One of the most effective ways for Washington to shape China’s evolution is to remove Beijing’s excuses for inaction by leading ourselves — passing strong climate change legislation, ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, making good on President Obama’s disarmament pledges and increasing efforts to alleviate extreme poverty around the globe.
U.S. exceptionalism has often provided political cover to China. In his own speech to the United Nations last week, Obama acknowledged that the United States hasn’t always been a fully responsible superpower, and he pledged to do better.
The Chinese say it is unfair to expect a still-developing China to shoulder so much international responsibility. But the forces of globalization that made China the major power it is today are the same ones breeding threats that only nations acting in concert can address.
China has come a very long way in two generations. Let’s hope that the next 60 years see China’s growth into a model citizen and stalwart supporter of the international system — for its own sake, and for ours.
More All is Well from our Northern neighbors:
THE ANGLICAN DIOCESE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA HAS SUSPENDED OPERATIONS OF ITS OUTREACH CAMP ON THETIS ISLAND, BECAUSE OF CONTINUING FINANCIAL PROBLEMS.THE 72 ACRE CAMP COLUMBIA HAS BEEN USED FOR CHURCH OUTREACH IN THE SUMMER MONTHS, AND AVAILABLE FOR PARISHES TO BOOK SPECIAL EVENTS DURING THE REST OF THE YEAR. IT WAS FOUNDED IN 1947…IT’S BEEN RUNNING AN OPERATING DEFICIT FOR YEARS…AND CURRENTLY HAS AN ACCUMULATED DEBT IN EXCESS OF 500 THOUSAND DOLLARS.
A PREPARED STATEMENT FROM THE DIOCESE SAYS FIVE STAFF POSITIONS AT THE CAMP HAVE BEEN TERMINATED, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
With a process that gives new meaning to the expression “stacked deck,†the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in August 2009 voted to allow for the blessing of homosexual unions and the rostering of pastors in homosexual relationships. I salute the efforts of the renewal group Lutheran CORE, which courageously fought against the homosexualist agenda at the assembly (I had the great privilege of addressing them). Just this past weekend they had a meeting attended by 1200 persons that began the process of defining a new vision and structure for those who recognize the ELCA’s hard-left departure from normative Christian faith and practice.
How should faithful Lutheransâ€â€that is, Lutherans who affirm the male-female requirement for sexual unions so important to Jesus and the scriptural witness to himâ€â€deal with these new heretical and immoral actions? In particular, do the recent actions of the Churchwide Assembly justify beginning a trajectory that will lead eventually to disaffiliation with the denominational structure known as the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America? Let me suggest [a way]….
For background information on this please see this Stand Firm post–KSH.
Via Email:
Bishop Frey Appointed Priest in Charge of St. Mark’s on the Mesa
The Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande is pleased to announce that the Right Reverend William Frey has accepted a temporary appointment as Priest- in- Charge of St. Mark’s-on-the-Mesa Episcopal Church in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Bishop Frey will preach and celebrate during the regularly scheduled 8 AM and 10:30 AM services on Sunday, October 4, 2009.
Bishop Frey currently serves as Assisting Bishop for the Diocese. He previously served as Bishop of the Diocese of Colorado from 1972-1990, and Dean of Trinity School for Ministry from 1990 to 1996. Along with his wife Barbara, the Bishop will reside in Albuquerque during his tenure as Priest in Charge. Bishop Frey will serve until a long term Priest-in-Charge can be in place. He will then resume his normal duties in the Diocese.
German religious freedom laws require a school to let a devout Muslim student set aside some time during the school day for prayers, a Berlin court ruled Tuesday (Sept. 29).
The ruling reaffirmed a temporary order from 2008 that requires the school to allow the student time to engage in prayer at least once a dayâ€â€but not during class time.
Jesus said that those who give even a cup of water to his little ones will not fail to receive a blessing. These frauds and charlatans want the public to pay for murdering them…read it all if you can stomach it.
