Pacific Jewish Center | Rabbi » abortion

Let’s Get a Little Political: Should the Federal Government Be Sponsoring a Nascar Team?

rabbifink — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:31:26 +0000

During the Super Bowl I wrote one tweet about the ads. It got a lot of notoriety. (See: The Tweet That Made Me Famous (and what I meant by it)) But there was another tweet I had about the ads which I didn’t publish. Instead I made a real life comment to a fellow human being (my wife). (One of the problems with social media is that sometimes we type what we should be saying and we stunt our human interactions. So I try not to tweet if there is a human who can appreciate my observations…)

Anyway, what I didn’t tweet was an observation about some ads during the Super Bowl for the Marines. As you know, those ads are pretty pricey. About $2 million a pop. So I was surprised when I saw (I think) two ads for the Marines during the Super Bowl. That’s $4 million tax dollars recruiting for the Marines.

I was a little surprised and little disappointed. I was surprised because the ads are so expensive and disappointed because I wasn’t happy to see millions of tax dollars spent on an advertisement when the government is supposed to be cutting spending on social programs. Especially when the ones wh0 want to make the cuts are Republicans and they are also the ones who support spending on the military.

It bothered me. But not enough for a blog post. Then there were some votes in Congress.

In one day (February 18, 2011) the House voted to block Federal Aid for Planned Parenthood because there Planned Parenthood has been linked to [legal] abortions. Planned Parenthood was receiving a lot of aid. They will now receive none. Planned Parenthood is following the law and the Supreme Court has held that legal abortions could receive Federal funding.

It’s tough to see an important social organization lose their funding, but with a budget crisis it seems inevitable that some programs will be cut. Don’t get me wrong, I think Planned Parenthood serves an important Federal interest and should receive funding for all activities that the law permits. But, if there is no money, I understand they are a non-essential organization and could be privately funded so they lose their money.

But then on the same day, the House voted to approve a sponsorship of a Nascar team by the US Army. Now, I’m no fool, I know that the money to Planned Parenthood is much more significant than the money going to Nascar. But how does it look when you’re cutting funding to non-essential organizations like Planned Parenthood and giving it to even less essential places like Nascar!?

Between the Super Bowl ads for the Marines, the Nascar sponsorship and all the other billboards, TV ads and other marketing for the US Defense Forces, there is a lot of money at stake. The Federal government has no problem spending all that money.

Seeing that, I decided it was worth a blog post.

When you’re trimming the fat, you need to trim all the fat. Not just the fat that others are enjoying (remember in this analogy, fat is a “good” thing) while you leave the fat on for yourself…

————

I was less upset about the ads for the car companies that received bailouts from the Federal government. Those ads are part showing the world that the bailouts worked (whether they did or not is not relevant, the Big 3 have a right to try to convince the public that their Federally sponsored product is worth buying).

Maybe the Revolution in China Will Be Tweeted or YouTubed

rabbifink — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 16:37:14 +0000

With apologies to Malcolm Gladwell who writes that the Revolution will NOT be tweeted (Malcolm Gladwell Doesn’t Use Twitter or Facebook But He Is Pretty Sure They Are Useless) it appears that some revolutionary activity in China is being tweeted.

As reported on DigitalJournal.com (original source: Al Jazeera), a woman in China was forced to abort her 8 month fetus to comply with China’s One Child rule. The Chinese Government enforces its arcane One Child Law with forced abortions and fines. Aside from its obtuse totalitarian nature, the result, in a society that values men over women, is a huge gap in men and women which presents another set of social problems. (see: Scientific American)

This woman was dragged from her home and brought to a facility where her fetus was brutally aborted in its womb.

The story is disturbing from a human perspective but hopeful for the future. This abortion (if you can call an 8 month fetus killed inside the womb, an “abortion”, was performed by government officials. The woman is from a modern city and her family does not know how the information was leaked to a Chinese website similar to Twitter.com. Nevertheless, a subsequent interview with her husband on YouTube posted by Al Jazeera has over 30,000 hits and it tells their story.

Information cannot be controlled anymore. The Internet and its social media sharing sites give everyone with an Internet connection unbridled access to the entire world. A message can be broadcast and heard by an infinite audience.

In China, the stirrings of a revolution may be beginning with Twitter and YouTube.

Gladwell, take note.

Links: DigitalJournal.com, Al Jazeera.

Hat Tip: E. F. Shaar

The Mechanics of Change and How To Make A Difference

rabbifink — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:05:08 +0000

A few weeks ago my brother-in-law asked me which branch of government I thought was the most powerful. I immediately answered, “Legislative”. He was surprised. As a fellow law student we read case after case where the Supreme Court overturned laws that it felt were unconstitutional. While that is true, it requires Herculean effort for the Supreme Court to overturn a law. The legislature can just write a new law whenever they want. That gives them almost all the power.

It has long been my feeling that legislatures are the best place to effect change in laws. Citizens can petition their law makers to make laws that they want and of they don’t make law that their constituents like, they can vote someone who will into office. Is this a slow process? Sure. But the Supreme Court process is even slower and the chance that your case will be heard is slim.

There is a second issue when the Judicial Branch speaks from “on-high” and mandates a change in law. This was illustrated to me by my supervising research attorney at the California Court of Appeals. He agreed with me that the Legislative Branch is most powerful. He added that sometimes a Supreme Court opinion can have the reverse effect that it intends. For example, in Roe v. Wade, the court held that laws banning / highly regulating abortion in the first trimester were unconstitutional. The reaction from the strident voice of opposition was not the acquiesce and lay low. In fact, it had the opposite affect. Millions and millions of dollars were poured into “overturning Roe”. This went on for decades. Interest groups spent all their energy trying to get Roe reversed. But if Roe had not sued in the Supreme Court or if the Supreme Court had denied to see hear Roe, it is very likely that the legislatures would have come around to see the law the way the Supreme Court saw it. In other words, if all the money and time and energy of the Supreme Court case had been spent on activism and PR in favor of looser abortion restrictions, it would have happened organically. And the reaction would not have been so severe.

