What’s Wrong with the World

Since I posted on the disturbing news that it looked like the new DOJ might defend the Obama-era contraception mandate, it is only fair to post this update.

As of 5/23/17, the CBO shows an "interim final rule" has been posted by Tom Price's HHS concerning "coverage of certain preventative services under the affordable care act." A copy of the interim rule has been leaked, and it would apparently allow any employer or insurance company to refuse to cover contraceptive drugs on the basis of moral or religious objections. This amounts to a partial rollback of the Obama HHS contraception mandate, though frankly I think even amoral employers and insurers should not be required to provide birth control either. But set that aside. It is to a large extent what I was urging should be done. The interim final rule is just one bureaucratic step away from being made final, and I trust this will provide the DOJ all the cover they need to stop defending the suit against the rule.

I realize that the title looks like clickbait, and I put the phrase "at risk of" in there deliberately as a qualifier, but what has just happened in Ontario is highly alarming for the reason stated in the title. Under a recently passed law, parents who are not gay-affirming or transgenderism-affirming, whose own children decide to identify with these ideologies, may lose the kids for that reason.

No time to cross-post this properly, but I have a new post up with a wonderful quotation from the late Colin Hemer on the genre of Luke and Acts. Enjoy. The quote even if not my commentary thereon.

Opinion question: How much would it help to reduce violent crime against political opponents if we had more consistent law enforcement of laws against

1) actual threats, including electronic threats,
2) actual violent assault, including punching, etc.?

Let me clarify: I am not implying that more consistent enforcement would have directly prevented the recent assassination attempt against Republicans by James Hodgkinson, since as far as I know he hadn't gone so far as explicit threats before.

But I get the strong impression that our law enforcement is overwhelmed by Internet threats and that many are going unpunished even though clearly illegal. Obviously, the First Amendment does not protect literal threats of death, rape, etc.

And then we have the cowardly college administrators who are not pressing for prosecution of violent students who shut down speakers.

I can't help wondering if there would be something akin to a "broken window strategy" that might help, at least in some particular jurisdiction: If you threaten our residents or people within our jurisdiction, yes, even by e-mail, and a fortiori if you actually are the aggressor and punch someone just because you don't like his political views, we will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law in an entirely non-partisan manner--i.e., regardless of what party or political side you espouse or attack. And yes, even if you are technically a minor.

Would it make a difference?

New post up at my personal blog giving my reconstruction of the full chronology of the Pauline epistles. Obviously, much of this is not original, but if you're interested in the subject, you might like to see a full list.

Josh Ritter of the State of Idaho has been composing, singing and smiling through a pretty impressive streak of musical success over the course of a decade and more.

This man, a contemporary of mine in both age and region of origin, consistently (a) delights with his lyrical complexity and verve; (b) honors America with his inspired evocations of her lands and people; (c) and, featuring a tight band, simply rocks.

What follows is a setlist and brief commentary. No obligation falls on anyone to favor the man’s music; but I do feel obliged to give my reasons for why I do.

Begin with this triumvirate of genius: “Wolves,” “To the Dogs or Whoever,” and “Where the Night Goes.”

Listen to those three tunes and you’ll discover a vigorous upbeat rock band backing an American poetic performer of power and subtlety.

Want more?

There is the zaniness and verbal fun of “The Next to the Last True Romantic,” or the infectious cacophony of “Rumors.” “See Me Through,” a somewhat obscure classic, mimics John Lennon’s “Imagine” without the pretentious lyrics: pretentious lyrics are by far the worst problem with “Imagine.”

Next up, consider the deep American synthesis of “Folk Bloodbath,” which rivals any Dylan or even Johnny Cash version of Delia & Lewis Collins and that whole legendary drama. Among the many brilliant sentences is this one: “Out of Stackalee’s came Stackalee’s cold lonely little ghost.”

Following that, take in the hilarious cynicism of “Galahad.” This song has a handful of off-color cracks, but its deep sense of fun carries through: like its best line this song is “More error than knight-errantry.”

Moving along:

One of Ritter’s earliest, “Kathleen,” while nearly fifteen years old, has aged extremely well. “Snow Is Gone,” of roughly the same vintage, backs it up.

Following all these, “Monster Ballads” seems to me among the most beautiful of its kind in my lifetime. That rounds it out. Ten songs. There is the reader’s setlist.

