The forgotten living, the forgotten dead

I heard an interview on Relevant Radio this morning with Quinn Klinefelter, who authored this article:

Cash-Strapped Cities Struggle To Bury Their Unclaimed Dead

I could easily have glossed over the topic, but pausing a moment, it became heartbreaking to think there are people who are not thought of when they die, who sit waiting for someone to bury them, forgotten in life and in death. Morgues in Detroit and other cities have hundreds of bodies waiting for someone to bury. Cities lack money to bury them. Some new ministries have started up to gather donations to bury unknown or unclaimed dead. At least one funeral home has provided a means for poor families to bury their dead.

Klinefelter said one thing that separates us from the animals is that we bury our dead, in respect for their human dignity. I remembered that Tobit actually risked his life to give the discarded dead a proper burial (Tobit 1:16-20) in defiance of the king of Babylon. The radio host this morning pointed out that Church counts burying the dead as one of the corporal works of mercy. 

It's a sobering thought, but I do not often consider that how we treat the dead is part of our respect for life.

It couldn't happen to a nicer tyrant

Anonymous hacks N. Korea's Twitter, Flickr accounts



As funny and well-deserved as this is, it's disturbing that:
a) A nuclear nation's computer account could be hacked
b) The target is a hotheaded dictator who will punish someone for this, but it won't be  the hackers.

"Anonymous," think about who will suffer from your activities.  You should have hacked Dennis Rodman.

Rice-a-Romney?

I heard on my morning drive that Condi Rice is considered the front-runner for Romney's VP.

The Web is abuzz. They've already printed the shirts. Condi's name was proposed earlier this year, but as of April, she was still saying, "no way," and frankly I expect she'll hold to that.

One one hand, Condi as VP would defuse any absurd claim that voting against Obama is racist or (even more absurd) anti-woman. But would suspicious types view her as a pawn for this reason?

On the other hand, wouldn't you love to see a Rice-Biden debate?

Rice is brilliant, articulate, experienced, and congenial. Her views on abortion could stand to "evolve" a bit more, in my opinion. At this point, I'm doubtful she'll be the VP pick, but the suggestion itself is intriguing.

For better, for worse, in dream or in reality

I dream the strangest things. Sometimes I dream jokes that are still funny when I'm awake, even to other people. (To my wife, at least.)

But last week I dreamed a public policy dream that might even be worth sending to my state representative.

I dreamed that Congress passed a law that the granting of a divorce required the signatures of the officiant and one of the witnesses from the wedding.

This means that if someone wants a divorce, they must contact the clergyman or judge who performed service of marriage, plus at least one of the witnesses who signed the marriage certificate (e.g., Best Man or Maid of Honor), and obtain their signatures on the application for the divorce.

Provisions:
- If the officiant is deceased or for whatever reason no longer performing marriages, the officiant's successor or delegate within the officiating organization may provide a signature.
- If a witness is deceased or incapacitated, inheritance rules apply. If a witness cannot be located, the court may designate a proxy witness. (Note that most divorces happen well within the lifespans of the witnesses. Those who seek divorces late in life will have a harder time.)

The point is that those who profess to regard marriage as more than a legal contract can expect the state to support their beliefs and hold them to them. If marriage participants are not comfortable with the commitments required of the officiating organization, they must find an organization that supports whatever escape clause they want.

In legal terms, this policy prevents one party from wresting control of a legal contract from other stakeholders. In a marriage within the church, those stakeholders include the officiant and witnesses.

It prevents a religiously ambivalent couple from using the church to obtain a marriage and thereafter disregarding its influence.

In colloquial terms, it keeps us all honest. It treats marriage seriously. It causes us as a society to put more thought into both marriage and divorce.

This policy does not weaken the state's power to perform marriages, but inhibits its power to grant divorces to those who marry in the church. It takes nothing from the rights of couples to marry, but places on them the responsibility to carefully choose the organization in which they marry and uphold the rules of that organization. If that organization is the state, "no-fault divorce" remains the option assuming the judge and court witnesses are agreeable. If that organization is a Catholic parish, a legal divorce could not be obtained until an annulment is granted by the Church. A protestant church pastor or other clergyman may grant a divorce under the rules of the given organization.

This does not violate "separation of church and state," but affirms the church has a stake in marriages it performs. It preserves religious freedom by upholding the authority of religious organizations.
It further admonishes the church to prepare applicants for marriage and carefully consider which marriages to perform. It gives legal weight to church marriage.

The state can grant a "no-fault" divorce if the state officiated it, but the state cannot usurp the authority of the church to divide "what God has joined together."

