Terra Extraneus

President John F. Kennedy was assassinated on this date, Nov. 22, in 1963. I was a fifth-grader in Omaha, Neb., 10 years old, when Kennedy was shot down in the streets of Dallas. The event made a lasting impression on me, as it did most members of my generation. It has popularly been observed that we who were alive then can remember exactly where we were and what we were doing when we first heard the shocking news.

Nov. 22 became a special date on the calendar, joining other fateful dates such as June 6 (“D-Day”) and Dec. 7 (Pearl Harbor). However, more than four decades later, the historical significance of today’s date occurred to me today for the first time only this afternoon. I had to look it up to confirm my memory that this is indeed the date I suddenly realized it was. I heard no mention of JFK on the radio during my 20-minute drive to work this morning; nor have I heard him mentioned today in conversation. Looking now on the Internet, I do see several dozen media references to Kennedy’s assassination, but it is not one of today’s top stories.

I think it is fair to say that the impact of the Kennedy assassination is diminishing in our collective consciousness. That, I suppose, is inevitable. How many know the date upon which Lincoln was shot (Good Friday, April 14, 1865)? How many know even the names of the other two presidents beside Lincoln and Kennedy who were assassinated (Garfield and McKinley)? Kennedy’s youthfulness and charisma were compelling, and his image acquired a near-godlike aura after his martyrdom. However, all these years later, when the public was asked earlier this year to rank the 11 presidents since World War II, Kennedy still ranks high on the list, but only third after Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

Each generation has its notable dates. In the early 21st century it is “9/11,” a calendar reference that the public will not forget for a very long time to come. Of course, four decades ago I might have guessed that the public would never forget what happened on Nov. 22, 1963. But a lot can happen in forty years.

2 Comments

A California Supreme Court ruling on Monday bolsters the free speech rights of bloggers. The ruling protects Internet publishers’ right to post the possibly libelous statements of others. The ruling does not exempt bloggers and other Internet publishers from liability for their own comments.

The ruling was not based on the First Amendment, but on the Communications Decency Act, which Congress could change. Indeed, in its ruling the Court seems to be calling on Congress to review that 1996 federal law in light of 21st century Internet activity.

We acknowledge that recognizing broad immunity for defamatory republications on the Internet has some troubling consequences. Until Congress chooses to revise the settled law in this area, however, plaintiffs who contend they were defamed in an Internet posting may only seek recovery from the original source of the statement.

Nevertheless, the ruling is a good one for free speech in the blogosphere. Text of the ruling can be found here: California Supreme Court ruling.

* * * * *
MSNBC did some sloppy reporting of the Court’s ruling. Its headline vastly overstates the extent of the ruling: “Calif. court says bloggers can’t be sued. State’s Supreme Court said a federal law gives immunity from libel suits.”

In the report that follows, MSNBC correspondent Pete Williams reports:

She argued that because she did not write the letter herself and instead posted the work of another to her newsgroup, she was immune from suit under a section of the federal Communications Decency Act, passed by Congress in 1966. It protects both Internet service providers and their users from lawsuits.

Oops. The Communications Decency Act, the first federal law regulating Internet content, was passed in 1996, not 1966. The World Wide Web didn’t come along until 1991.

No Comments

Another Jon Swift gem: “If O.J. Simpson Did It…Not!”

Swift says that after O.J.’s book, If I Did It, hits the stands, other books in the making include:
• If I Were Gay, by Tom Cruise
• If the War in Iraq was a Mistake, by George W. Bush
• If I Were a Racist, by George Allen and Trent Lott

I won’t spoil the rest, but Swift also suggests book titles for Tom DeLay, Roger Ailes and Rush Limbaugh. Have fun reading it.

No Comments

* * * * *
See: “Part 1: Should We Feel Sorry for the Middle Class?”
* * * * *

Are you a member of the middle class? Am I? An intelligent discussion of the travails of the middle class is not possible unless we define the term. Yet there is no consensus among economists or the general public regarding who makes up America’s middle class.

