tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39315797298646114672024-03-05T21:10:19.226-08:00A Guy in the PewChristian Faith in a Post-Modern World, including world mission and our obligations as Christians to the WorldChuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.comBlogger820125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-87460677536150398102013-12-24T10:06:00.003-08:002013-12-24T10:06:44.213-08:00Scientists Examine the Power of PrayerWell this is interesting. A new paper in a forthcoming issue of the <em>Journal of Experimental Social Psychology</em> presents evidence that prayer can increase a person's ability to resists temptation--and offers a non-supernatural explanation for the phenomenon:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The authors made use of two experimental paradigms to test the efficacy of prayer in preventing cognitive depletion. The first, called an emotion-suppression task, simply asked participants to watch a funny video but stifle all emotional responses, verbal and non-verbal, to the content. This requires a good amount of cognitive energy to pull off successfully. The second, called a stroop task, asked participants to indicate the ink color of various words flashed to them on a computer screen. The trick is that the words spell the names of various colors that are either consistent or inconsistent with the ink they are to identify. <a href="http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/java/ready.html" target="_blank">Check it out here</a>. You’ll find that the inconsistent word/ink items are harder to respond to than the consistent items. Researchers have found that after cognitive depletion, this task becomes even harder. So, the authors had an elegant methodological question: will people who pray be able to avoid the depleting effects of emotion suppression and not show a deficit on the stroop task? In other words, will prayer give them the cognitive strength to perform well on both these challenging tasks?</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Indeed it did. Participants who were asked to pray about a topic of their choosing for five minutes showed significantly better performance on the stroop task after emotion suppression, compared to participants who were simply asked to think about a topic of their choosing. And this effect held regardless of whether participants identified as religious (70 percent) or not.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Why? The authors tested several possible explanations, but found statistical support for only one: people interpret prayer as a social interaction with God, and <em>social interactions</em> are what give us the cognitive resources necessary to avoid temptation. <a href="http://psy2.ucsd.edu/~pwinkiel/ybarra-burnstein-winkielman_socializing-pspb-2008.pdf" target="_blank">Past research has found</a> that even brief social interactions with others can promote cognitive functioning, and the same seems to hold true for brief social interactions with deities.</blockquote>
Read it all <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-find-one-source-of-prayers-power" target="_blank">here</a>.Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-53687972919555622752013-12-23T05:00:00.000-08:002013-12-23T05:00:00.033-08:00Nathan Schneider on the Value of "Proofs of God"Nathan Schneider, who has recently written a <a href="http://www.therowboat.com/books/god-in-proof/" target="_blank">book</a> about the history of efforts to prove God's existence has an interesting blog post about the real value of discussions about these proofs:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Using the long tradition of so-called proofs about God as an academic performance, or as blunt instruments for culture-warring, means missing out on the most worthwhile stuff they have to offer. The proofs <i>are</i> arguments for a particular claim, it’s true. But they’re also meant to invite us into fresh modes of thinking. They need not be so black-and-white—or, in the boxing ring, win-or-lose. The real question a proof about God was created to address may be not be simply whether or not God exists. More often, it’s something more interesting: What do we mean by God? And what can be achieved with proof?</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
. . . </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The history of religious proofs is a many-sided story. I hope you’ll agree that this is a worthwhile inheritance, though too often we’ve adopted its worst tendencies while ignoring the best. Until we realize that arguments about something like the existence of God speak to more than just the intellect, and to more than just a yes-or-no question, we can expect that the same old debates will keep coming back without satisfying us—in Sontag’s words, “again and again.”</blockquote>
Read it all <a href="http://killingthebuddha.com/mag/dogma/what-proofs-about-god-really-prove/" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-91648923520439966342013-12-22T13:35:00.001-08:002013-12-22T13:35:54.518-08:00Ross Douthat on Our Divided Religious CultureRoss Douthat has an interesting column in the <em>New York Times </em>today that discusses our divided faith world views:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Many Americans still take everything: They accept the New Testament as factual, believe God came in the flesh, and endorse the creeds that explain how and why that happened. And then alongside traditional Christians, there are observant Jews and Muslims who believe the same God revealed himself directly in some other historical and binding form. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But this <em>biblical</em> world picture is increasingly losing market share to what you might call the <em>spiritual</em> world picture, which keeps the theological outlines suggested by the manger scene — the divine is active in human affairs, every person is precious in God’s sight — but doesn’t sweat the details. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div itemprop="articleBody">
This is the world picture that red-staters get from Joel Osteen, blue-staters from Oprah, and everybody gets from our “God bless America” civic religion. It’s Christian-ish but syncretistic; adaptable, easygoing and egalitarian. It doesn’t care whether the angel really appeared to Mary: the important thing is that a spiritual version of that visitation could happen to anyone — including you. </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div itemprop="articleBody">
Then, finally, there’s the <em>secular </em>world picture, relatively rare among the general public but dominant within the intelligentsia. This worldview keeps the horizontal message of the Christmas story but eliminates the vertical entirely. The stars and angels disappear: There is no God, no miracles, no incarnation. But the egalitarian message — the common person as the center of creation’s drama — remains intact, and with it the doctrines of liberty, fraternity and human rights. </div>
</blockquote>
Read it all<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/opinion/sunday/douthat-ideas-from-a-manger.html" target="_blank"> here</a>. This typology is interesting--and roughly accurate--but it ignores some important nuances. Some of the biggest debates today are not being fought between these different world views, but within them. Perhaps the best example is the spirited debates that rocked my own Episcopal denomination about gays and lesbians. This was largely a battle between those of us who have a biblical worldview as Douthat describes, and not a debate between biblical worlsview and competing world views. And within the biblical worldview, there is a huge divide between the biblical literalist, and those of us who believe the creeds, but have a less literal view of the Bible.<br />
<br />
What do you think?Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-3007677608140666302013-12-20T10:17:00.001-08:002013-12-20T10:54:08.256-08:00A Decline in Evangelical Christianity in America--Why?Jim Hinch has an article in the American Scholar that explores reasons for the fact that the percentage of Americans calling themselves "Evangelical" is declining. Pew Research polling has shown a drop from 21 percent of Americans five years ago to 19 percent in 2012:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Secularization alone is not to blame for this change in American religiosity. Even half of those Americans who claim no religious affiliation profess belief in God or claim some sort of spiritual orientation. Other faiths, like Islam, perhaps the country’s fastest-growing religion, have had no problem attracting and maintaining worshippers. No, evangelicalism’s dilemma stems more from a change in American Christianity itself, a sense of creeping exhaustion with the popularizing, simplifying impulse evangelical luminaries such as Schuller once rode to success.</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Prominent figures in the evangelical establishment have already begun sounding alarms. In particular, the Barna Group, an evangelical market research organization, has been issuing a steady stream of books and white papers documenting the erosion of support for evangelicalism, especially among young people. Contributions from worshippers 55 and older now account for almost two-thirds of evangelical churches’ income in the United States. A mere three percent of non-Christian Americans under 30 have a positive impression of evangelical Christianity, according to David Kinnaman, the Barna Group’s president. That’s down from 25 percent of baby boomers at a similar age. At present rates of attrition, two-thirds of evangelicals in their 20s will abandon church before they turn 30. “It’s the melting of the icebergs,” Kinnaman told me. Young people’s most common complaint, he said, is that churches are too focused on sexual issues and preoccupied with their own institutional development—in other words, he explained, “Christianity no longer looks like Jesus.”</blockquote>