Sometimes the people are not ready for the ruling of the Supreme Court. Sometime they need time to adjust their old views and in time, they will get it right. This is one of the main reasons there has been weak attempts to take the issue of same sex marriage to the Supreme Court. Even if the Supreme Court rules in their favor, a huge backlash is predicted. This would wind up having the opposite of the intended effect. Time, energy and money would be spent on “overturning” the decision. It is wiser to just wait until the people are willing to give them the rights they desire. (Of course this assumes this is bound to happen. As I wrote a while back in Human Beings Are Social Beings, more and more people know gay individuals and couples, it is going to be harder and harder to look them in the eye and say “no rights for you”. So I am pretty sure it will probably happen eventually.)

Another perfect example of change having the opposite of its desired effect is in the area of Health Care Reform. President Obama and almost all the Democrats want to regulate Health Care. They promise that rates will drop, insurance companies will be forced to be fairer and less discriminatory and everything will be wonderful. As I am self-insured, the new laws may actually help me, but probably not before I get a job with medical benefits.

Interestingly enough, the proposed bill is having the OPPOSITE effect. My health care premiums went up by 30% a couple months ago. My coverage is the same. My plan is the same. I just pay way more. The NY Times even had a write-up on MY insurance company. (Editorial – The Lesson of California’s Anthem Blue Cross on Health …) Sometimes, when change is forced down people’s throats, the effect is the opposite of what is intended. HCR may be wonderful, but in the meantime, it is squeezing millions of self-insured folks as they wait…

So how does change happen? It is best for it to happen organically. It is best for things to evolve, change slowly without huge monumental changes from “on-high”.

It reminds me of a story I read once:

The sun and the wind were having a contest to see you could get the man to remove his coat. The wind blew hard and the man clutched his coat tighter. The wind blew even harder and the man redoubled his efforts to hold his coat. The sun shone bright and the man got warm and took his coat off on his own.

Think about that.

(Where are we going with this? You’ll see soon.)

RETRACTION: Tim Tebow Ad WAS Harmless NOT Reckless

rabbifink — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 04:38:50 +0000

So like everyone else, I bought into the hype.

I thought the Tebow ad was going to “tell his mother’s story”. It did not.

She still called him a “miracle baby”, but that is not that big a deal.

I apologize for the previous blog post. I wrote what I wrote based on speculation that others made about the content of the ad. They were wrong.

But I am leaving the previous post up. The reason for that is that in my opinion Focus on the Family wanted us to think they were going to send the message that was speculated. They wanted us to form opinions and discuss the potential ramifications of an ad featuring a “miracle baby”.

I had an opinion and I stick to it, despite the ad falling short of what everyone assumed it was going to say.

And I am not going to Focus on the Family’s website to read the Tebow’s story. I don’t really care.

The actual ad is below. Judge for yourself…

Tim Tebow's Pro-Life Superbowl Ad is Heartwarming and Reckless

rabbifink — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:03:53 +0000

This post has been crossposted to DovBear.

UPDATE: RETRACTION AND APOLOGY HERE

The most well-known athlete in America might be Tim Tebow.

Tebow is possibly the most celebrated, successful college football player of all time. He was a 2 time national champion with the Florida Gators and a Heisman Trophy winner. His success, as well as his good looks and supernatural physique has made him a household name across the United States. Oh, there is one more thing, Tebow is the son of missionaries who is very religious and (at this point) celibate.

Tebow has used his star power to advocate for Christianity. He spent a couple of summers working with missionaries in the Far East and has always been vocal about his religiousness. Tim Tebow is an athlete who is using his star power to make a difference in the world. We may not agree with his message, but he is certainly a better role model than felon Gilbert Arenas or even LeBron James.

During the upcoming Super Bowl, Tebow will be featured in a $2.6 Million ad for a strong Pro-Life Organization called Focus on the Family. This has set off a firestorm of reactions from groups that oppose Focus in the Famliy, like the National Organization for Women (don’t you love these names?) who do not approve the message of the ad. Additionally, advocate groups like PETA are up in arms because they have been denied Superbowl air time for their causes.

Honestly, the reason CBS approved this ad are probably related to the economy. IF you’re willing to pay $2.6 Million for an ad in the economy – they’ll take your money.

What is interesting to me about all this are the circumstances of Tim Tebow’s birth. In the ad Tim is expected to tell the story of his mother’s pregnancy. Mrs. Tebow became very ill during a mission to the Philippines and was advised to terminate the pregnancy to save her life. She ignored the doctor, Tim was born and Mrs. Tebow survived.

First, Jewish Law does not share the same views as Christian Law on abortion. In a situation where the mother’s life is in danger, many traditional authorities hold that the mother MUST abort the pregnancy. There is an assumption that fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews agree on abortion. That is just not true.

Second, even those that hold that abortion is immoral and should never be allowed, is this a wholesome message? To ignore a doctor’s strong recommendation? Isn’t reckless? Don’t we look at Scientology with disdain when a life is lost because of their refusal to see a doctor? What if Mrs. Tebow lost her life in the pregnancy and Tim dies before birth?

It seems that advocating for the sanctity of life is a fair cause to support, but advocating in a manner that breeds recklessness… That seems irresponsible.