Bill of Rights? We have that somewhere...

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has overruled three lower courts’ decision, by permitting federal investigators to use names and urine samples of MLB players who tested positive for steroids. The tests were done in 2003 in an effort by MLB to determine the breadth of its steroid problem before implementing its current testing policy.

It seems to me that for federal agents to be given the right to these results is a gross invasion of privacy.

Now don’t get me wrong. If I’m involved in illegal activity with my friend, and I don’t suspect the authorities will force my friend to divulge what he knows, but later the authorities have probable cause to subpoena my friend, that is completely legit.

That is exactly the case with federal agents and the drug results of baseball players for whom they have probable cause, namely Barry Bonds. Clearly the government has probable cause that Bonds, and perhaps some others, have been juicing. It’s totally valid for these players to have their results individually taken.

But what about Mike Matheny and Geoff Jenkins and Juan Uribe and the other 749 Major League players for whom there is no probable cause of drug use? Sounds like a 4th amendment violation to me.

Then again, every time I see “9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals” in text, I generally expect some completely stupid decision to come forth.

Sustaining a Baseball Team

The New York Yankees are looking to trade Randy Johnson. Johnson, a 5 time Cy Young Award Winner, is in the final year of a $33 million contract, offered to him upon being traded to New York before 2005.

Past his prime, it’s possible that he’s been worth half of that contract since coming to New York.

The owner of the Yankees, George Steinbrenner, has had a throw-money-at-the-team-and-hope-a-World-Series-sticks philosophy, since ending a run of World series success in 2001. While it’s true that free agency can be an important ingredient to a team’s success, teams are not built by throwing money around.

I would argue our present time does the same thing, throw-money-at-a-problem-and-hope-a-solution-shows-up, with regard to public education, zoning, poverty, drugs, etc., etc. You might say Steinbrenner's method is all too American.

We are, after all, talking about human beings. The elements of chemistry and corroboration can’t be purchased; they must be developed. That takes time.

One of the tenets of the crunchy con manifesto: “Beauty if more important than efficiency.” It’s more effective and sustainable, too.

Culture of Death Rears its Ugly Head

The high court in Iraq has decreed that Saddam Hussein must be executed within 30 days.

Assuming that the Iraqi government has the means and wherewithal to properly secure Saddam from the outside world, which it does by employing internationally based prisons, this is an absolute crock.

Yes, I know, the evidence is overwhelming. Capital punishment is perfect punishment, I get that too. In fact, perhaps Iraq should be praised for employing a swift measure to punish the guilty.

There are two problems with executing Saddam. First, if a country can secure its people safely without capital punishment, it ought to. Second, if the accused is to be sentenced to die, they are owed a fair trial. Saddam’s didn’t come close.

His entire government-appointed defense team was whacked during the trial. Your 2-year old US-implemented Iraqi government was charged with trying him; not an international tribunal (a la the Nazis or Milosevic). There is no requirement that the accused be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Iraq (although if anyone has reasonable doubt...). Finally, with multiple political factions arguing over the court’s control, would anyone like to argue as to its impartiality?

I am certain that the Iraqi people could be secured by permanently jailing Saddam outside of Iraq in international prison.

Where the safety of a community can be assured without capital punishment - basically everywhere except for extremely rural, tribal culture – it is wrong.

No, I don’t like Saddam, or any serial criminal. That doesn’t excuse us, though, from our responsibility to promote maximum virtue where possible. If killing is wrong, we shouldn't kill killers.

Where Faith and Prudence Prevail

Libertarianism as a political philosophy essentially states that:
1.) Government is the organization of force,
2.) Force is bad, unless it’s intended for the protection of basic civil liberties,
3.) Therefore the government should be teeny tiny.

For as long as I’ve thought about politics, I’ve basically accepted that argument. “That which governs least governs best,” says Thoreau. I still accept that means of progress that do not incorporate force of neighbor should be preferred to all others.

In a fallen world, though, is that always possible? If a builder uses bad material, and threatens the safety of future tenants, is the threat of lawsuit or future lost sales sufficient to direct the builder toward doing the project correctly? The pure libertarian will say yes, as the market will eventually persuade -- not force – participants to the end of progress.

When can we safely say that it’s not worth it to learn lessons the hard way? Where does faith in our neighbor to act virtuously stop? And maybe more importantly, where does prudence – the realization that we live in a fallen world and that sometimes people don’t always act virtuously - start?

I think prudence starts the minute that it doesn’t cost us hope. I have a wife and a child, with a second on the way. I have full faith that God will provide for my family if I were to die. Still, a prudent person in my situation would get some life insurance. Does that cost me the hope of living beyond when I’ll need it? I don’t think it does. What if I broke the bank paying premiums attempting to get a $10 million death benefit? Well, at that point, I’d be hoping to die.

So I guess in a roundabout way, I shouldn’t ever have to choose between virtues, but they should always complement one another. As for the use of force? That question may have to remain unanswered for a bit longer, unless you have some thoughts…? But we’re on our way…

Looking Forward to Laboring

My wife and I are taking a tour of the Madison Birthing Center tonight. We’re about 30 weeks along with number two.

