Politicizing the Bible

Sadly this doesn't seem to be a joke. The website Conservapedia (tag line: "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia") has taken upon itself to start a project to revise the Bible to remove what it describes as "liberal bias." Their Conservative Bible Project starts out:

Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.

Personally I wasn't aware that Biblical scholars were operating with any political bias when translating Greek to English. Silly me thought they were more concerned with things like accuracy and providing historical context. But I guess now I've been enlightened to the previously secret scandal that most modern Bible translations were made by people wearing Yes We Can! buttons.

So what is Conservapedia's goal? They want a "modern" translation that meets 10 guidelines:

1. Framework against Liberal Bias
2. Not Emasculated
3. Not Dumbed Down
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms
5. Combat Harmful Addiction
6. Accept the Logic of Hell
7. Express Free Market Parables
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples
10. Prefer Conciseness of Liberal Wordiness

Now let me state that I'm not against revising translations from time-to-time. Language can be modernized, scholars can update translations based on new findings, better understanding of historical context can lead to new thinking, etc (in fact, Catholic books of worship were revised a few years ago to reflect some minor translation differences in the Sunday readings from the previous editions). But liberal bias? "Powerful Conservative Terms?" Free market parables? Liberal "wordiness?" Please.

They are actually complaining that the use of the word "comrade" comes from "defective translations" and should be replaced with "volunteer." Personally I thought a synonym for comrade was "friend," but I guess the fact that those leftist pinko Commies used it makes it a bad word.

Also according to Conservapedia, the story of the adulteress (John 8: 1-11) contains the "liberal message" of not judging someone else's conduct when you yourself are not perfect. Personally I'm not familiar with the history of that passage, and if biblical scholars judge it to not be authentic, then I won't argue with its removal from John. But to claim that its inclusion by Liberals undermines the rule of Mosaic law calling for the "God-ordained government" to impose the death penalty is going more than a bit too far.

It seems to me that the Bible's messages don't fit within some people's narrow world view, and rather than re-examining their own values they'd rather change the Bible to better reflect those (sorely misguided) beliefs. It wouldn't surprise me if their finished "Conservative Bible" made Jesus a lot tougher on crime, less likely to turn the other cheek, and a lot more like a vengeful Old Testament God.

Maybe when these guys are finished they can take a look at that pesky U.S. Constitution, too. There are some amendments in particular that were inserted by Liberals (whose idea was it to let women vote, anyway?), and the whole thing is just too wordy.

Government Ownership

A pie chart shown recently on Real Time with Bill Maher. Kind of speaks for itself.

Bruce Schneier on the NY Terrorist Arrests

Bruce, a well-known security expert, has some excellent points about the recent arrest of four men for plotting to blow up synagogues:

One: There was little danger of an actual terrorist attack...

Two, they were caught by traditional investigation and intelligence. Not airport security. Not warrantless eavesdropping. But old fashioned investigation and intelligence. This is what works...

Three, they were idiots...

Four, an "informant" helped this group a lot.

The big picture: law enforcement did its job (and should be congratulated), so don't let anyone try to convince you that our personal freedoms must be sacrificed to keep us safe. And don't live in fear. I'd recommend reading Bruce's entire entry for more detail and context.

Good Article on Reaction to the Obama Notre Dame Speech

This article shows that, despite the noise made by some, most people -- Notre Dame students, Catholics, and Americans at large -- don't have a problem with Obama giving the commencement address at Notre Dame.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/14/politics/main5014711.shtml

The media's habit of taking provocative stories and running with them often gives a disproportionate amount of coverage to groups, no matter how small, that make the most noise. It appears that this is another one of those cases. While there is opposition among many in the church to Obama's stance on abortion rights, many of those same people also feel that his efforts to reduce the number of abortions (rather than outlawing the procedure), along with his work to decrease poverty and end the wars, is more in line with Church teaching than those who take a hard line against abortion while ignoring other areas of social justice.

Sex Scandals and Torture: A Case of Misplaced Moral and Legal Outrage

So let me get this straight: when Clinton had inappropriate sex in the White House, people (and by "people" I mean Beltway journalists along with Republicans of all stripes) were willing to spend tens of millions of tax dollars to investigate (I believe Ken Starr spent in the ballpark of $75 million on his investigation). No laws were broken, but it was relentlessly covered in the media and the impeachment hearings were broadcast live.