American Demographics magazine reported:

The majority of Americans define themselves as middle class, regardless of their actual income level. This perception is obviously off-base, but with no official definition, it’s hard to pin down how much Americans overestimate their middle-class status.

Similarly, the Washington Times reported:

There is no real definition of the middle class in the United States, assert economists and sociologists, who say “middle class” always has been more of a state of mind than an actual economic status. Even the U.S. Census Bureau has no official definition.

One organization defines the middle class as composed of those families who make $25,000 to $100,000 a year. That range is absurdly broad. Surely it is obvious that the $25,000/year family, e.g., two wage-earners working full-time for $6/hour, is in a different economic class than the $100,000 family.

HOW MUCH DO THEY MAKE?
The most sensible approach is to let simple mathematics define the “middle class.” Divide all households into groups based on household income, and the middle group is the middle class. Those who use this approach commonly divide the nation into quintiles (five equal groups), but that method creates a middle group that is much too small to satisfy our common perception of who is included in the great middle class.

Let’s see what we get by dividing U.S. households into three or four equal groups. Splitting U.S. Census Bureau 2005 income distribution data into quartiles, the “poor” and “lower class” consist of the 25% of households with income of $23,000 or less, and the “upper class” and “rich” are the 25% of households with $80,000 or more. That makes the middle class the middle 50%, half of the nation, having household incomes from $23,000 to $80,000. Now we’re getting somewhere. However, that gives us a middle class that is still too broadly defined; the lower end of it includes two-income families scraping by on minimum wage.

We achieve a more meaningful definition of middle class by dividing U.S. households into three equal groups, with the middle group — households in the $30,000 to $67,500 range — composing the middle class. That correlates well with the median household income, $46,326 in 2005, which is very close to the exact middle of the middle class as I have defined it.

So, alert the media, distribute the memo and bang the drums of the blogosphere: America’s “middle class” has now been concisely and coherently defined as composed of the middle third of households, based on total household income, which in 2005 consisted of those families making $30,000 to $67,500 a year.

IS THE MIDDLE CLASS WEALTHY?
Is that a lot of money? This series on the “Middle Class Trap” was prompted (more…)

11 Comments

If John McCain is elected president in 2008, he will become the oldest person to ever enter the office, at 72 years old. The distinction currently belongs to Ronald Reagan, who was 69 when he began his first term in 1981.

McCain would be the White House’s first incoming septuagenarian. Among our 43 U.S. presidents, 8 were in their 40s when they began their first terms, 25 were in their 50s, and 10 in their 60s. Bill Clinton became our first baby boomer president, and was followed by fellow boomer George W. Bush. In the 21st century, are voters willing to elect a man born 10 years before the Baby Boom even began?

Of course, if 60 is the new 40, then 70 is the new 50. To prove it, in August, McCain backpacked through the Grand Canyon — and his publicists have been mentioning it every chance they get since. Expect to see plenty more feats of strength and daring by McCain during the next two years.

Related to age is the question of health. McCain seems to be in good health. His chief concern is melanoma. He had a cancerous mole removed from his shoulder in 1993, and two cancerous tumors removed from his temple and arm in 2000; no more problems since then.

During the McCain campaign, comparisons to Ronald Reagan are inevitable. McCain may benefit by the comparison. In a poll this year, citizens named Reagan the best president in the last 60 years (George W. Bush was named the worst). However, there is a big problem for McCain with the Reagan comparison: thinking of Reagan brings to mind the late president’s Alzheimer’s disease during his final years. That’s not what McCain wants voters thinking about.

No matter how energetic McCain is, health concerns are an inescapable fact of life for people in their 70s. Two Stanford scholars wrote this when Bob Dole was the GOP nominee in 1996 at age 73:

No matter how healthy the elderly candidate for the presidency appears to be, there is a significant likelihood that he will not survive or that his intellectual powers and leadership ability may be compromised, far more so than among those in their 50s.