To reiterate, this policy:

- Strengthens the inherent link between a divorce and a wedding.
- Eliminates unilateral ending of a union. (The dissolution of a union involves the parties who participated in it inception.)
- Slows down the divorce process for those who profess a faith that resists divorce
- Affirms religious beliefs of churches and marriage participants
- Allows state and religious organizations to continue to perform marriages, respective of religious beliefs

The bottom line is, if your belief in no-fault divorce is stronger than your belief in the permanence of marriage, don't marry in the church. Or, find a pastor who approves the conditions under which you want to be able to end the marriage. Choose an officiant who reflects your beliefs about marriage, and know that the state will support you in living out those beliefs.

I am interested to hear what others think about this idea. Does it have merit? In my dream, this was a federal law, but I know it should actually be implemented at the state level. (Such details aren't so clear when I'm asleep.)

I wish to point out that I do not support "no-fault divorce." At the very least, couples ought to agree to divorce, but some believe "no-fault divorce" provides a necessary escape from an abusive marriage. I thought the policy I've described here might be appealing to those who support that escape clause but believe in accountability.

This policy could even allow a state to define marriage as it chooses, but preserve the rights of churches to hold more restrictive definitions. I do not support the redefinition of marriage by states or the federal government, but again, the policy described here could promote accountability even under those cirumstances.

Let my comments here not be construed in any way to trivialize the pain of divorce. On the contrary, I have witnessed the devastation families undergo when marriages break up. Divorce is always nothing less than a tragedy. But how many in struggling marriages seek the counsel of those who married them before contemplating divorce? Do officiants and witnesses have no interest after the wedding day? Even among divorcees, few deny that some divorces are frivolous. Could a policy like this avert at least some of those?

I invite discussion on this.

Why the wait?

After snarking at critics for three years, Obama finally produces a real birth certificate. It's genuine, showing he was born in Hawaii.


You can easily even look up on Bing where he lived.

So the big, big question of the day: If this was available all along, and there's nothing incriminating in it, why did he not release it? What point was there in letting the controversy brew until it took Donald Trump to coax it out of him?

The president likely thinks this will make fools out of his "birther" critics, but it really makes him look foolish for holding out until only 38% of Americans believed he was a natural-born citizen. (Meaning: The doubters were not just fringe GOP kooks.) Again, what was the point?

I am glad to see the President vindicated on this matter, but am completely baffled as to why he waited to put the controversy to rest. Was it a game? A Kenyan newspaper in 2004 publicized Obama as the first Kenyan-born senator. The article has been largely expunged from the Web since he was elected President. Why didn't Obama release his real birth certificate to set the record straight when "birthers" started circulating the article, rather than obfuscate thereby arousing suspicion? It's an easy, easy thing he could have done a long time ago that would have fortified his credibility and affirmed his claim to transparency.

But now that he's finally decided to be transparent about this, it's time to inform NPR, Kenyan officials and the First Lady that his home country is indeed the U.S.A.

The Lazy Slander of Pro-Lifers

Christianity Today has is a great article dispelling the liberal lie that pro-lifers care more for the unborn than for women. Charges that pro-lifers do little to help women after their babies are born are groundless, but the slander is nonetheless repeated in the media and by "pro-choice" opponents.

The author goes on to dismantle the "pro-choice" argument that providing contraception helps reduce abortions, unplanned pregnancies, and STDs. The reality is that they perpetuate the problems they purport to address. It's really a no-brainer: more contraception = more casual sex = more STDs, more unplanned pregnancies, and more abortions.

"... is it any coincidence that Planned Parenthood serves roughly the same percentage of clients for STIs (31%) as it does for contraception (36%)?"

What's worse is that "pro-choice" groups actively oppose and undermine pro-life counseling centers because they cut into Planned Parenthood's business, that business being greater distribution of contraception and abortion services. How is this profiteering in the best interests of women?

"... the charge should be laid to rest once and for all that the pro-life movement is not active on behalf of women, children, and vulnerable persons generally. Those bringing the charge—the same groups that do very little personally to help women and children—should be held to account, both for their lack of real charity and for their refusal to acknowledge that their entire strategy—state supplied birth control and unlimited abortion—has backfired upon the very groups they promised to help."

One reason I know I would make a lousy counselor is that the first question I would want to ask a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy is, "Where is the man who made you pregnant? Why isn't that lecherous coward here with you?" Pregnancy is not merely a women's issue because women don't make themselves pregnant. That men can do this to women and leave them alone to clean up the mess is the cruelest product of the "sexual revolution." Planned Parenthood owes the public a tax rebate for the societal costs it has created. Those costs could be largely alleviated by the quaint but effective practice of monogamous man-woman marriage, which a) prevents questions of paternity, and b) makes men responsible for their treatment of women and the children they produce with them.

