First Things
Christians believe that God became human in Jesus Christ. If so, it follows that there is something called humanity. That is, humans have a nature, a shared or common nature. Human nature is not just a social construction. Human nature is real. And if it is real, then it is the same everywhere and at every time. It is, in a word, universal. The idea that human nature is universal might seem simple to you, and it is. All true ideas are simple, because anyone can grasp them. Yet, believe it or not, you are about to enter a world that treats the idea of a universal human nature as simple-minded foolishness. The really sad thing is that your professors will not try to complicate this idea. To complicate an idea, you have to first take it seriously. Rather than argue about this idea, most of your professors will simply ignore it. You see, the idea of a universal human nature is contrary to everything most professors, at least in the humanities, believe. And that makes it one of the most radical ideas you can hold as a student. The central dogma of higher education goes by many names, but its basic thrust is as easy to grasp as it is hard to miss. Whether it is called multiculturalism, social constructionism, or left-leaning liberalism, the bottom line is that higher education in America these days promotes cultural relativism. Colleges do not advertise this fact for obvious reasons, but look closely at what they say in their promotional literature. Colleges talk about broadening your perspective, expanding your horizons, and offering you new experiences, but they do not talk about teaching you how to make moral judgments, how to distinguish the beautiful from the ugly, and how to seek the truth. That is because secular liberal-arts colleges and public universities do not believe you should make moral judgments, contemplate the beautiful, or acknowledge universal truths. And they don’t believe these things because they do not believe there is something called human nature... Click here to read the rest of this article: Christ against the Multiculturalists.






Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees.]]> Tue, 6 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3553 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3552 Editorial in the New York Times

A chilling article by Nina Bernstein in The Times on Monday recounted the secrecy, neglect and lack of oversight that are a few of the shameful symptoms of the booming sector of the nation’s prison industry — the detention of undocumented foreigners.
Ms. Bernstein chronicled the death of Boubacar Bah, a tailor from Guinea who was imprisoned in New Jersey for overstaying a tourist visa. He fell and fractured his skull in the Elizabeth Detention Center early last year. Though clearly gravely injured, Mr. Bah was shackled and taken to a disciplinary cell. He was left alone — unconscious and occasionally foaming at the mouth — for more than 13 hours. He was eventually taken to the hospital and died after four months in a coma. Nobody told Mr. Bah’s relatives until five days after his fall. When they finally found him, he was on life support, soon to become one of the 66 immigrants known to have died in federal custody between 2004 and 2007. Mr. Bah’s family still does not know the full story of when or how he suffered his fatal injuries. It is shameful, though hardly a surprise, that they remain in the dark. There is no public system for tracking deaths in immigration custody, no requirement for independent investigations. Relatives and lawyers who want to unearth details of such tragedies have found the bureaucracy unresponsive and hostile. In the case of Mr. Bah, records were marked “proprietary information — not for distribution” by the Corrections Corporation of America, a private company that runs the Elizabeth Detention Center and many others under contract with the federal government... Click here to read the rest of this article: Death by Detention.







Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees.]]> Tue, 6 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3552 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3551 By Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek
Americans are glum at the moment. No, I mean really glum. In April, a new poll revealed that 81 percent of the American people believe that the country is on the "wrong track." In the 25 years that pollsters have asked this question, last month's response was by far the most negative. Other polls, asking similar questions, found levels of gloom that were even more alarming, often at 30- and 40-year highs. There are reasons to be pessimistic—a financial panic and looming recession, a seemingly endless war in , and the ongoing threat of terrorism. But the facts on the ground—unemployment numbers, foreclosure rates, deaths from terror attacks—are simply not dire enough to explain the present atmosphere of malaise. American anxiety springs from something much deeper, a sense that large and disruptive forces are coursing through the world. In almost every industry, in every aspect of life, it feels like the patterns of the past are being scrambled. "Whirl is king, having driven out Zeus," wrote Aristophanes 2,400 years ago. And—for the first time in living memory—the does not seem to be leading the charge. Americans see that a new world is coming into being, but fear it is one being shaped in distant lands and by foreign people. Look around. The world's tallest building is in Taipei, and will soon be in Dubai. Its largest publicly traded company is in Beijing. Its biggest refinery is being constructed in . Its largest passenger airplane is built in Europe. The largest investment fund on the planet is in Abu Dhabi; the biggest movie industry is Bollywood, not Hollywood. Once quintessentially American icons have been usurped by the natives. The largest Ferris wheel is in . The largest casino is in Macao, which overtook Las Vegas in gambling revenues last year. no longer dominates even its favorite sport, shopping. The Mall of America in Minnesota once boasted that it was the largest shopping mall in the world. Today it wouldn't make the top ten. In the most recent rankings, only two of the world's ten richest people are American. These lists are arbitrary and a bit silly, but consider that only ten years ago, the would have serenely topped almost every one of these categories. These factoids reflect a seismic shift in power and attitudes. It is one that I sense when I travel around the world. In , we are still debating the nature and extent of anti-Americanism. One side says that the problem is real and worrying and that we must woo the world back. The other says this is the inevitable price of power and that many of these countries are envious—and vaguely French—so we can safely ignore their griping. But while we argue over why they hate us, "they" have moved on, and are now far more interested in other, more dynamic parts of the globe. The world has shifted from anti-Americanism to post-Americanism… Click here to read the rest of this article: The Rise of the Rest.









Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees.]]> Tue, 6 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3551 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3550 By Kevin Phillips, American Prospect
As of spring 2008, we're probably just a third of the way through the unfolding debacle in the housing, credit, and financial markets. In political and regulatory terms, the ultimate problems and remedies have only begun to define themselves. We're not just looking at an ordinary recession. Since the 1970s, the United States has redefined itself from a manufacturing nation to a financial economy built on debt, leverage, and a considerable ratio of speculation. Both political parties have been complicit in this, and the downturn now beginning will be unusual and potentially tragic. The case being made in some reform-minded and progressive circles -- that we are on the cusp of a grand political, ideological, and pro-regulatory opening such as that of 1933 -- has some logic but also merits a considerable amount of economic and historical caution. The plausible analogies deserve a quick run-through. To begin with, there is the prospect that, over the next few years, the largest credit bubble since the Roaring Twenties is going to unwind with at least some of the angst and pain of the Depression years. In 2007, total credit-market debt in the U.S. reached almost 340 percent of gross domestic product, far above the previous high-water mark of 287 percent a few years after 1929. Second, it is also becoming likely that the 2006?2010 decline in U.S. home prices will be the largest in three-quarters of a century. However, there are also good economic reasons why the analogy should not be overindulged; today's U.S. political economy is quite different from that of 70 years ago in several ways. First, whereas the 1929 crash came in the wake of three to four years of strongly deflationary trends in the global commodity markets, today's international economy is caught up in what appear to be major inflationary pressures in global agricultural and energy prices. In its panic over deflation, today's Federal Reserve may be more likely to err in the direction of feeding inflation... Click here to read the rest of this article: Bubble and Bail.







Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees.]]> Tue, 6 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3550 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3549 By Gary MacDougal, Washington Post
It is easy to be outraged by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's abhorrent remarks, whether accusing our country of willfully spreading AIDS or being deserving of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. And, yes, Sen. Barack Obama should have spoken out forcefully much sooner than this week. But Wright has done more, and worse, than tarnish Obama's presidential campaign. Consider the corrosive effect Wright and others like him have on their communities as they rob thousands of listeners of the American dream: hope that through their hard work they can have better lives. Imagine getting up each morning to go to work in a society that doesn't want you, doesn't respect you and seeks to hold you back. Your spiritual leader has told you this, after all. With powerful rhetoric, Wright has asserted, for instance, that white sees black women as useful only for their bodies. If this is the message you got from your mentor, would you expect that you could succeed? Would you try very hard, if at all? Through my work with the Illinois governor's task force on human services reform and its efforts to reduce welfare dependency, I have encountered misguided community "leaders" like Wright who tell their followers, for example, that the job market is stacked against them and that the jobs that are available aren't good enough -- that they are entitled to more. The underlying message: You can't win because of who you are, regardless of what you do… Click here to read the rest of this article: Jeremiah Wright's Wider Toll.









Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees.]]> Tue, 6 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3549 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3548 By Logan Paul Gage, First Things
If when you think of slavery, you imagine a distant, bygone era, ponder this conversation: Florin: That’s not a lot. For one night, I make two hundred Euros off her. . . . She’s very clean. A very nice girl—you won’t have any problems with her. Whatever you say, she will do.”
Skinner: Two thousand seems like a lot.
Florin: No, for two months that’s very inexpensive! The girl is very nice, she is not doing drugs. She is good at what she is doing.
Skinner: How about something else? A trade. A motorcycle—I can see that being about the value.
Florin: A car, maybe. Not a motorcycle. A good car.
Skinner: A Dacia? But only if I’m buying the girl for three months. And the car will come with 50,000 kilometers.
Florin: OK.
Skinner: Could I leave the country with her?
Florin: What if you leave me with my eyes in the sun? [a Gypsy expression for being stood up] I don’t know if you’d be back with her. I need a deposit. But I can get a Romanian passport for her. Investigative reporter E. Benjamin Skinner recorded this conversation with Florin, a pimp in Bucharest. You can listen online, if you have the stomach. In his new book, A Crime So Monstrous: Face-to-Face with Modern-Day Slavery, Florin represents the worst of the worst: selling not only a sex slave but an abused, scared, suicidal girl with Down syndrome out of a sewage-infested store, caring little how much she is beaten and raped. All for less than $2,400. Skinner’s eyes, though only thirty-two, have seen much. According to former assistant secretary of state Richard Holbrooke, Skinner is the first person to observe the sale of human beings on four continents. Skinner’s interest in slavery goes far back. As a boy in Wisconsin, he attended Quaker meetings where he reports learning as much about Harriet Tubman and William Lloyd Garrison as he did about Jesus. A conversation with Walter Russell Mead prompted Skinner’s five-year exploration culminating in this book—at once a portrait of slavery today, a history of recent U.S. abolition efforts, and a critique of the antislavery lobby. According to the State Department, more than 800,000 people (two-thirds are women and children) are trafficked across national borders, and millions within national borders, annually. But what does slavery mean today? Skinner insists upon the following tripartite definition: “A slave is a human being who is forced to work through fraud or threat of violence for no pay beyond subsistence.” Skinner first paints a portrait of modern slave experience, and along the way we hear some gruesome tales… Click here to read the rest of this article: A Crime So Monstrous.







Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees.]]> Mon, 5 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3548 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3547 By William Saletan, Slate
Five months ago, I wrote a series on race, genes, and intelligence. Everything about it hurt: the research, the writing, the reactions, the regrets. Not a day has gone by that I haven't thought about it. I've been struggling to reconcile two feelings that won't go away: that what I wrote was socially harmful, and that I can't honestly renounce the evidence I presented. That evidence, which involved the proposed role of heredity in trait differences by race, is by no means complete or conclusive. But it's not dismissible, either. My colleague Stephen Metcalf summarized the debate better than I did: "It's a conflict between science and science." When you find yourself in a dilemma this difficult, sometimes the best thing to do is let it sit in your head until you find a way to make sense of it within your value system. I think I'm beginning to find the answer that works for me: I was asking the wrong question. In last fall's series, I asked myself why I was writing about such an ugly topic. "Because the truth isn't as bad as our ignorant, half-formed fears and suspicions about it," I concluded. "And because you can't solve a problem till you understand it." I wrote my commitment on a piece of paper and leaned it against my computer monitor: The truth doesn't care what you want. Sometimes, with time and perspective, it's the small, overlooked things that turn out to be big. In retrospect, I was consumed by the wrong word. The flaw in my approach wasn't truth. It was the. Even if hereditary inequality among racial averages is a truth, it's less true, more unjust, and more pernicious than framing the same difference in non-racial terms. "The truth," as I accepted and framed it, was itself half-formed. It was, in that sense, a half-truth. And it flunked the practical test I had assigned it: To the extent that a social problem is genetic, you can't ultimately solve it by understanding it in racial terms. A study published two weeks ago in Nature Medicine illustrates the point. Gina Kolata of the New York Times explains what happened: Doctors who treat patients with heart failure have long been puzzled by a peculiar observation. Many black patients seem to do just as well if they take a mainstay of therapy, a class of drugs called beta blockers, as if they do not. [Now researchers] have discovered why: these nonresponsive patients have a slightly altered version of a gene that muscles use to control responses to nerve signals. … As many as 40 percent of blacks and 2 percent of whites have the gene variant, the researchers report. The findings, heart failure specialists say, mean that people with the altered gene might be spared taking what may be, for them, a useless therapy. In other words, racial observation turned out to be a temporary step toward a deeper genetic explanation. Most blacks don't have the altered gene, and some whites do. Given these findings, prescribing or not prescribing beta blockers based on race rather than genes would be malpractice… Click here to read the rest of this article: Not Black and White.








Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees.]]> Mon, 5 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3547 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3546 By Eve Conant and Richard Wolffe, Newsweek
Tim Roemer is a gifted salesman working a tough territory. For weeks, the former Indiana congressman has been crisscrossing primary states trying to convince Roman Catholic voters that Barack Obama is their man. Just a few months ago, there were plenty of takers. Obama beat Hillary Clinton among Catholics in Louisiana and Virginia and tied her in Wisconsin. But in more recent primaries, Catholics have decisively turned away from him. In Ohio, exit polls showed that 65 percent backed Clinton. In Pennsylvania, Clinton won 70 percent of the Catholic vote. What's going on here? "The short answer is, I don't know," says Roemer, who has spent hours quizzing Catholics at rallies and town-hall meetings. One possibility: Obama's ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. Roemer says that, like other voters, the Catholics he meets mostly want to talk about what the candidate will do about the economy, gas prices and the mess in Iraq. But Wright comes up often, especially now. Working Indiana voters, Roemer was asked repeatedly about the Chicago brought the September 11 attacks on itself, and saying government scientists may have invented HIV as a weapon to use against minorities. preacher. Last Monday, Wright reignited the controversy over his incendiary sermons. He gave two widely televised speeches in which he expanded on some of his more paranoid rants—charging that Roemer says voters usually want to know: does Obama believe this stuff? "They will ask, 'What is this guy's relationship to Obama?' " Roemer's ready answer is tailored specifically for his audience: "I say, 'Look, we can relate. We Catholics have had scandals in our own church recently, and not everyone who is Catholic is going out and abandoning the church. We know how unfair it is to associate all churchgoers with problems that are not their doing'." That's a pretty good comeback, but Roemer, and Obama, know it isn't going to be enough to win over the many voters—especially white, blue-collar men and women—who still have doubts about Obama's faith and American "values." The latest NEWSWEEK Poll found that 13 percent of Americans believe Obama, who is a churchgoing Christian, is Muslim. Another 26 percent couldn't identify his religion. Numbers like this—and distractions like Wright—are frustrating for Obama, who envisions himself as the only candidate who can bridge the divide between secular liberals and religious conservatives and recast the Democrats as a party that welcomes the faithful. In his speech to the Democratic National Convention in 2004, he spoke of worshiping an "awesome God in the Blue States." In a video address the campaign shows to faith voters, Obama says that by working together to help those in need, "we'll be doing God's work here on earth”… Click here to read the rest of this article: Obama's New Gospel.









Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees.]]> Mon, 5 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3546 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3545 By Damon Linker, New Republic
Who would now deny that the political ascendancy of the religious right has been bad for the United States? Its destructive consequences are plain for all to see. It has polarized the nation. It has injected theological certainties into public life. It has led political leaders to invest their aims and their deeds with metaphysical significance. It has made America a laughingstock in the eyes of the educated of the world. And it has encouraged devout believers to think of themselves as agents of the divine, and their political opponents as enemies of God. So much for the political damage. What about the consequences for religion itself? The strongest arguments for separating church and state--including the classic ones advanced in the writings of John Locke, accepted by America's constitutional framers, and codified in the First Amendment--have always emphasized that separation benefits religion as well as politics. The secular political order of the United States not only helps to ensure the perseverance of limited government; it also permits religion to thrive, uncorrupted by political ambition and petty partisanship. While the shelves of our bookstores sag under the weight of tracts arguing the political case for church-state separation, surprisingly few authors have undertaken the task of reminding us, in light of the Bush administration's faith-based policies, why religious believers should think twice before plunging into partisan politics. Until recently, David Kuo's Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction was the only prominent example. A deeply pious evangelical, Kuo was brought on board by the Bush administration to oversee the implementation of the president's program in Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. He quickly discovered that his high hopes for synthesizing religion and politics would be disappointed. Not only did Bush show little interest in fighting for the chronically under-funded program in Congress, but high-level White House staffers repeatedly expressed contempt for the evangelicals who were the president's strongest supporters. In Kuo's view, the faith of devout Christians had been manipulated by the Bush administration for the sake of political gain. Kuo himself was so certain--and so ashamed--of such manipulation that he concluded his book with the suggestion that evangelicals refrain from political engagement for two years as an act of penance for their recent overindulgence in power politics. The gimmicky arbitrariness of the proposal--why not four years of penance? why not six months?--told readers all they needed to know about Kuo's intellectual and spiritual depth. Like so many of the evangelicals tapped by the Bush administration to serve in high-level positions throughout the executive branch, he was a well-intentioned nice guy, eager to do good deeds in the name of his faith. As for thoughtful reflection on the deeper questions raised by his political engagement, his sincere but mildly ridiculous book made it clear that such a reckoning was beyond him... Click here to read the rest of this article: The Idolatry of America.









Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees.]]> Mon, 5 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3545 http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3544 By Wesley J. Smith, The Weekly Standard
You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being seriously debated. A few years ago the Swiss added to their national constitution a provision requiring "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms." No one knew exactly what it meant, so they asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology to figure it out. The resulting report, "The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants," is enough to short circuit the brain. A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric" moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover, that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily." The committee offered this illustration: A farmer mows his field (apparently an acceptable action, perhaps because the hay is intended to feed the farmer's herd--the report doesn't say). But then, while walking home, he casually "decapitates" some wildflowers with his scythe. The panel decries this act as immoral, though its members can't agree why… Click here to read the rest of this article: The Silent Screams of the Asparagus.









Every day, the Center for a Just Society compiles interesting and timely articles from around the web and makes them available to our readers as the "Word on the Street."  These articles are intended to encourage discussion and reflection about faith, law, and policy.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society, or any of its employees.]]> Mon, 5 May 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?nav=publications&pr=3544