If McCain gets the nomination, his choice of running mate becomes crucial. Will he pick someone in their 40s or 50s to balance the ticket, or will he worry that a significantly younger running mate will only underscore his age? Most importantly, it will be essential for McCain to choose someone the nation would be comfortable with in the Oval Office. It also would be interesting to see how McCain’s age plays against the Democratic nominee, particularly if the nominee is youthful, such as John Edwards, 53, or Baruck Obama, 47. (Hillary Clinton turns 60 next year.)

Reagan was the master at using humor to deflect questions about his age. In his 1984 debate with Walter Mondale, Reagan (73 at the time; Mondale was 56) quipped:

I will not make age an issue in this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.

I have seen McCain’s attempts at humor. He does not have Reagan’s gift, but he can be funny, as he was in 2002 in a Saturday Night Live skit promoting his supposed album, “McCain sings Streisand.” “I’ve been in politics for over 20 years, and for over 20 years, I’ve had Barbra Streisand trying to do my job. So I decided to try my hand at her job,” McCain deadpanned. You can be sure McCain has been rehearsing age-related one-liners for the campaign trail.

My opinion: McCain’s age is not an issue. Nine of our 43 presidents — that’s 21%, a significant percentage — failed to complete their terms. Four were assassinated, four more died in office, and one resigned. Two of them were in their 40s and five were in their 50s; in other words, youth is no guarantee of a full term. The only thing certain about the future is that it is full of surprises.

* * * * *
Thanks to Michael Bates at Batesline for linking to this post. Thanks also to Andy Jackson at SmartChristian for pointing this way. Andy says he’s leaning toward McCain, but will be watching to see if McCain is able to maintain his energy level during the next two years of campaigning.

3 Comments

Are America’s middle class citizens victims of “economic injustice” in a system that has become “broken?” Or, rather, is the American middle class composed of greedy materialists who “serve mammon rather than God?” Those are the choices offered in a debate between Joe Carter and Dan Edelen. Guess I’ll jump into the fray.

Joe Carter is a writer for the evangelical conservative Family Research Council, and Carter’s Evangelical Outpost was named Best Religious Blog in the 2005 Weblog Awards (and is on TerraX’s “must read” blogroll). Dan Edelen is a Christian freelance writer who writes the blog, Cerulean Sanctum.

A debate between the two began on Monday with Edelen’s post: “Politics, Economics and the American Church.” Edelen wrote that an overlooked reason for the Republican Party’s poor showing in last week’s election is economic discontent among the middle class. “It’s still the economy, stupid!” Edelen wrote.

Middle class voters smarting from job losses and inequities in the economy voted with their wallets, not with an eye toward Iraq, terrorism, or any other topic.

Describing it as an “economic justice issue,” Edelen cited the dilemma of the U.S. middle class: inflation, mounting debt, second mortgages, the necessity of two incomes to make ends meet, lack of job security and nonexistent savings. Meanwhile, the top 1% of the wealthy own almost all the wealth, and corporations’ top execs enjoy skyrocketing income.

Faced with this gloomy scenario, Edelen proposes:

I believe that our churches must start working toward some kind of money pool to help fellow congregants who fall on hard times. With so many families’ money highly leveraged, and the reality that the middle class is fighting a losing battle against rising costs, something needs to be done on a macro level to fix some of the financial injustices people face today. But the pulpit is silent. … Who in the Church in America speaks out against the real problem, our broken system?

Edelen concludes his post with this grim prophecy:

All it takes is a minor recession … With so many precariously perched families with no savings, high credit card debt, loans taken against homes of decreasing value — it won’t take much. Church, are we ready? Truly? Time to wake up and start preparing for that day. It’s coming faster than we think.

Carter, who describes himself as Edelen’s friend, took issue with his buddy’s post, which he labeled “absolutely bizarre.” As a matter of fact, Carter called Edelen “sinfully hubristic” for expressing such a view. (more…)

5 Comments

Nominations have opened for the 2006 Weblog Awards. Some observations:

• Terra Extraneus has been nominated for a Weblog Award. Ordinarily we would be delighted for any kind of recognition, but — neither Rod Heggy nor I own tuxes, and then there’s the whole thing about clearing space in the trophy case. More about our nomination in a moment.

