In response to an astute observation by Fred Clark, I’ve created a new bumper sticker on CafeShops/CafePress:

It’s for sale to the public (at no markup).

I heard on the local news this morning that Texas is running a pilot program to identify sex offenders with the “highest level of deviant arousal.” The offender is connected to a bunch of physiological monitors, including one on the shaft of the penis, and his arousal level is measured as he is shown different types of images that might be sexually arousing.
The purpose:

The state says these new tests will help them weed out the low-risk sex offenders, like the 19-year-old who has sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend, from the pedophile who seeks sexual pleasure from children on the playground.
“The folks that show the highest level of deviant arousal are the ones we need to pay the most attention to and contribute the most resources to,” said Siegel.

I’m already uncomfortable with the whole idea that sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated or that they cannot control their actions.
This test, should it be adopted, raises further questions. What about ‘false positives’: men who are incorrectly identified as being aroused by ‘deviant’ images? And to me, it seems there’s a big difference between arousal and acting on that arousal.
We’re letting these people back into society but we’re trying to tell the public that they’re likely to continue their violent behavior. I’m certainly not a fan of locking someone up and throwing away the key, but isn’t one reason for incarceration to remove dangerous people from the general population? If we are so sure they’re so dangerous, why are we letting them out of prison in the first place?

A friend from church forwarded to me this recent New York Times op-ed piece by former Senator, and now ordained Episcopal priest, John Danforth. He characterizes my view of religion and politics very well. One good snippet:

To assert that I am on God’s side and you are not, that only I know God’s will, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God’s kingdom is certain to produce hostility. By contrast, moderate Christians see ourselves, literally, as moderators. Far from claiming to possess God’s truth, we claim only to be imperfect seekers of the truth.

The National Council of Churches issues a call to pursue peace and justice in Iraq. Well put–both the political and social justice parts.

I saw this bumper sticker this morning on a passing car:

If guns are outlawed…Only outlaws will be able to shoot their children accidentally

I grew up in a family that had a lot of guns. I learned to shoot at a young age, had a BB gun, hunted as a teenager. And my dad was big on gun safety: I learned gun safety first thing.
Despite that, I can recall two accidental gun firings in my family: my dad once shot a hole through the garage wall while handling a loaded rifle. And my sister’s first husband kept a loaded shotgun leaning agaist the corner in the closet (OK, that was not so safe). One day, it went off while he was taking something out of the closet. He came pretty close accidentally blowing his own brains out.
So, my point is, I guess, that the bumper sticker is closer to the truth than most people might realize.

In a recent article in the Austin Chronicle, Michael Ventura predicts the impact that rising oil prices will have on American society and America’s relations with other countries. Ventura’s predictions for changes in American society are as controversial as James Howard Kunstler’s, but I think Ventura’s view of how our international relations will change is right on target:

Gas prices can only go up. Oil production is at or near peak capacity. The U.S. must compete for oil with China, the fastest-growing colossus in history. But the U.S. also must borrow $2 billion a day to remain solvent, nearly half of that from China and her neighbors, while they supply most of our manufacturing (“Benson’s Economic and Market Trends,” quoted in Asia Times Online) – so we have no cards to play with China, even militarily. (You can’t war with the bankers who finance your army and the factories that supply your stores.) China now determines oil demand, and the U.S. has no long-term way to influence prices.
…
There’s only one section of our economy that has [the] kind of money [to invest heavily in mass transit and other infrastructure changes]: the military budget. The U.S. now spends more on its military than all other nations combined. A sane transit to a post-automobile America will require a massive shift from military to infrastructure spending. That shift would be supported by our bankers in China and Europe (that is, they would continue to finance our debt) because it’s in their interests that we regain economic viability. What’s not in their interests is that we remain a military superpower.

Ventura recognizes that China (and, to a lesser degree, Japan, South Korea and the larger European countries) hold our future in their hands. So far, it’s been in their best interest to finance our over-extended lifestyle: we fuel their economic growth as the biggest market for their goods. But if something beyond the lenders’ control affects America’s ability to buy their goods–say a serious U.S. economic downturn caused by high oil prices–then at some point, it may no longer be worth their while to continue to finance our debt. At that point, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
I’m convinced that it will happen sometime. The current situation is just not sustainable indefinitely. It’s just a matter of when, how quickly and how severely it reduces our American lifestyles.