Read it all <a href="http://theamericanscholar.org/where-are-the-people/#.Uq91Z2RDshY?src=longreads">here</a>. As the member of a church (the Episcopal Church) that has seem sharp drops in membership over the last decades, I need to be careful about drawing too many conclusions. I do think, however, that the singular focus of many evangelical churches on issues like gays has hurt them a great deal. Indeed, I think it has even hurt churches--like my own--that take a decidedly different take on these issues. It hurts the entire Christian "brand." <br />
<br />
I have been fortunate, however, to belong to two congregations in the last decade--<a href="http://www.trinitycathedral.com/">Trinity Cathedral</a> in Phoenix and <a href="http://www.stalbansva.org/default.asp">St. Alban's in Annandale, Virginia</a>--that have shown huge increases in membership, participation, and vitality. Why? The focus is on the gospel of Jesus in an inclusive way--resulting in surprising interest by young adult members.<br />
<br />
What do you think?Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-77261664876791863062013-12-19T05:00:00.000-08:002013-12-19T05:00:02.438-08:00Trust in Clergy At All Time Low<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMi3n-90o8Pm6c4zOGiOUvpbRO79oL4gkxVnRghh4NKLiWD8H01ksPLiI9k02wcq9KnHj8JHxI439rntGwCgj6eu7pqw6nfW_1oi_knCpYcgUlpee4Ri-RwnKLDIYWCcvDisLKYkvquBSt/s1600/Gallup+Clergy.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMi3n-90o8Pm6c4zOGiOUvpbRO79oL4gkxVnRghh4NKLiWD8H01ksPLiI9k02wcq9KnHj8JHxI439rntGwCgj6eu7pqw6nfW_1oi_knCpYcgUlpee4Ri-RwnKLDIYWCcvDisLKYkvquBSt/s400/Gallup+Clergy.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div align="left" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Gallup has just published its <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/166298/honesty-ethics-rating-clergy-slides-new-low.aspx" target="_blank">annual survey</a> on how Americans view various professions, and the results are not pretty for clergy: Americans rating of the honesty and ethical standards of clergy is at an all time low.<br />
<br />
Kate Tracy at <em>Christianity Today</em> offers some thoughts:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In fact, recorded public trust in clergy has now <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/166298/honesty-ethics-rating-clergy-slides-new-low.aspx" target="_blank">reached an all-time low</a>, with only 47 percent of Americans rating clergy highly on honesty and ethics (compared to 82 percent saying the same about nurses). The previous low since Gallup began asking the question in 1977: 50 percent in 2009.</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="text">
However, clergy still ranked No. 7 out of the 22 professions studied. And confidence in the overall church as an institution improved over the past year.</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
. . .</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Americans are divided along party lines, as well as age. Gallup found <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/166487/honesty-ratings-police-clergy-differ-party.aspx">more trust in clergy among Republicans</a> (63%) than Democrats (40%). Similarly, clergy members appear more trustworthy to older Americans than millennials: half of Americans older than age 55 trust clergy members, while only 32 percent of millennials (18 to 34 years) report the same.</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="text">
But the Gallup survey wasn't all bad news for religion in America. When asked how much confidence Americans have in U.S. institutions, 48 percent responded saying they had a "great deal/quite a bit" in "the church or organized religion," a <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/163052/americans-confidence-congress-falls-lowest-record.aspx">four percent increase since 2012</a>. Only 34 percent said the same about the U.S. Supreme Court, which decreased by three percent since 2012. </div>
</blockquote>
Read it all <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2013/december/seven-people-americans-trust-more-pastor-gallup-honesty.html" target="_blank">here</a>. Gallup attributes the drop in recent years to the Catholic priest sex abuse scandal in the early 2000's. I wonder there is more going on. As more people become "unchurched", wouldn't we expect their view of the clergy to go down? What do you think?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-5931205727986246102013-12-18T13:00:00.000-08:002013-12-18T13:00:03.987-08:00Yes, I'm BackI stopped blogging when I was asked by the incoming Obama Administration whether I would serve a General Counsel of the Air Force. (I had served as General Counsel of the Army in the Clinton Administration). After a wonderful four and half years in that position, I decided that it was time to return to private life. One consequence of this decision is that I am now free to blog once again. I have decided to revive this blog, which will continue to discuss issues of faith with a little politics and science thrown in. I hope my old readers come back and I get a few more as well.<br />
<br />
I have also decided to writhe about what I have learned about national security and international affairs. Please check out <a href="http://aguyintheworld.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">A Guy in the World</a> as well if you are at all interested in what is happening in the world.Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-27831769591745132462013-12-18T06:09:00.001-08:002013-12-18T06:09:37.064-08:00Proofs of God and Their refutationWilliam Lane Craig has a <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/13/christmas-gift-for-atheists-five-reasons-why-god-exists/">short essay</a> on the Fox News blog that it getting a lot of attention from the atheist blogosphere--which is not surprising since the essay is entitle "A Christmas gift for atheists -- five reasons why God exists.<br />
<br />
I personally find these proofs of God a fools errand. We are kidding ourselves if we think we can "prove" that God exists. At best, we can come up with reasons for why our faith is reasonable and consistent with existing scientific evidence. If we are honest, however, we must admit that for each of our asserted reasons for belief there may well be a materialistic explanation that does not depend on a supernatural being. For example, humans do seem "hard wired" with some moral sense that transcends cultural differences, but this may well be the result of natural selection for this trait. As a social animal, humans with an altruistic sense were more likely to survive.<br />
<br />
As a result, each time I see Christian apologists attempt to articulate "proofs" of good, they get eviscerated by atheists who rightly point out alternative explanations other than God (or in some instances point out that the author doesn't understand the science). Here is a good example from Jason Rosenhouse's blog:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em><strong>1. God provides the best explanation of the origin of the universe.</strong> Given the scientific evidence we have about our universe and its origins, and bolstered by arguments presented by philosophers for centuries, it is highly probable that the universe had an absolute beginning. Since the universe, like everything else, could not have merely popped into being without a cause, there must exist a transcendent reality beyond time and space that brought the universe into existence. This entity must therefore be enormously powerful. Only a transcendent, unembodied mind suitably fits that description.</em> </blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
This is all very muddled. Here are some words and phrases in that argument that need some serious clarification before we can make sense of what Craig is even claiming: “our universe”, “absolute beginning”, “cause”, “transcendent reality” and “beyond time and space.”</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Science tells us that our universe came into being with a massive explosion called the Big Bang. It tells us almost nothing about what might have caused the Big Bang to occur. For that matter, since our notions of time and space also came into existence with the Big Bang, it is not so clear what it even means to talk about a cause for the universe. In our normal understanding of the terms, causes must come before effects. For that to be meaningful, you must have a notion of time with which to work. </blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