(If you've never had a baby before, you usually have the chance to tour your birthing facility beforehand.)

Our first child, Mary, was born in Dodgeville at Upland Hills Health. Why there? Well, it’s out of where our primary care physician worked, and our health insurance at the time offered us two local hospitals. We weren’t displeased, though MBC would have been our first choice; it wasn’t one of the options.

New job, new health coverage, and now MBC is in our plan. What’s the difference?
Well, “Birth Center care is based on the simple and powerful belief that pregnancy and childbirth are normal processes in the lives of women and families….Each Madison Birth Center client is assisted during and after the birth of her baby by a Certified Nurse-Midwife who is well known to her. The midwife will stay with her throughout labor, providing both physical and emotional labor support… Women are encouraged to move around in labor, eat and drink freely, and assume whatever position they choose during birth, including water birth.”

Hospitals tend to view pregnancy and labor as a medical condition. Birthing centers view it as a natural process. Hospitals will very often leave a mother alone during labor, at least until pushing starts; to have a nurse-midwife with you for hours on end really is awesome. Some doctors aren’t to big on mom doing anything but laying down during labor; a birthing center will let you walk around and take a bath, if you like.

What irks me, though, is just how often most major insurance plans don’t cover a birthing center birth. It seems to me that it would make good financial sense. If I were a health insurer, would I rather pay a $4,000 claim at Upland Hills for a standard hospital birth, or a $2,000 claim at MBC for a birthing center birth? The child can only be born once; it’s not like the insurance company would have to pay the claim multiple times.

(By the way, our care at Upland Hills was excellent.)

Eventually, parents and insurers will see the light, and move toward more natural methods of delivery. Until then, we’ll just be ahead of the curve and enjoy labor.

It's Conservative to be Conservative

NEWSWEEK had an interview recently with Reverend Richard Cizik, a lobbyist on behalf of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Rev. Cizik, you see, is lobbying the government to act against global warming. It seems conservatives of the non-crunchy variety in the NAE are a bit skeptical as to either the validity of global warming, or removing the focus of their lobbying efforts from gay marriage and abortion.

Is all of the research in support of global warming of total scientific validity? No, clearly not. But even if one will suggest that evidence on the global warming issue is inconclusive, the costs of being wrong are far too great to not take the crisis seriously. More importantly, though, just because mainstream Republicans don’t want to cave political footing to Democrats doesn’t mean we’re excused from our responsibility to God and to future generations to steward the environment properly.

To come full circle here, where love is a selfless gift expecting nothing in return, consider present-day environmental conservation a loving act to God and future generations.

Eventually, the Christian Right will get on board with environmental stewardship. When that happens, my guess is that the GOP will wake up, coin a new term for the umbrella of environmental concern, and then knee-jerk environmental legislation through that would have been more effective had it passed 20 years ago.

In the meantime, build for yourself an individual world where your dependence on energy is only at a necessary level, sustainable long-term.

My Introduction

My mother gave me a book for my recent birthday. Crunchy Cons, by Rod Dreher details “How Birkenstocked Burkeans, gun-loving organic gardeners, evangelical free-range farmers, hip homeschooling mamas, right-wing nature lovers, and their diverse tribe of countercultural conservatives plan to save America (or at least the Republican Party).”

In essence, Crunchy is used as a synonym for that which favors culture, sustainability, and the environment, over politics, efficiency, and progress. The classic GOP apologist tends to be subservient to the free market god, culture be damned. While I gladly buy that capitalism is the way to go on the question of economic organization, capitalism isn’t the cure for our social ills. The cure for what ails us as a species will have a cultural root, not an economic or political one. Herein lies the basis for Dreher’s book.

(I’d recommend anyone with a sociopolitical pulse to read the book. Only the most closed-minded of conservative or materialist of liberal will openly object to the tenets of crunchy conservatism. That’s ok by me, those are the two ugliest sectors of either school of thought).

(By the way, I am a fan of libertarian philosophy, and now I'm a sociopolitical crunchy conservative. It's true I tend to vote with the GOP, but to call me a Republican would be unfair. To call be a Republican apologist would be outright incorrect.)

A “culture of life” is often confused with a society in which Roe V Wade has been overturned. That's a gross oversimplification. While I feel that abortion is morally wrong, the end in mind for the pro-life camp shouldn’t be solely the banning of abortion, but rather a society where abortion is universally unnecessary. (Yes, I’m referencing Bill Clinton). That is the true meaning of a 'culture of life'; only the most evil sector of the pro-choice camp is going to disagree with me on this one. Again, the solution to what ails us is cultural, not political or economic.

If the importance of something called “collective virtue” is foreign to you, perhaps you missed that whole ‘having a conscience' thing. What we as a nation often don’t realize, though, are the small subtle ways in which we ignore love of neighbor in our daily lives. I’m no exception, but a little bit of introspection from us all may go far to give us a heightened culture of collective virtue. To quote Saint Thomas More, “[in the end] it isn’t a matter of reason…it’s a matter of love.”