(One extra? Okay: the live version of “Golden Age of Radio” in Dublin, Ireland, the country where this grinning American mountain man, by some fascinating romance of chance, first caught fire.)

While writing up my chronology of the Pauline epistles, I was re-reading the name references in 2 Timothy. Here's one:

Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds. Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message. 2 Timothy 4:14-15

Some have suggested that this may be the same person referred to in Acts 19:33, a Jew who stepped forward and tried to address the crowd in the amphitheater during the riot in Ephesus. That seems unlikely, however, for such a move was risky, and that Alexander appears to have intended to "make a defense to the crowd" and is silenced by the angry worshipers of Diana. It's unclear what the point of his "defense" was, but since the rioters were angry at Paul (for teaching the people monotheism and thus reducing the market for shrines of Diana), it seems unlikely that that Alexander was a coppersmith himself or would have stuck his neck out during the riot. The name was not uncommon.

More plausible is the identification of Alexander the coppersmith in 2 Timothy 4 with the Alexander whom Paul anathematizes in I Timothy 1:20, especially given the close connection between I Timothy and 2 Timothy. Apparently this person, whoever he was, was a possible danger to Timothy as well. We may conjecture that he was located wherever Timothy was ministering at that time.

This is the coincidence I see: If you were going to forge a letter as from Paul at the end of his life (as 2 Timothy purports to be) and give him an enemy to complain about, and if you wanted to "place" Timothy at Ephesus (as 1 Timothy apparently does in 1:3), and if you had access to Acts, whom would you choose?

A little reading of Acts 19 makes the answer obvious: Demetrius the silversmith.

About that time there arose no little disturbance concerning the Way. For a man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought no little business to the craftsmen. These he gathered together, with the workmen in similar trades, and said, “Men, you know that from this business we have our wealth. And you see and hear that not only in Ephesus but in almost all of Asia this Paul has persuaded and turned away a great many people, saying that gods made with hands are not gods. And there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world worship.”

When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” Acts 19:23-28

We’ve all watched the Scene in the Errol Flynn type of swash-buckler movie, or read the passage in a book: The Hero manages to defeat single-handedly some of the henchmen and escape the last one, grab a sword, and run after the evil Villain who is trying to abduct his lovely Girl. Villain throws the Girl from himself and turns around pulling out his own sword. The two go at it hammer and tongs, nearly at a match because Hero is tired from a long chase and defeating the henchmen. Out of desperation Hero tries a trick move his (sidekick) Friend has told him about, but he has never practiced, and surprising to both men, it succeeds: it knocks the sword out of Villain’s hand.

They pause for a moment, the sword pointed at Villain’s neck, and Hero declares: “yield, and your life will be spared.”

Villain has no intention of living behind bars or letting Hero win. “Never!” he shouts.

Hero magnanimously gestures at the sword on the ground, and says, “then let’s finish this”.

A Kindle edition of Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts is available for pre-order from Amazon today for only $4.99. This special price will continue until July 10, when the Kindle edition will go to $9.99. This is especially good for those who are in remote locations or prefer not to pay shipping, or just for people who like a Kindle edition. Spread the word. The book continues of course to be available in paperback, here and here.

I have hesitated thus far to comment on the Charlie Gard case, partly because of acedia. Also, though, because I feared that anything I would say about the difference between ordinary and extraordinary care and about the greater evil of killing people by withholding ordinary care and by active euthanasia would be taken amiss as expressing approval of the UK government's actions in this case. Since in this case they are insisting on withdrawing ventilator support, which I believe is extraordinary care, I hesitate to use terms like "killing" the child, for if it were "killing" here, then it would be killing even when parents consent or other relatives consent to withdrawing ventilator support. It's important for pro-lifers to maintain the ordinary/extraordinary distinction. But at the same time, I am actually heartened even in the midst of this situation by the outrage of so many at the wickedly high-handed behavior of the British government. After all, the parents have raised the money to take Charlie to the United States; the government simply won't let him go. They think they know what is best for him, which is that he should be allowed to die. And that is chilling.

In the midst of my hesitation, I saw today a post by a Facebook friend on the subject (though it starts with a different case) and got permission to post it, though anonymously. Though I haven't researched the Italian case he starts with, I fully believe it. It's too typical. My only quibble is with the word "killed" in the final sentence. But there is so much truth here about the lust for power that I decided to let him write most of my blog post on this subject.