It is one thing to say that our little corner of the universe had a beginning with the Big Bang, but we have little basis at all even for speculating about what might have come before. In some of his public presentations, Craig abuses a theorem due to Borde, Guth and Vilenkin regarding the origins of the universe to add a scientific gloss to his assertions, but he is simply wrong to do so.There is no shortage of viable explanations for the origins of the cosmos that do not involve inventing an all-powerful deity to start it all off. There is no reason at all why there could not be an infinite regress of causes, nor is there any reason to think the universe could not have appeared uncaused. We have little basis even for speculating about what is plausible and what is not in pondering these scenarios. Whatever it was that brought our world into being is something that is not at all like anything with which we have actual experience. How can we judge the relative likelihoods of such naturalistic scenarios, as compared to the likelihood that there is a necessarily existent superbeing who can effortlessly bring universes into being with acts of his will?</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In short, Craig is just making things up when he says that God is the most likely explanation for the existence of the universe. He has no solid basis at all for making such a claim.</blockquote>
<br />
Read it all <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2013/12/18/craigs-five-ways-part-one/">here</a>. Jerry Coynes (<a href="https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/william-lane-craigs-christmas-present-five-bits-of-evidence-for-god-professor-ceiling-cat-responds-with-evidence-for-not-ceiling-cat/">here</a>) also have responses that are worth reading,. <br />
<br />
What do you think?Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-6330290629961385472013-12-17T12:37:00.000-08:002013-12-17T12:38:39.738-08:00George Clifford on Christ's Second ComingAt the Daily Episcopalian, George Clifford has a wonderful essay about the various ways we think (or in the Episcopal Church, <em>don't</em> think) about the promise that Christ will come again:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Generally, thinking about eschatology (the study of end times) divides into four camps. First, there are the alleged literalists. These Christians claim to accept Biblical teachings about the end of history at face value. . . .</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Second, some Christians argue for a realized eschatology, i.e., Christians experience the future return of Christ (aka his second coming) in the sacraments and sacramentals. This view's popularity perhaps peaked in the first half of the twentieth century. . . .</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The third camp is the most common among Episcopalians. These Christians rarely think about Jesus' returning, mindlessly participate in the liturgy week after week without considering the words that they are saying, and view Advent as the inescapable annual prelude to the all-important, heavily secularized holy day of Christmas. This approach simply ignores the uncomfortable if perhaps incomprehensible Bible passages that may (or not, depending upon one's views) reference the culmination of time and Jesus' return.</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The fourth camp consists of Christians who want to remain firmly grounded in science while taking the Biblical witness seriously and acknowledging the critical role of hope for energizing human endeavors. Creation – contrary to what many of us might wish – is dynamic, not static. Change is endemic, pervasive, and inescapable. If you share my belief that God created the cosmos, then we reasonably believe that creation's constant change is indeed evolution, not an unguided series of random events, of which there are certainly a great many, but also evolution, albeit slowly and unevenly, toward a new and better future. Unfortunately, we humans lack both the wisdom and knowledge to discern the specifics of that future, or the process by which it is coming into being. Believing that God is bringing (or luring, in the language of process theology) creation into the future of God's choosing honors the essence of the Biblical witness while recognizing that the Bible's human authors wrote from a very time and culturally bound point of view, using concepts, language, and symbolism appropriate to that context.</blockquote>
<br />
Read it all <a href="http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/church_year/rethinking_advent_a_zest_for_l.php">here</a>.<br />
<br />
Given that I accept the scientific explanations for the creation of the world--the big bang and evolution--Clifford's fourth way to view "the Second Coming" has great appeal? What do you think?Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-68938065833166775442013-12-16T08:25:00.001-08:002013-12-16T10:35:57.119-08:00Thinking About Charitable GivingThe Wall Street Journal this morning has a fascinating article about a group, Give Well, that attempts to evaluate which charities give the most good (e.g. saved lives) for the buck. As you might expect, they determine that particular interventions in the third world provide the best return on the charitable investment:
<br />
<blockquote>
GiveWell sits at the center of a small but growing movement in philanthropy, what you might call "evidence-based giving," which is particularly in vogue among tech millionaires and billionaires. In addition to praise from economists and those in the traditional philanthropic world, GiveWell has earned accolades from tech types. Its largest funder is Good Ventures, the foundation created by Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and his wife, Cari Tuna, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who now runs the foundation. In its philosophical outlook, GiveWell also has much in common with other tech-funded philanthropies, including Pierre Omidyar's , Jeff Skoll's and especially Bill Gates's. Indeed, GiveWell recently moved its headquarters from New York to San Francisco, in part because its philosophy has found more traction with donors in Silicon Valley than finance types on the East Coast.
. . .
</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
This year, GiveWell has picked three <a class="icon none" data-ls-seen="1" href="http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities" target="_new">top charities</a>: <a class="icon none" data-ls-seen="1" href="http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/give-directly" target="_new">GiveDirectly</a>, an organization that provides cash transfers, via cellphone, to people in Kenya and Uganda (and rigorously monitors its results), the <a class="icon none" data-ls-seen="1" href="http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/schistosomiasis-control-initiative" target="_new">Schistosomiasis Control Initiative</a> and the <a class="icon none" data-ls-seen="1" href="http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/deworm-world-initiative" target="_new">Deworm the World Initiative</a>, two programs that pay for inexpensive but highly effective parasitic treatments in developing nation.</blockquote>
Read it all <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304403804579260401364155482">here</a>.
<em>
Christianity Today's </em>"Economic Matters" columnist Bruce Wydick further drills down on whether direct cash payments rather than in-kind donations make the largest impact in combatting poverty:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Researchers at MIT recently carried out a randomized controlled trial to test the impacts of Give Directly. Released in October, the MIT study found that just over a year after receiving their first cash transfer,<br />
<blockquote class="text">
household assets were 58 percent higher (mainly in herd animals), enterprise revenues were 48 percent higher from new livestock and expanded small businesses, family food consumption had increased so much that there was a 42 percent reduction in the number of days children went without food.</blockquote>
<div class="text">
Moreover, the researchers found no increases in the consumption of what even economists call "sin goods": alcohol, cigarettes, or gambling.</div>
<div class="text">
These kinds of impacts are much greater than has been reported from a series of recent randomized trials of microfinance, another potential source of Christmas giving. Organizations such as Kiva, for example, offer microfinance gift certificates online. A Kiva gift certificate has the potential to be "a gift that keeps on giving" as the capital is recycled to borrower after borrower. But a half-dozen recent randomized controlled trials of microfinance undertaken around the world indicate that is typically has only moderate impacts, mainly on business expansion; the impact on household income and children's welfare pales in comparison to the impact of the cash grants. Indeed, in a recent study on microfinance in Nepal, my co-authors and I found that about three-fourths of the apparent before-and-after impact of microfinance is an optical illusion. The illusion is created when borrowers take loans at the time other positive factors are impacting their microenterprises.</div>
</blockquote>
But while Wydick seems to conclude that direct cash payments may have the largest impacts on the poor, he notes that there is a significant "social capital" benefit to in-kind contributions such as that provided by Heifer International:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
At this point it seems that the burden of proof has now fallen to gifts-in-kind organizations to prove that what they do is more effective than simply giving poor people short-run injections of cash that they can spend in the way they deem most appropriate to their situation.