The ability to choose an abortion should not be compromised by economic, educational, class or marital status, age, race, geographic location or inadequate information. Current measures that limit women’s access to abortion servicesâ€â€by denying public funds for low-income women; coercing parental consent and notification as contrasted with providing resources for parental and adolescent counseling; denying international family planning assistance to agencies in developing countries that offer women information about pregnancy options; and banning medical proceduresâ€â€are punitive and do nothing to promote moral decision-making.
When there is a conflict between the conscience of the provider and the woman, the institution delivering the services has an obligation to assure that the woman’s conscience and decision will be respected and that she has access to reproductive health care, either directly or through referral. We condemn physical and verbal violence and harassment directed against abortion clinics, their staffs, and their clients.
We must work together to reduce unintended and unwanted pregnancies and address the circumstances that result in the decision to have an abortion. Poverty, social inequities, ignorance, sexism, racism, and unsupportive relationships may render a woman virtually powerless to choose freely. We call for a religious and moral commitment to reproductive health and rights; there must be access to comprehensive sexuality education and contraception, including emergency contraception.
…more
A morning of fasting and prayer
A court hearing is scheduled for Friday, Oct. 2I am inviting everyone in the Diocese to join me in a morning of fasting and prayer this Friday, Oct. 2nd, as Judge John Chupp considers three motions we have put before him in the 141st District Court. The hearing begins at 9 a.m. on the fourth floor of the Family Law Center, located at 200 E. Weatherford Street (one block east of the old court house, on the south side of the street).
In the first motion the Diocese is asking leave to file a third-party petition against the persons elected as provisional bishop and as members of the Standing Committee at a meeting held on Feb. 7, 2009. This is to bring before the court those persons who have authorized the suit against the Diocese and the Corporation Trustees in order to determine the legitimacy of their election.
In the second motion the Diocese and the Corporation Trustees request that the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (scheduled for Oct. 15) be postponed (in legal parlance, continued) until such time that all parties are in the suit and that a reasonable time for investigation of the facts has been established.
The last motion requests that the Court correct its Rule 12 ruling of Sept. 16 so that it will permit the local Plaintiff attorneys, Jonathan D. F. Nelson and Kathleen Wells, to represent only the people who have hired them, not the Diocese and the Diocesan Corporation.
Pray especially for wisdom and guidance for our attorney, Shelby Sharpe, and for clarity and truth in the decisions of the Court.
The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth
Feast of St. Michael and All Angels
If you’re not an American, or not familiar with the last few decades of gun rights rulings and legislation, figuring out why this is a fascinating case will take a few minutes, but it’s well worth your time. I’ll try and explain it here, and just as fair warning, I will probably make a mistake, so be sure and read the comments as our resident lawyers will no doubt chime in with corrections.
The first thing to know is that there is something in American law called the “incorporation doctrine,” which states that provisions in the Bill of Rights – the federal government’s list of citizens’ rights which it is to protect – are incorporated into the laws of states as a matter of course. This may seem obvious to some, but in fact it’s the focus of sharp debate between political liberals and some conservatives, particularly those who place a high value on states’ rights. It’s also a matter of practical application, as certain amendments have been widely incorporated while others have not.
The second thing to know is that while some political conservatives have been very hostile to the incorporation doctrine, most political liberals have been very arbitrary and selective in their support of it. On the one hand they insist that, for example, the clear 1st Amendment guarantee regarding free speech means that the government can’t deny funding for art even if said “art” is a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine; or that the amendment’s prohibition of establishing a state religion means that a 3rd-grader can’t wear a T-shirt with a Bible verse on it to a public school; but on the other hand, they argue that the equally clear 2nd Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms need not be respected by a state or municipality if that state or municipality so chooses.
The third thing to know is that last year, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in the Heller v District of Columbia case. In a nutshell, Heller, the plaintiff, said that the District of Columbia’s highly restrictive gun ban was unconstitutional because the 2nd Amendment applied specifically to individuals as well as militias. The court ruled that indeed the 2nd Amendment, which protects citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms, applied specifically to individuals (the wording of the amendment has been interpreted by some courts to apply specifically to militias but not to individuals). What limited the scope of the Heller decision is the fact that the District of Columbia isn’t a state and doesn’t belong to a state – it’s a unique federal jurisdiction. At the time, the court’s conservative justices hinted that a broader review of the 2nd Amendment along the lines of Heller might be forthcoming, and it appears they were serious.