The other day, Fred Clark wrote an insightful entry about religious persecution. The thesis of Fred’s post was:

When protected, privileged and pampered American Christians claim to be facing persecution they spit on the wounds of their brothers and sisters elsewhere in the world and in history who have known firsthand what religious persecution really is. They mock not only their fellow Christians in this great cloud of witnesses, but also those of other faiths who have suffered or are, now, today, suffering genuine persecution.

I wanted to blog about Fred’s post, but I really didn’t have anything to add to it. But today, my cousin sent me the following email (redacted for length, emphasis added), and it immediately reminded me of Fred’s post:

DID YOU KNOW? As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world’s law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view: it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!
DID YOU KNOW? As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.
DID YOU KNOW? As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments!
DID YOU KNOW? There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.
…
How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?
…
I was asked to send this on if I agreed or delete if I didn’t. Now it is your turn… It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why there is such a mess about having the Ten Commandments on display or “In God We Trust” on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don’t we just tell the other 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!
If you agree, pass this on.

Talk about tyranny of the persecuted (supposed) majority!
UPDATE: As usual, Snopes.com has a good debunking of the email that my cousin sent.

In this short New Yorker article, James Surowiecki explains why rising oil prices have not thrown the U.S. into recession, and more generally, why oil prices do not necessarily have as big an impact on the economy as people tend to think.
I can follow his reasoning, and on a macroeconomic level, I buy it. But then I look at the effect that rising oil prices has on an average family. In our two-car family, our monthly expenditure on gasoline has gone up by at least $50 in the recently, probably closer to $100. Our income hasn’t risen, so that’s $50-100 that we do not have to save or spend on other things. Considering that every family in the nation is experiencing the same thing, I can’t help but think that this must have some sort of effect on the overall economy.
If it truly isn’t having much of an effect, then it reveals what a load of bull is spewed about tax cuts. I remember when the federal government sent $400/child pre-emptive tax refund checks to families a couple of years ago. This mail-out was heralded as a big stimulant to the economy. If significantly increased gasoline prices doesn’t have much of a negative effect on the economy, then this one-time payout can’t have had much of a positive effect either.

This article in The Nation is pretty depressing:

As in other reconstruction sites, from Haiti to Iraq, tsunami relief has little to do with recovering what was lost. . . The coast is not being rebuilt as it was–dotted with fishing villages and beaches strewn with handmade nets. Instead, governments, corporations and foreign donors are teaming up to rebuild it as they would like it to be: the beaches as playgrounds for tourists, the oceans as watery mines for corporate fishing fleets, both serviced by privatized airports and highways built on borrowed money.
In January Condoleezza Rice sparked a small controversy by describing the tsunami as “a wonderful opportunity” that “has paid great dividends for us.” Many were horrified at the idea of treating a massive human tragedy as a chance to seek advantage. But, if anything, Rice was understating the case. A group calling itself Thailand Tsunami Survivors and Supporters says that for “businessmen-politicians, the tsunami was the answer to their prayers, since it literally wiped these coastal areas clean of the communities which had previously stood in the way of their plans for resorts, hotels, casinos and shrimp farms. To them, all these coastal areas are now open land!”

(Via Approximately Perfect)

Yesterday, I wrote a long entry about health care in the US and an interesting article by Paul Krugman.
The thing is, the US offers the best and the worst health care in the industrialized world. If you have health insurance, you can get very good health care. If not, you probably can only afford very poor health care. The point of socialized health care is evening this out.
The probem is that we probably cannot afford to provide the quality of health care that some receive. We need to create either a system that allows those who can afford it to continue to receive top-notch health care, while raising the minimum quality for everyone else, or a system that evens out health care. But of course, those who already receive top-notch health care are scared to death of the second option, which leads us down the road of classic American individualism: why should I have to sacrifice my own health care for others? It’s a difficult, and costly, dilemma.