Because of this, it is tempting to want to steer the Christmas gift in the direction of a Give Directly donation. But Heifer's evaluation director Rienzzie Kern sees the issue differently. In a public response to NPR, he acknowledges that while cash may help individual families in the short term, Heifer's mission, he says, is not so much about cows as about building sustained social capital within villages, as offspring of the animals are passed from family to family. Farm animal donation is a means to community-building, he maintains, something that is hard for cash to do.</blockquote>
<br />
Read it all <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/december-web-only/should-i-give-cow-or-cash-for-christmas.html?paging=off">here</a>. I was intrigued enough to make a donation to <a class="icon none" data-ls-seen="1" href="http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/give-directly" target="_new">GiveDirectly</a>, but I think that Heifer International has a point about the value of "social capital" in addition to direct cash payments. I plan to give to both types of organizations. What do you think?Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-86481651160461505672009-04-08T13:38:00.000-07:002009-04-08T13:43:40.735-07:00Why I Stopped BloggingAfter months of waiting, I can finally announce the reason why I have stopped blogging:<br /><br /><blockquote>President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts<br /><br />WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals for key administration posts: Jeffrey Feltman, Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, Department of State; Charles A. Hurley, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation; Robert O. Work, Under Secretary of the Navy, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense; and Charles A. Blanchard, General Counsel, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.<br /><br />President Obama said, “I am confident that the skill and dedication these individuals bring to their roles will serve the American people well as we work to keep our nation safe at home and abroad. I am grateful that they have chosen to serve and look forward to working with them in the months and years ahead.”<br /><br />President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals today:<br /><br />. . .<br /><br /><strong>Charles A. Blanchard, Nominee for General Counsel, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense </strong><br /><br />Charles Blanchard is a litigation partner in the Phoenix, AZ office of Perkins Coie. During the Clinton administration, he served as the General Counsel of the U.S. Army (1999 - 2001) and Chief Counsel of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (1997 - 1999). Before assuming in those positions, he practiced law at Brown & Bain, P.A. (1988 - 1997) and served as Arizona State Senator (1991 - 1995). He also previously served as Associate Independent Counsel in the Office of Independent Counsel James McKay (1987 - 1988). Mr. Blanchard has clerked for Judge Harry T. Edwards on the DC Circuit and for Justice O'Connor. He is a graduate of Lewis & Clark College, Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and Harvard Law School. <br /><br /></blockquote><br /><br />I really enjoyed blogging here--and expecially the virtual friends I met on the way (many of whom live near Washington, D.C. and so who I can now soon meet in the flesh if the Senate confirms my nomination).Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-60592445728841630962009-01-19T14:56:00.000-08:002009-01-19T15:04:17.817-08:00Taking Chance<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MtmiLdzzgGE&border=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MtmiLdzzgGE&border=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object><br /><br />You might have noticed that I have not blogged since the election. I have my reasons (and hope to explain those reasons soon), but I think that I can safely blog about a new movie <em>Taking Chance</em> that will be aired on HBO next month. It is a movie based on a blog post, and it should make for some compelling television. The trailer is above.<br /><br />The military blog, BlACKFIVE explains:<br /><br /><blockquote>Four and a half years ago, I was asked to post "Taking Chance" by LtCol Michael Strobl. It evoked one of the strongest reactions on BlackFive that I have seen since starting the blog in mid-2003. The story also gave me the honor to get to know some of the friends and family and Marine brothers of Chance.<br /><br />. . .<br /><br />It sure seems like HBO stayed true to LtCol Strobl, and, more importantly, Lance Corporal Chance Phelps.<br /><br />Thanks to LtCol Strobl, we all miss Chance.</blockquote><br /><br />Read it all <a href="http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/01/taking-chance-.html">here</a>.<br /><br />The blog post that inspired the movie is <a href="http://www.blackfive.net/main/2004/04/taking_chance.html">here</a>. It is well worth reading.Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-49093715173734947832008-11-05T09:34:00.000-08:002008-11-05T09:37:08.992-08:00What Obama's Victory Means To My Son<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitDJZDzew-zPDT8-1WKaO4_iFOQwhd-8QIlUdV53yvTyF2f5Tc1DJMSf3DmzuwtIeC-52M14x08vmDY3PO6Hpa1l6E_LfMK5Y-MHXV-p4A5SXreVxapBsxe1NgwoPEeVlUBYDV6BcXEA6T/s1600-h/Teddy.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitDJZDzew-zPDT8-1WKaO4_iFOQwhd-8QIlUdV53yvTyF2f5Tc1DJMSf3DmzuwtIeC-52M14x08vmDY3PO6Hpa1l6E_LfMK5Y-MHXV-p4A5SXreVxapBsxe1NgwoPEeVlUBYDV6BcXEA6T/s400/Teddy.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5208099385248569842" /></a><br />I am the father of a three and a half year old African-American child (who already notices race). I am afraid that words do not even begin to express how important Barak Obama's victory will be to my child. The first President that my son will know will be an African American. That is huge. He will know that he can really aspire to anything.Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-78704262464457715472008-11-03T21:31:00.000-08:002008-11-03T21:32:21.552-08:00Obama Headquarters Tonight, Election Eve<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W3ijYVyhnn0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W3ijYVyhnn0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-53673024019372518952008-11-02T18:54:00.001-08:002008-11-02T18:56:51.182-08:00Godless in North Carolina?Cross-posted at <a href="http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead">Episcopal Cafe </a>today: <br /><br />The Campaign for Senate in North Carolina is close, and Senator Dole has decided to win the race by making false allegations about her opponent's alleged atheism. Here is the ad that Dole has been running:<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QuS342L22QI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QuS342L22QI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />The response by Kay Hagen, an elder at a local Presbyterian Church where she teaches Sunday school was quick, and effective:<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k76tRXq0ZC0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k76tRXq0ZC0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />At least one analyst, J.P. Green, thinks that Dole just lost the election by resorting to this tactic:<br /><br /><blockquote>It appears that Sen. Liddy Dole (R-NC) has lost either her marbles or control of her campaign. Dole has unleashed a ridiculously bombastic ad that tries to slime her opponent, Kay Hagan as "Godless." Hagan has put in time as both a Sunday school teacher and church elder in a Greensboro Presbyterian church her family has attended for more than a century.<br /><br />. . .<br /><br />It's a huge blunder. No doubt Dole hopes to fire up her evangelical base for the home stretch. But Dole's absurd allegations are easily rebutted, given Hagan's clear record of commitment to her Christian faith. It's hard to see how Dole can get off scott-free from the consequences of such a silly accusation. And not all evangelicals are happy about what Hagan describes as Dole's 'false witness.' The latest NC Senate race poll average at Pollster.com has Hagan ahead by a margin of 46.6 to 43 percent. If the people of North Carolina are as decent as I think, Dole's ad could cost her the election. <br /><br />I remember Dole once saying that her husband, Bob Dole's lagging campaign for the Presidency needed "adult supervision." It looks like her campaign has the same problem. <br /><br /></blockquote><br /><br />Read it all<a href="http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2008/10/doles_false_witness_may_give_d.php"> here</a>.<br /><br />If you live in North Carolina, vote for Hagen on Tuesday.Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-48491643200408744912008-10-30T11:41:00.000-07:002008-10-30T11:46:06.933-07:00Freakonomics Takes on Gay MarriageNoted economist Justin Wolfers (who does very interesting workonthe economics of happiness) has a moving essay on gay marriage at Freakonomics:<br /><br /><blockquote>It wasn’t meant to be political. <br /><br />In fact, Saturday night, while beautiful, was pretty conventional: two of my dear friends from graduate school were getting married. They are fellow economists who have spent 18 years together; they have supported each other through their careers, each has followed the other to different cities, and they provide each other with support in their personal lives. <br /><br />The only difference is that Jed and Eric are both men.