What is more compassionate to women and babies? Severing responsibility between "partners," or promoting actual "partnership?" The verdict is in on promiscuity vs. chastity: the former enslaves women and lets men be animals. Chastity is respect - men for women, women for men, respect for human life, and self-respect. Marriage is the vehicle for conveying that respect.

Do I oversimplify? Perhaps, but I do not exaggerate the destruction wrought by the de-coupling of sex from marriage. Proponents of contraception and abortion do not help women lead healthy lives. A truly compassionate approach must steer women and men, however gently, toward a chaste course. I thank God for the efforts of pro-life counselors who take as a sacred charge the task to help preserve and repair lives.

What you won't see at the State of the Union

Dennis Prager has some interesting facts about the U.S. House of Representatives chamber, and an interesting theory about why they are seldom seen.

Here are three things you won't see at tonight's "State of the Union."

First thing you won't see: "In God We Trust" inscribed above the Speaker's podium. This is typically cropped out by media cameras and almost never (if ever) seen on TV:


Second thing you won't see: portrait of Moses directly across from the Speaker's podium:



There are actually 23 relief portraits of historic lawgivers surrounding the House chamber. All of them are in profile, facing Moses, who is face-forward, staring straight at the Speaker, or tonight, the President.

Third thing you won't see:


It should be worth watching just for that.

Beast creep

CNN Money reports today that credit cards are on the path to obsolescence, being replaced by the "electronic wallet" capabilities of smart phones.

"... by the end of the year you may not even think twice about reaching for your phone to pay at the register instead of fumbling for your credit card."

The problem with payment methods that are too convenient is that spending money can become a passive activity, like scarfing snacks. I bought three MP3s this weekend with a mouse click. I didn't have to enter any information - I hardly thought about the fact that I just spent money. It was an effortless, almost mindless purchase. How is this going to bring about a return to responsible consumer spending?

This raises the value of my "stupid" phone, though, because it won't be a target for theft. Nobody wants a phone that only makes phone calls.

The inherent problem in this technology is that it's battery-powered. How soon will we hear of some Best Buy customer freaking out that he can't buy a new subwoofer because his iPhone is dead and he left his charger at home?

I think the next trend will be the microchip implant, probably in the hand, something that you can't lose, is extremely difficult to steal (eeww), and doesn't require electricity or a signature. What could be more convenient than that? (That's funny - everyone's account number starts with three sixes.)

That's when I switch to paper currency, if it's still available.

Projecting hate

I heard Chris Baker on KTLK interview Trent Humphries on my way in this morning. Humphries is a co-founder of the Tuscon Tea Party and has received multiple threats since the Giffords shooting. One of the victims of the Tucson shooting attended a town-hall meeting where Humphries spoke, and interrupted Humphries, shouting, "You're dead!" That man, James Fuller, had gone on record the day before spouting a vile and gruesome diatribe against Republicans that rivals Jared Loughner's lunatic ramblings. Fuller, incidentally, went out of his way to forgive Loughner, evidently choosing to focus his hate on those hateful Republicans.

James Eric Fuller, 63, who was shot in the knee, had told The Post on Friday, the day before his arrest, that top Republican figures should be tortured -- and their ears severed.

"There would be torture and then an ear necklace, with [Minnesota US Rep.] Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin's ears toward the end, because they're small, female ears, and then Limbaugh, Hannity and the biggest ears of all, Cheney's, in the center," Fuller said.

Also on Friday, Fuller stopped by the home of gunman Jared Lee Loughner and told a neighbor he was going to forgive the shooter, The Associated Press said.

On Saturday, Fuller was carted away for a psychiatric exam after disrupting the town-hall meeting by taking a photo of Tucson Tea Party co-founder Trent Humphries and shouting, "You're dead!"

The heavens declare the glory of God

Wow.

Here are some Incredible photographs by winners of the 2010 Astronomy Photographer of the Year contest hosted by the UK's National Maritime Museum.

The Telegraph has a gallery of entries. (Click the Next and Previous buttons on the right to browse the gallery.) I was surprised how many were submitted by teenagers.

Having attempted night sky photography, I don’t know out how some of these photographers got both the sky and the ground in focus. Given that they move relative to each other, tracking one blurs the other, unless you have a lens the size of a trash can and can actually use a fast shutter.

Photo above by Marcus Davies.