The fourth thing to know is that the U.S. Supreme Court may “call up” a case decided by a lower court by “granting cert,” slang for granting a writ of certiorari. Every year, the court receives thousands of such petitions (last year it was over 8,000), and typically agrees to hear only about 1%. Certiorari doesn’t mean that the court disagrees with the decision of the lower court; it means that at least 4 of the court’s justices have agreed that the circumstances of the case merit further review by the Supreme Court. This is what it has done in the case of McDonald v Chicago.
McDonald v Chicago is fascinating because when you take all of the above items into consideration, you have what could be a decision with huge implications for gun rights in America, beginning with the long-sought clarification by gun-rights advocates that the 2nd Amendment not only applies to individuals, but that the phrase “shall not be infringed” applies everywhere, states included.
It’s also fascinating because of the makeup of the court: There are 4 reliably conservatives justices (Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito), 4 reliably liberal justices (Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor, although Sotomayor joined the court only this term), and 1 “swing” justice in Anthony Kennedy. Sotomayor replaced the reliably liberal David Souter (who dissented from the Heller decision), so there is no shift in the conservative-liberal balance of the court from last term; but as a member of a lower court she did rule in a similar case against the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment, so a ruling in favor of incorporation in the McDonald case might be seen as a rebuke in this area of the court’s newest member.
The potential implications of a ruling against the ban are huge: If Chicago’s gun ban – one of the most restrictive in the nation – is ruled unconstitutional, that means similar bans in other cities and states are also unconstitutional, and if I’m right, there won’t be much recourse for gun-control advocates into the argument that, in the way states have up to now enacted gun laws that don’t respect the Bill of Rights, cities may enact gun laws that don’t respect the laws of their state. It’s my understanding – and again, our resident lawyers may correct me – that a pro-McDonald decision will apply all the way down to the most granular level of municipal governments. I would expect gun-control advocates to argue that a decision against the most restrictive kinds of bans such as the one in Chicago leaves plenty of room for less-restrictive bans, but again that’s one of the potential implications of this case that makes it so interesting.
Add to all of this the obvious and dismal failure of gun bans to curb gun violence (cities with the strictest gun bans – Chicago and D.C. are perfect examples – often lead the nation in gun violence), and we have what promises to be a case worth following whatever your position on gun ownership, and whatever your interest in constitutional law.
It had taken the better part of a decade, but Reed Hastings was finally ready to unveil the device he thought would upend the entertainment industry. The gadget looked as unassuming as the original iPodâ€â€a sleek black box, about the size of a paperback novel, with a few jacks in backâ€â€and Hastings, CEO of Netflix, believed its impact would be just as massive. Called the Netflix Player, it would allow most of his company’s regular DVD-by-mail subscribers to stream unlimited movies and TV shows from Netflix’s library directly to their televisionâ€â€at no extra charge.
The potential was enormous: Although Netflix initially could offer only about 10,000 titles, Hastings planned to one day deliver the entire recorded output of Hollywood, instantly and in high definition, to any screen, anywhere. Like many tech romantics, he had harbored visions of using the Internet to rout around cable companies and network programmers for years. Even back when he formed Netflix in 1997, Hastings predicted a day when he would deliver video over the Net rather than through the mail. (There was a reason he called the company Netflix and not, say, DVDs by Mail.) Now, in mid-December 2007, the launch of the player was just weeks away. Promotional ads were being shot, and internal beta testers were thrilled.
But Hastings wasn’t celebrating. Instead, he felt queasy. For weeks, he had tried to ignore the nagging doubts he had about the Netflix Player. Consumers’ living rooms were already full of gadgetsâ€â€from DVD players to set-top boxes. Was a dedicated Netflix device really the best way to bring about his video-on-demand revolution? So on a Friday morning, he asked the six members of his senior management team to meet him in the amphitheater in Netflix’s Los Gatos offices, near San Jose. He leaned up against the stage and asked the unthinkable: Should he kill the player?