<br />In many respects, their wedding followed the script I’ve celebrated as my other graduate school buddies have married. Friends and family were assembled, and the lucky couple were excited and busy hosts, making sure that all the details were in place. <br /><br />But there were differences. The timing of their wedding had little to do with the progress of their relationship. It is pretty unusual for a couple to wait 18 years to marry. But in this case, their choice reflects the fact that they were legally unable to move ahead until the California Supreme Court ruled that the state’s Constitution recognizes their right to marriage. And they were forced to rush their wedding ahead of next week’s election, as a ballot initiative (Prop 8) seeks to take away this right by amending the constitution.<br /><br />And so circumstances dictated that their love and their wedding, while being intensely personal, was also somehow public and political. <br /><br />. . .<br /><br />The thing that struck me about their ceremony was how viscerally it changed my own feelings about gay marriage. I had always supported gay marriage, but it was an abstract, intellectual support; now it’s personal. And so a friend’s wedding became, for me, the most compelling political event of the year.<br />Here’s an interesting thought: How has the recent wave of same-sex weddings changed the political landscape? There have now been thousands of same-sex weddings, each enjoining scores of invited friends and family to re-examine their thoughts and feelings. There’s a pretty good chance that one of these folks might be the pivotal voter on Tuesday. And I suspect that this is a much more motivating political force than the tens of millions being spent on political advertising.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Read it all <a href="http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/the-most-compelling-political-event-of-the-year/">here</a>.Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-36050166260856831942008-10-28T17:12:00.001-07:002008-10-28T17:30:40.002-07:00Obama Supported on Christian RadioDavid Brody is reporting that an independent expenditure group, Matthew 25, will be running a series of pro-Obama ads on Christian radio:<br /><br /><blockquote><p>If you listen to Christian radio, get ready to hear Barack Obama talking about his Christian journey. And it's coming to a red state near you.<br /><br />The Matthew 25 Network political action committee is coming out with new pro-Obama radio ads that highlight his Christianity. One of them is called, “Source of Hope.” You can listen to it <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK4w9LHhu30">here.</a><br /><br />There will be two other radio ads as well on Christian radio including one from the pro-life conservative legal scholar Douglas Kmiec who defends Obama’s position on abortion. Listen to that one <a href="http://matthew25.org/ourads.htm">here. </a></p><p>These radio ads will be on Christian music stations in the following states: Michigan, Colorado, Ohio, Missouri, Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina. Did you notice how many red states are in there?<br /><br /></p></blockquote><br /><br />Read it all <a href="http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/471375.aspx">here</a>.Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-21404897065541075282008-10-22T11:23:00.000-07:002008-10-22T11:25:32.273-07:00Jesus Attack Ad<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uJ1L4eeu5KI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uJ1L4eeu5KI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />What if Jesus ran for President? Here is the attack ad we would face.<br /><br />Hat tip to Zack at <a href="http://revolutioninjesusland.com/">Revolution in Jesus</a>.Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-80825941169562355452008-10-09T09:21:00.000-07:002008-10-09T12:45:29.028-07:00Obama 08/Micah 6:8<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgw57pi_TPw21Xb0c1oxxvOh0Cmn6qDs1wrtf2SKiUXsX4RgyR38x6LnHShQ4cKBkpH1LRlT7K-Sp_fso_SOZaH7rTzRMLEalTrSlH_P21rIycQIDSYJydfRfv5KvKtKPTDlxrQBlDdBnD_/s1600-h/micah.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5255191131611650130" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgw57pi_TPw21Xb0c1oxxvOh0Cmn6qDs1wrtf2SKiUXsX4RgyR38x6LnHShQ4cKBkpH1LRlT7K-Sp_fso_SOZaH7rTzRMLEalTrSlH_P21rIycQIDSYJydfRfv5KvKtKPTDlxrQBlDdBnD_/s400/micah.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br />This is from Zach at <a href="http://revolutioninjesusland.com/">JesusLand</a>, who thinks it is the best campaign bumper sticker he has ever seen.<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><a onclick="javascript:urchinTracker ('/outgoing/www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Micah+6:8');" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Micah+6:8">Micah 6:8</a> (NIV):<br />"He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."</blockquote><br /><br />Read it all <a href="http://revolutioninjesusland.com/index.php/2008/10/08/obama-08-micah-68/">here</a>.<br /><br /><strong>UPDATE</strong><br /><br />I have given this some thought and have decided that theis bumper sticker, while funny, is also dangerous. I am pleased to see that Obama is getting support from the faithful--and for the right reasons--but such a direct linkage of faith with a particular politician should be as disturbing when done by the left as it is when done by the right. We should be praying that we are doing God's will--not proudly announcing to the world that a particular political position is what God wants. Theocracy by the left is as dangerous as theocracy by the right.Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-66427048891553557772008-10-09T04:00:00.000-07:002008-10-09T10:01:22.441-07:00Obama Friendlier to Religion?David Brody of the Christian Broadcast network notes the recent Faith in Public Life poll showing that voters view Obama as friendlier to faith than McCain, and then offers his own observations about why this may actually be true:<br /><br /><blockquote>Imagine if I told you four years ago that voters felt John Kerry was friendlier to religion than George Bush? You would say that is crazy and you’d be right. But in 2008, a new poll published by Faith in Public Life shows that voters actually think Barack Obama , a Democrat, is slightly more friendlier to religion than John McCain. Read some of the findings below:<br /><br /><blockquote>Forty-nine percent of Americans say Obama is friendly to religion, while 45% say McCain is friendly to religion. More than seven-in-ten (71%) say it is important for public officials to be comfortable talking about religious values.<br /><br />The greatest shift in candidate preference between 2004 and 2008 has occurred among voters who attend religious services once or twice a month, moving from 49% support for Kerry in 2004 to 60% support for Obama in 2008. McCain maintains a significant advantage among voters who attend more frequently, while Obama has a nearly identical advantage over McCain among those who attend less than a few times a month or never.</blockquote><br /><br />. . .<br /><br />As for Brody File analysis, do we really think these numbers are so surprising? In one sense they are startling because who would have “thunk” a Democrat running for President would lead a Republican on being “friendlier to religion”? Wasn’t all that religious talk supposed to be Republican domain? But these numbers make sense because Obama has engaged the faith community in public and McCain has pretty much stayed away for the most part.<br /><br />Remember, this is not about social issues like abortion and marriage. These polls are not suggesting that Obama’s views on public policy are necessarily more “religious” than McCain’s positions. That is not what we are talking about here. Don’t mistake these polling numbers as a referendum on who’s the more religious man.<br /><br />Let me also address a larger point. Americans overall are fairly religious. Worshipping God and going to Church matter in this country. (And not JUST with conservative Evangelicals) The point here is that Obama has done something very smart. By discussing his faith publicly and engaging in God talk, he’s been able to relate to millions of voters in a very real and emotional sort of way. In other words, people in America like to hear you talk about your relationship with God. They want to feel like you have a moral compass somewhere inside of you and what better way to express that than through faith?<br /><br />The McCain campaign wants to show the World that Obama is a true blue liberal and indeed his voting record reflects liberal positions. But Obama’s zest to discuss morality, God and faith has positioned him differently than a John Kerry four years ago. Kerry came across as a secular northeast liberal and couldn’t shake that label. Obama hasn’t been defined that way and the faith aspect is a central reason why.<br /><br /><br /></blockquote><br /><br />Read it all <a href="http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/460756.aspx">here</a>. The study itself is <a href="http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/content/faps/">here</a>.