John Paul is a Kantian

"Our position against the use of human embryos is rooted as much in reason as it is in faith," according to the Rev. Frank Pavone, who heads the Catholic pro-life group Priests for Life. "What the pope is saying is that reason itself tells us that, just as you can't use a human person by enslaving him or her, neither can you use a much smaller, younger human person for the purposes of research." (link)

President Bush and Faith

The Washington Times has a feature on the role of religion in President Bush's life. The President was about as articulate as usual, but I think I understood a couple of pretty ridiculous suggestions anyway. Some quotations:

"I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you're not equally as patriotic if you're not a religious person," Mr. Bush said. "I've never said that. I've never acted like that. I think that's just the way it is."

This would be really funny if that's what he really meant to say. "I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that p. Also: p." But probably there's another more cumbersome, more charitable interpretation available. But for this one, I think the absurd reading is the only one available:

"This is a country that is a value-based country," he said. "Whether they voted for you or not, there's a lot of values in this country, for which I'm real proud."

Yeah... it doesn't matter whether they're good values or not; as long as there are values, this is a great country. I'm pretty sure terrorists have 'values' in this sense, too -- and they probably hold them a lot more strongly than most Americans hold thiers.

Infant Mortality as a National Security Issue

God, lots of interesting stuff to write about today. First: Nicholas Kristof writes in the New York Times today about the U.S. infant mortality rate. Apparently, it's been rising; Kristof dramatically points out that it's now higher than Cuba's. He considers this to be unacceptable, and so do I: the fact that other countries are so much better than we are in that respect is evidence that we could also be better, and therefore we should. But I find some of Kristof's rhetoric surprising. I think he may be taking things a little too far. He writes:

If we had a rate as good as Singapore's, we would save 18,900 babies each year. Or to put it another way, our policy failures in Iraq may be killing Americans at a rate of about 800 a year, but our health care failures at home are resulting in incomparably more deaths - of infants. And their mothers, because women are 70 percent more likely to die in childbirth in America than in Europe. Of course, deaths in maternity wards occur one by one, and don't generate the national attention, grief and alarm of an explosion in Falluja or a tsunami in Sri Lanka. But they are far more frequent: every day, on average, 77 babies die in the U.S. and one woman dies in childbirth. Bolstering public health isn't as dramatic as spending $300 million for a single F/A-22 Raptor fighter jet, but it can be a far more efficient way of protecting Americans.

Apparently Kristof thinks that 'protecting Americans' means something like 'minimizing the number of deaths of Americans'. But I just don't see why this should be so. Isn't it worse for an adult to be killed than it is for an infant to die of natural causes? If you have the resources to either (1) save the life of an American soldier who has been injured in combat or (2) prevent two infants from dying of natural causes within their first year, shouldn't you pick the former? Infant mortality is bad. When a young child dies, it is a tragedy. But I think it's a mistake to spin this as a national security issue.

Save money; buy used

The Amazon.com Marketplace is great for used books; I buy a good portion of my textbooks there, and I sell there too. But I think that this just might be a case of extending a good idea too far.

Utterly shocking rhetoric

Missouri Representative Cynthia Davis last month:

It's like when the hijackers took over those four planes on Sept. 11 and took people to a place where they didn't want to go. I think a lot of people feel that liberals have taken our country somewhere we don't want to go. I think a lot more people realize this is our country and we're going to take it back.

Apparently, she was quoted in the New York Times at the time, but I missed it. I read it today on Salon.

American Tsunami Relief

CNN reports that 70% of Americans report having prayed for tsunami victims, and 44% report having donated money. 44% is a smaller number than I'd like to see, of course, but it's a larger number than I'd've expected. Almost half of Americans donated money? That really is heartening news, if it's true. It reflects that on the whole, we're more compassionate than I'd been under the impression we were. I'm not sure it's true, though. This is the sort of thing I'd expect survey respondants to over-report (like voting). Anyway, if you can, give.

Secret Service bans crosses?

WorldNetDaily reports:

A Christian group is accusing the U.S. Secret Service of religious discrimination and censorship for issuing a memo that bans Christian crosses from the presidential inauguration parade later this month. Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Washington, D.C.-based Christian Defense Coalition, contends the Secret Service has "trampled the First Amendment and crushed religious freedom in the public square." "Simply put, it is religious bigotry and censorship," he said. "It is even more troubling when one realizes that it is only Christian symbols that have been excluded from the inauguration parade."

Confused? I was. Read on:

Tom Mazur, spokesman for the Secret Service, told WorldNetDaily the prohibition is simply a security matter that has nothing to do with the religious nature of the cross. "The reference to the cross is strictly in regard to structure, certainly not the symbol," he said. "There is no prohibition based on content, only structure or materials that could be used in a potentially harmful or threatening manner." ... The Secret Service memo says, in part:

With respect to signs and placards, the Secret Service would ask that these items be limited to items made of cardboard, poster board or cloth and have dimensions no greater than three feet in width, twenty feet in length and one-quarter inch thickness. As noted above, we are asking that supports for signs and placards be prohibited as these items may be used as a means of concealing weapons or as weapons themselves." Additionally, the prohibition on structures includes props, folding chairs, bicycles, displays such as puppets papier mache objects, coffins, crates, crosses, theaters, cages and statues.

Sheesh!