And yet the Bush administration broke the law by authorizing torture on enemy combatants, and now many of the same people who wanted Clinton thrown out of office are saying we need to let this go. "No need to bring up the past. Let's look forward in the name of post-partisanship." Never mind that, effective or not, torture was -- and is -- a felony in this country.

I'm not giving Clinton a free pass. His actions were deplorable. But not felonies. And you couldn't pick up a paper or turn on a TV without hearing the latest about it.

Of course the torture stuff is all over print and broadcast media these days, but for some reason the Beltway press is playing it as Obama's problem. Never mind that guy who had the job before him who actually approved the illegal interrogation techniques.

I'm not going to argue the effectiveness of torture. Many people say that it worked, but I've seen more evidence that the most useful information was gleaned from subjects before they were waterboarded. Still, let's ignore this and go back to my original point: torture is a felony, and we're just supposed to shrug our shoulders and let it pass?

I don't think the grunts who administered the waterboardings should be prosecuted; they were just following orders. I think the people who approved the use of those techniques should be, however. Their twisted logic justified techniques that, once shown the light of day, are not standing up to the rule of law, and those people should be held accountable no matter what their prior status or title was.

Why are so many people -- especially the Press -- suggesting that high-level government officials aren't subject to the same laws as everyone else? For more on this topic, see Glenn Greenwald.

Where is the moral outrage? I'm pissed that the previous administration authorized this barbaric treatment of prisoners, and I'm pissed that it looks like they'll be allowed to get away with breaking the law without facing any consequences. How can this be less worthy of investigation and prosecution than a president having an extramarital affair? Between this and the free pass on the illegal wiretapping, I just don't know what to say anymore.

George Lakoff on The Obama Code

Another great post on FiveThirtyEight.com, this time by guest columnist George Lakoff, a professor of linguistics and cognitive science at UC-Berkeley.

Lakoff talks about several issues closely related to this blog that Obama is expected to discuss during tonight's address:

• Values over Programs -- the need to separate what government programs accomplish over the programs themselves
• Empathy-based policy -- governing by acting in everyone's best interests, not just your own (or your Party's)
  
• Biconceptualism -- finding common ground with traditional opponents and working together on those shared values
• Protection and empowerment -- does government "work" to keep us safe and provide opportunity for all
• Morality and Economics -- i.e. budgets are "moral documents"
• Systemic Causation and Systemic Risk -- consequences, and risk, are not always directly related to actions, but instead are tied to a complex system, be that economic or environmental
• Contested Concepts and Patriotic Language -- "freedom" meant something different when George W. Bush described it while at the same time authorizing domestic wiretapping programs; Obama will try to restore the common meaning

It's a long essay, and clearly Lakoff is coming at this as an Obama supporter, but his points are very interesting and worth a read. I firmly believe that many of the values Obama is trying to convey are truly American values. Partisan politics have poisoned both sides into taking harsh stands opposing (or supporting) policies based on political rather than moral grounds. If minds are kept open and partisanship set aside, we can do great things.

Note in this case I don't think bipartisanship simply means compromising and making concessions to the other side. Certainly that's a part of it, but I think both sides need to dig themselves out of their right vs. left posturing and look at all of our struggles and opportunities from a different perspective that allows them to take a new stock of the situation.

A Rising Tide that Lifted All Boats

The chart below is from an entry on www.fivethirtyeight.com called The Clinton Economic Record and Rising Tides. In that post, Nate Silver breaks down the effects of White House economic policies from Nixon/Ford through Bush 43.

A quick glance shows the obvious:

• Nixon/Ford policies were favorable to the rich, and oddly favorable to the very poor at the same time (an anomoly Silver suggests may be more to the delayed effect of LBJ's "Great Society" programs)
• The Carter years were economically tough, but there may have been some upper-income benefits from the period's high inflation
• Reagan/Bush showed improvements for everyone, but their policies steering wealth towards upper income levels were extremely successful -- for the wealthy, of course
• During Clinton, a rising tide lifted all boats
• Bush 43's policies were not successful for ANYONE, and they were simply DISASTROUS for the lowest income levels

Silver provides excellent analysis to these trends, and I don't want to steal any more of his thunder, so read his article for its even-handed breakdown of what was successful, not successful, and what kinds of policies can help everyone going forward.