<br /><br />I think that Brody's analysis is right on. I also understand that this has also caused many of my atheist friends like the Exerrminator to have real doubts about Obama. I think, however, that Obama offers the best of both worlds--he is respectful (and yes, "friendly" to faith) and he can certainly takl the faith talk in ways that church-going folks like me can relate to. Yet, on critical First Amendment issues that should really concern the secularists among us, Obama has a very good and thoughtful record that recognizes the importance of a separationof church and state.<br /><br />By the way, be sure to check out Ruth Gledhill's own poll on "Who is the better Christian" <a href="http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/10/is-sarah-palin.html">here</a>. Last time I checked yesterday afternoon, Obama was winning with Sarah Palin in a close second, and Biden a close third. McCain came in dead last well behind Biden.Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-9191440936070177332008-10-08T13:59:00.001-07:002008-10-08T14:13:22.602-07:00Stephen Waldman on Abortion ReductionI have argued several times on this blog that it is time for politicians on both sides of the abortion debate to get serious about abortion reduction. (You can find all of these posts collected <a href="http://aguyinthepew.blogspot.com/search/label/Abortion">here</a>. Steve Waldman of Beliefnet has a very interesting essay that argues that a serious effort to reduce abortion would likely do more than efforts to overrule <em>Roe v. Wade</em>:<br /><br /><blockquote><p>Some Democrats are now making an unusual argument about abortion: that a Democratic administration might actually <a href="http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/10/new-ad-obamas-approach-would-r.html">reduce abortions more than a Republican administration.</a>On the surface, this seems preposterous. Republicans oppose abortion rights, Democrats support them. How could it possibly be that a Democratic approach would reduce abortion more?<br /><br />. . . </p><p>When Democrats refer to an "abortion reduction strategy" they mostly mean efforts that keep abortion legal but help prevent pregnancy through family planning and/or making it easier for women who do get pregnant to carry the baby to term. (A few examples: <a href="http://www.prolifeproobama.com/plpo_abortionfacts.htm">Matthew 25 Network</a> and Democrats for Life's <a href="http://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48">95-10 strategy</a>)</p><p><a href="http://www.catholicsinalliance.org/files/CACG_Final.pdf">A new study indicates </a>that a variety of non-coercive measures could have a real impact on abortion rates. Two social scientists recently looked at abortion rates in different states during the period in the 1990s when abortion rates were declining. They concluded that economics did affect women's decisions (what has long been suspected) and that therefore social welfare policies can have demonstrable effect. For instance, if you increase payments for Women, Infants and Children, more women come to think they'll have the means to birth and raise a child. They also found that when male employment improved, that reduced the abortion rate as well. Conversely, if you have Medicaid funding for abortions - something Obama supports -- that increases the rate of abortion. </p><p><br />The authors concluded that the right package of financial incentives could therefore reduce the number of abortions by several hundred thousand.<br /></p><p><br /><br />. . .<br /><br />I'm not one who believes that all unintended pregnancies occur because of a scarcity of birth control. But there is solid evidence that greater sex education - including abstinence education -- and birth control does lead to fewer unintended pregnancies and therefore abortions. According to an <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html">Alan Guttmacher Institute study, </a>46% who had abortions had not used contraception during the month they got pregnant, largely for reasons of ignorance. 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy. 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods. 8% had never used contraceptions. All in all, "about half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives."<br /><br />. . .<br /><br />So what? you might be thinking. The pro life forces have ignored abortion reduction in favor of abortion elimination -- a much more desirable result if you're a fetus.<br /><br />But the traditional pro-life strategy has not resulted in any difference in abortion rates during Republican administrations. Why?<br /><br />In general, pro life activists have followed a two-pronged strategy that emphasizes a) high-impact but politically unpopular steps and b) low-impact but politically popular steps. An example of their high-impact-low-likelihood efforts: having the Republican platform endorse a Constitutional amendment banning all abortion in all states at all levels of gestation. It certainly would cut the number of abortions but it's not going to happen.<br /><br />Efforts to require parental consent have borne more fruit. They provide tactical wins for the pro life movement and there is evidence that they help reduce the abortion rates among some teens. But teens account for a minority of abortions.<br /><br />Meanwhile, pro-life forces push hard on issues like late term abortion which are morally egregious. They hope that these examples help turn public opinion against abortion in general, and they may have: public opinion has become more concerned about abortion since the 1980s. What these efforts don't do is directly reduce the number of abortions very much, since far less than 1% of abortions are late-term.<br /><br />On balance, the evidence is strong, therefore, that as long as Roe v. Wade is on the books, a comprehensive abortion reduction strategy of the sort advocated by progressive pro-life activists could reduce abortions more than that approach traditional taken by the pro-life community.<br /><br />But what if Roe v. Wade is overturned? We may be just one Supreme Court justice away from such an outcome. Surely that would lead to a massive drop in abortions, no? </p><p>Not necessarily -- because the states where public opinion is pro-life are already the states with lower abortion rates. So when those states ban abortion, the impact on abortion rates won't be dramatic. <a href="http://catholics-united.org/files/reducing-abortion-in-america.pdf">Joseph Wright, a visiting professor at Notre Dame, estimated </a>that if abortion bans were enacted in states where a majority of the population is now pro life, that would lead to a 10% reduction in abortions nationally.<br />This is a possibility acknowledged by neither pro-life forces (which have placed all their eggs in the Roe basket) nor pro-choice forces (which like to cast such an event as doomsday).<br />So we're left with this stunning possibility: a comprehensive abortion reduction agenda of the sort advocated by pro-life progressives could reduce abortions by twice as much as overturning Roe v Wade.<br /></p></blockquote><br /><br />Read it all <a href="http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/10/can-democrats-reduce-abortion.html">here</a> (it is well worth reducing the whole essay--most notably for its discusion of the fact that Obama has not yet really endorced the abortion reduction agenda).<br /><br />As I have said repeatedly before, for most candidates for office, the abortion debate (on both sides) has been more about constituencies and fundraising than a real issue about real lives. The result has been that political leaders are forced into two sharply divided camps with few politicians (Joe Biden being one exception, by the way) willing to be in the middle. What attracks me about the abortion reduction movement is that it offers true progress. Apparantly, Waldman agrees. <br /><br />What do you think?Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-28529423101431796422008-10-01T17:22:00.001-07:002008-10-01T17:32:49.918-07:00The Twelve Tribes of Politics<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxp2u5__Cfj6jllhzuzdV0f7nXdHOiEavAAGJM13DwBd30_jDPjLrz_jp30rJAiJ6SG4-b45NRteo-c9G1NBp0QEyXLyJF_nbtAuWBz6NldxC4uIvsF5ZzkTtKqP7FM_uRemxVJMNjBlPt/s1600-h/chart_candidatePref.gif"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxp2u5__Cfj6jllhzuzdV0f7nXdHOiEavAAGJM13DwBd30_jDPjLrz_jp30rJAiJ6SG4-b45NRteo-c9G1NBp0QEyXLyJF_nbtAuWBz6NldxC4uIvsF5ZzkTtKqP7FM_uRemxVJMNjBlPt/s400/chart_candidatePref.gif" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5252347771988615138" /></a><br />Steve Waldman of Beliefnet.com and University of Akron's John Green offer their latest "12 Tribes" analysis of politics, which focuses on the political beliefs of twelve different categories of religious belief and practice:<br /><br /><blockquote>Moral issues are dramatically less important this year than in previous years – even among the most religiously observant voters, according to the 2008<br />edition of the Twelve Tribes of American Politics.<br /><br />Just 13% listed social issues first, half the number who did in the summer of 2004. 61% listed the economy first compared to 32% in 2004.<br /><br />The Twelve Tribes were introduced in 2004 as a collaboration between Beliefnet and John Green of the Bliss Institute at University of Akron, based on the National Surveys of Religion and Politics. The premise: most political reporting acted as if there were two groups – the Religious Right and Everyone Else. So we crafted a new set of groupings, inspired by the twelve tribes of Biblical Israel, but formed<br />around similarities in religious beliefs and practice.<br /><br />The 2008 Twelve Tribes survey, conducted from June-August, also found:<br /><br /><ul><li>A massive shift among Latino Protestants is what has fueled the hugely important move of Hispanics to the Democratic Party (<a href="http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/09/the-major-shift-of-latino-prot.html">more</a>). </li></ul><br /><br /><ul><li>The centrist Tribes – Convertible Catholics, Whitebread Protestants and Moderate Evangelicals – have moved to the left on some social issues but have become more suspicious of government spending programs. Republicans remain strong with these groups groups (<a href="http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/09/centrist-groups-remain-suspici.html">more</a>). </li></ul></blockquote><br /><br />Read it all <a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/story/236/story_23639_1.html">here</a>. You can also find the <a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/story/236/story_23645_1.html" target="_blank">McCain-Obama breakdown</a>, the <a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/tout/story/twelvetribeschart.pdf" target="_blank">full survey results</a>, the <a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/story/236/story_23646_1.html" target="_blank">methodology</a> or <a href="http://blog.beliefnet.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?tag=Twelve%20Tribes&blog_id=75" target="_blank">Steven Waldman's full analysis</a>.Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-45832260298265796042008-09-23T12:17:00.000-07:002008-09-23T12:35:25.400-07:00Abortion Rate Continues to Decline<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6kRAck-dYmyeBv__oP50POUiTN1JoOFS9xeTuXXjylORT2ViVQ_LFudvInPF0JrkV_ag8pPm3KU7MkjzlGaUO4AysYxjSnwqrDxfLRJvfXiYwpATVZBDzEGbS03tJMzhFkUvZFNiTPNNq/s1600-h/abortionRATES.gif"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6kRAck-dYmyeBv__oP50POUiTN1JoOFS9xeTuXXjylORT2ViVQ_LFudvInPF0JrkV_ag8pPm3KU7MkjzlGaUO4AysYxjSnwqrDxfLRJvfXiYwpATVZBDzEGbS03tJMzhFkUvZFNiTPNNq/s400/abortionRATES.gif" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249299427743009778" /></a><br /><br />The Guttmacher Institute released their annual study on abortion rates. I think the most stunning fact is that abortion rates are almost at the level they were in 1974 when <em>Roe v. Wade </em>was decided. good news in my view. There is also a host of other demographic information for anyone serious about abortion reduction. Here is the <em>Washington Post</em> report:<br /><br /><blockquote>In the first comprehensive analysis since 1974 of demographic characteristics of women who have abortions, researchers found that the overall drop in the abortion rate has been marked by a dramatic shift, declining more among white women and teenagers than among black and Hispanic and older women. <br /><br />"There's been a real change in the picture of women who get abortions," said Rachel Jones, a senior research associate at the Guttmacher Institute, a private nonprofit reproductive health research organization considered to be one of the most authoritative sources on abortion trends. "This is the first time anyone has looked at this in a comprehensive way." <br /><br />Jones and her colleagues analyzed annual data collected by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and by periodic surveys that Guttmacher has conducted of abortion providers between 1974 and 2004. <br /><br />The analysis confirmed previous reports that the abortion rate fell to the lowest level since 1974, dropping 33 percent from a peak of 29 abortions per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 in 1980 to 20 per 1,000 in 2004. <br /><br />During that period, the proportion of abortions obtained by women younger than 20 dropped steadily, falling from 33 percent in 1974 to 17 percent in 2004. For those younger than 18, it fell from 15 percent of all abortions in 1974 to 6 percent in 2004. At the same time, the proportion of abortions obtained by women in their 20s increased from 50 percent to 57 percent, and the share done for women age 30 and older rose from 18 percent to 27 percent. <br /><br />Although abortion rates have declined among all racial and ethnic groups, large disparities persist, with Hispanic and black women having the procedure at rates three to five times the rate of white women. <br /><br />In 2004, there were 10.5 abortions per 1,000 white women ages 15 to 44, compared with 28 per 1,000 Hispanic women of that age and 50 per 1,000 black women. That translates into approximately 1 percent of white women having an abortion in 2004, compared with 3 percent of Hispanic women and 5 percent of black women. Jones attributed that to the focus on reducing teenage pregnancy and on increasing contraceptive use. <br /><br /></blockquote><br /><br />In other words, a focus on rducing teenage pregnancy worked between 1974 and 2004. (Note that there are disturbing sings that this progress is no longer occuring). If we want to reduce abortions further, the focus needs to be on older women:<br /><br /><blockquote>"We've made the most important progress in reducing teen pregnancy and abortion rate, [rather] than reducing unintended pregnancy in older women," Jones said. <br /><br />"We know from other research that having lower income makes a woman more likely to get an abortion. Women of color tend to be lower-income, and so in turn when confronted with an unintended pregnancy are more likely to have an abortion," Jones said. <br /><br />The proportion of all abortions performed for women who already had a child increased from 46 percent in 1974 to 60 percent in 2004, reflecting the trend of women who cannot afford to have another child turning to abortion, Jones said. <br /><br />The findings indicate "we need to figure out efforts to reduce unintended pregnancy, not only among teenagers but among all women, and in particularly women of color," she said. "A lot of policymakers are stuck 30 years back when most women getting abortions are teenagers and college students, and that isn't so much the case these days." <br /><br />Others said the findings underscore the need to increase access to contraception for poor women. <br /><br />"Birth control is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies," said Laurie Rubiner, vice president for public policy at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "Unfortunately there's a large number of uninsured people in this country, and if you are uninsured you are less likely to have access to affordable health care, including affordable birth control." <br /><br /></blockquote><br /><br />Read it all <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202831.html?hpid=moreheadlines">here</a>.Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-65425521676461970862008-09-12T20:16:00.000-07:002008-09-13T12:55:04.741-07:00A Liberal Woman's Take on Sarah Palin<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidWSaf42MlJi-bOJGgIfHZPWcGRwR7wmpEFbiKFcMifHmtHq5MQ6yq78owuSk1nh2smB-cMVSAeFGvtJ9H9APicel2Lw6rBitLEK11W_umHzICzJm4rTZ51vE81lYBTOTK99UJ2_ZWQxA7/s1600-h/Allison20001.bmp"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidWSaf42MlJi-bOJGgIfHZPWcGRwR7wmpEFbiKFcMifHmtHq5MQ6yq78owuSk1nh2smB-cMVSAeFGvtJ9H9APicel2Lw6rBitLEK11W_umHzICzJm4rTZ51vE81lYBTOTK99UJ2_ZWQxA7/s400/Allison20001.bmp" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5245340891684848226" /></a><br />Some on the left seem so keen on victory in November that they come close (well, ahem, real close) to suggesting that that Sarah Palin should stay home and raise her kids. My decidedly liberal (well, in most ways) wife has a different view. She is an ardent Obama/Biden supporter, but thinks that the candidacy of Sarah Palin has much to celebrate. Here are her thoughts as expressed in an email blast that she sent to her friends around the country:<br /><br /><blockquote>I think we should be grateful to Sarah Palin. Really.<br /> <br />These are things I think changed when Sarah Palin became the darling of the Republican Right:<br />1. It's OK for a woman to be politically ambitious. Before this, women were condemned by the Right for such ambition. Sarah Palin is the poster child for political ambition, and the Right just eats it up. <br />2. It's OK for a woman to be tough. Before this, a tough woman was perceived as not feminine enough -- not enough of a woman. Sarah Palin has shown that a woman can be tough and feminine. You've got to give her that. No more need to dress like a man to be taken seriously at a meeting. It's about time.<br />3. It's OK for a woman to be a sarcastic bitch. (I gotta tell you, I'm thrilled about this one!) Any other woman who had taken the tone Governor Palin did in her acceptance speech would have been raked over the coals, but now, it's all OK.<br />4. Being in the PTA, and the carpool, and managing a household now count as real world experience that prepares a person to do something other than be a homemaker, even to govern our nation. Hallelujah! Feminists have been saying for decades that traditional "women's work" was real work that required real skills and should count for something and not be written off. Now the Right has recognized that. Excellent. I'm going to update my resume.<br />5. It's OK for a woman not to be the primary care giver of her children. This is sort of a corollary to #1, because one of the reasons that women were condemned for political ambition is that they were "not taking care of" their children and families. Sarah Palin is clearly not the primary caregiver for her kids, even for her newborn. (She went back to work when Trig was 3 days old.) That is OK. Really. Families have the right to choose how best to organize themselves, and no two families are the same. Again, feminists have been saying this for decades, but the Right has resisted it mightily. Now, they've embraced it. Good for everyone.<br />6. The next time the Right wants to take a holier than thou attitude about anyone to the political left of them, we just remind them that Sarah Palin's pregnant, teenage, unwed daughter didn't bother them, that they understood that people are fallible, that we all have our moments of weakness, and that we should not be condemned for our mistakes that we have recognized and atoned for. Also, the Right has said that people cannot be held responsible for the misdeeds of their loved ones (kids, spouses, siblings). Excellent. <br /> <br />This really is progress. Now, any native-born American really does have the opportunity to become president. Best of all, the genie is out of the bottle on these issues and won't be going back in.<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjg5oGl6pDqP8C-Oqjx2FrVHBU_7BtOzQR-_kBxut7BmTm_Z0nNbwEOThaabTQnptuckV_YLemk_W0fSn8jCmzvx7q5FpkyAi_Y1GP59MiemPdjC2JOkmadN_UOMX8soSeqqfTHm75Ut4ca/s1600-h/097-IMG_0492.JPG"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjg5oGl6pDqP8C-Oqjx2FrVHBU_7BtOzQR-_kBxut7BmTm_Z0nNbwEOThaabTQnptuckV_YLemk_W0fSn8jCmzvx7q5FpkyAi_Y1GP59MiemPdjC2JOkmadN_UOMX8soSeqqfTHm75Ut4ca/s400/097-IMG_0492.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5245348826439819026" /></a><br />[I might add that my wife has lots of foreign policy experience should anyone be looking for a future Vice President. She worked as an expert on Latin America for nearly a decade in the State Department, Defense Department, and White House. The picture above was taken when Allison was with her boss Barry McCaffrey during President Clinton's state visit to Colombia in 2000. She was trying to get a picture with Juan Valdez when Secretary Albright butted in. And she has made her own choices about work/family balance. She left a position with Governor Napolitano to be a fulltime stay-at-home mom for our son.]Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-81912640130871615842008-09-10T20:33:00.001-07:002009-04-10T11:02:43.353-07:00September 11th: Remembering FriendsOn Memorial Day last year, I posted <a href="http://aguyinthepew.blogspot.com/2007/05/remembering-friends-my-memorial-day.html">my own memorial </a>for four men and women I called friends and colleagues who died serving this country. Three were solders. One was a civilian. All died serving this country. As I said in that post, "Sadly, most Americans have lost touch with the military. Joining the Army, Marines, Navy or Air Force is something that others do. As a result, a day like Memorial Day is too abstract--we vaguely (and briefly) recall the brave men and women who died while serving this country, but don't remember anyone in particular."<br /><br />As I did last year, for my memorial for September 11th, I would like to remember two friends who died in the September 11th attack on the Pentagon.<br /><br /><strong><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7cevAnjDQQ16bwAW6PHi1ETPat_yYK62uRYs-rH41zUBzaUkfhBbiNRJJUuxzLipc5Je0Hp8k8x2AZwjnZCF2qxhJ86iFsn5OzmsgT-jUsuOQnYZo7mY7YUIeLOgVLBw4gkTyihCbCaxe/s1600-h/Maude.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5069359664957768226" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7cevAnjDQQ16bwAW6PHi1ETPat_yYK62uRYs-rH41zUBzaUkfhBbiNRJJUuxzLipc5Je0Hp8k8x2AZwjnZCF2qxhJ86iFsn5OzmsgT-jUsuOQnYZo7mY7YUIeLOgVLBw4gkTyihCbCaxe/s320/Maude.jpg" border="0" /></a>Lieutenant General Timothy J. Maude</strong> was the highest ranking officer to die in the September 11th attack of the Pentagon. I knew him as a friend and client. We had lunch together virtually everyday in the Pentagon's General Officer's mess. He was serving as the the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel at the time of his death. He entered the United States Army as an enlisted soldier on March 21, 1966. Upon completion of Officer Candidate School in February 1967, he was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the Adjutant General's Corps. He served in Vietnam. Lieutenant General Maude was a soldier for more than 35 years, during which time he served in a variety of important command and staff positions, culminating in his assignment as the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, United States Army. The <a href="http://www.maudefoundation.org/aboutTim.html">Maude Foundation </a>website describes Tim well: "Lieutenant General Maude understood the human spirit. He understood that the well being of the Army-soldiers, civilians, retirees, veterans and their families-is inextricably linked to our readiness as a force. The success of the "Army of One" campaign demonstrates his broad understanding of human nature and his creative instincts in delivering on that understanding. He understood that young men and women today are looking for something greater than self and are able to accept the notion of duty to country as the noblest of endeavors. . . . His love of soldiers and his devotion to the Army was deep and genuine. Simply put, Lieutenant General Maude loved soldiers; he loved the Army; he loved this wonderful country. His every action cheerfully reflected this commitment to duty." He indeed cared deeply about the welfare of soldiers.<br /><br /><br /><strong><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIkA4NmKy8hni3JJxlKholpwijjQYtgH1KtSf5-i5sMJTRSf16fYebxp7lfVtND6S9kjUXFCjdujWpNSHeXrja4P51iuZcslThPYiayT-mmLqokI1Saf7bxwhbmm1pcWMm_FGzoVpNT-86/s1600-h/Ernie.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5069359888296067634" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIkA4NmKy8hni3JJxlKholpwijjQYtgH1KtSf5-i5sMJTRSf16fYebxp7lfVtND6S9kjUXFCjdujWpNSHeXrja4P51iuZcslThPYiayT-mmLqokI1Saf7bxwhbmm1pcWMm_FGzoVpNT-86/s320/Ernie.jpg" border="0" /></a>Ernie Willcher </strong>was one of the career Army lawyers who worked with me when I was General Counsel of the Army. He was the go-to guy in our office on most personnel issues. Of the four, Ernie is the person I knew best. He dedicated a lifetime to serving the Army as a civilian lawyer. At the time of his death, he was a consultant and was meeting with Tim Maude on a project about improving the lives of the families of soldiers--ironically, a new website tool for the survivors of soldiers killed in action. Ernie was a very hard worker, a gentle soul, and the most dedicated father I have ever met. He also had many of the most challenging legal issue on his plate while I served as General Counsel, and Ernie never failed me.<br /><br />September 11, 2001 is only seven years ago. Do me a favor tomorrow: take a break from the 2008 election and please take a moment to think about Tim, Ernie, and their families, as well as the thousands of other victims of the September 11th attacks.Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-66502349462321027342008-09-03T04:00:00.000-07:002008-09-03T04:00:01.737-07:00Climate Change: New Evidence for the Hockey Stick<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSPRprIblECVyBrlSzWa777YENSY4RzfpakJ8vo56v4etUVA0Z8TGY5ssRDVo679UDEGHo1_cYam72miPH_X1x-TjJXiZXs6bp1TMzo38E-q7OeHxEfh-Cjcm4o7ZvtWkfkesfVUB0LtMe/s1600-h/hockeystick2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5241636601248051090" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSPRprIblECVyBrlSzWa777YENSY4RzfpakJ8vo56v4etUVA0Z8TGY5ssRDVo679UDEGHo1_cYam72miPH_X1x-TjJXiZXs6bp1TMzo38E-q7OeHxEfh-Cjcm4o7ZvtWkfkesfVUB0LtMe/s400/hockeystick2.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br />The so-called "hockey stick" chart--which shows a rapid rise in global temperature is a mainstay in arguments that humans are causing climate change--a center of attacks by climate change denialists. A new study offers a revised chart that conforms the hockey stick chart. Climat Feedback explains the development:<br /><br /><blockquote>The contentious ‘hockey stick’ climate change graph has again been upheld as broadly accurate, doubtless to the rage of climate denialists/sceptics/whatevers.<br /><br />A team led by Michael Mann of Penn State University has looked at a whole range of proxies for surface temperatures over the last 2,000 years in an attempt to counter criticism of the graph, which showed a long ‘handle’ and a sharp upturn (the blade).<br />Their findings? As the <a href="http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/09/01/a-gnarlier-hockey-stick-the-same-message/">Christian Science Monitor</a> puts it: “It still looks a lot like the much-battered, but still rink-ready stick of 1998. Today the handle reaches further back and it’s a bit more gnarly. But the blade at the business end tells the same story.<br /><br />”The previous hockey stick had been accused of relying too much on data from tree rings so this <a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0805721105">PNAS study</a> may silence some of the critics when it appears later.</blockquote><br /><br />Read it all <a href="http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/09/jolly_hockey_sticks.html">here</a>. There is good coverage <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/past_decade_is_warmest_in_at_l.php">here</a> as well.Chuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.com5