• The Weblog Awards were launched in 2003 by Kevin Aylward, author of the popular Wizbang blog (about 30,000 visitors a day!). Last year almost half a million votes were cast in 37 categories. Here is more about the awards and how they work from Aylward.

• Nominations are made by the general public by entering a comment on the Weblog Award site. That means all the nominees and who nominated them are public information. Nominations close on Nov. 24, after which Aylward and the crack team of blog authorities he assembles will select 10 finalists in each category. Voting is conducted for 10 days in December, and any person on the planet with an Internet connection can vote once a day for 10 days. Vote totals are continuously updated on the site during the voting period.

• Terra Extraneus has been nominated in the “Best of the 1751-2500 Blogs” category. The name of that category is too big for a trophy — which works out fine, since no trophies are given. “1751-2500” refers to a blog’s rank in the blogosphere ecosystem. (I won’t attempt to explain the ecosystem here, except to refer you to The Truth Laid Bear.)

TerraX is currently ranked No. 2053. Out of the estimated 50 million blogs in the world? How in the heck did that happen? Well, if you knew, you’d be less than impressed. Okay, I’ll tell you. The rankings are based on incoming links. TTLB says TerraX has 154 incoming links — 154 other blogs link to us in their blogroll or elsewhere on their home page. Impressed? Don’t be. When we first opened for business last year, I immediately enrolled our blog in a couple of “blog networks” (e.g., Christian Bloggers). All the blogs in a network list each other on their sites, thus boosting each other’s incoming links. I could easily boost TerraX’s TTLB ranking some more just by enrolling in a couple more networks (Bald-Headed Bloggers? Bloggers Who Love Zydeco?). Personally, I think the TTLB rankings are meaningless and that blog traffic is the only stat that matters (our traffic is still at the slow trickle stage).

• Since nominations are made publicly, I know that TerraX was nominated by Jon Swift. Now that makes my day. Jon Swift is one of my favorite bloggers (See “What If Archie Bunker Were a Blogger?”), and his blog is a “must read” on the TerraX blogroll. Thanks, Jon.

I see that Jon Swift has been nominated in four categories so far: best new blog, best humor blog, best individual blog, and best in the 501-1000 category. That’s all fine and dandy, but I imagine Jon has been miffed that he hasn’t been nominated in the one category that matters to him most: “best conservative blog.” Well, I rectified that oversight this morning by making the nomination myself. “Jon Swift is the voice of conservative America,” I wrote. “When it comes to conservative blogs, Jon Swift is as good as it gets.” I really mean that, Jon.

• I see that the “Best Religious Blog” category has been dropped this year. There was no such category in 2003 and 2004, but last year the category was created and the award went to Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost. Haven’t seen an explanation why the category has been axed this year. Congratulations, Joe. They apparently have retired the category in your honor, making you the Best Religious Blog for all eternity.

• Kevin Aylward, Supreme Ruler of the Weblog Awards, says winning the award comes down to aggressive PR. In an Online Journalism Review report, Aylward was quoted as saying:

“It’s a popularity contest. The question is can blog A get more readers to vote than blog B?”

Gee whiz, if Blog A and Blog B are already out there pounding the pavement for votes, Rod and I better start formulating our campaign strategy (just in case we make the finals). Let’s see — how about some campaign promises. That’s always a great way to fire up voters. So, here is TerraX’s campaign pledge if you vote us the best darn 1751-2500 blog in the world:

TERRA EXTRANEUS’ 2006 WEBLOG AWARDS CAMPAIGN PROMISE:

If elected, TerraX promises to win the war, bring our troops home immediately, slash taxes, put a lid on health care costs, and eliminate global warming.

There’s something in there for just about everybody. So how about it? Can we count on your vote?

3 Comments

Mark Daniels at Better Living ponders whom Time magazine will name Person of the Year for 2006. Daniels says Nancy Pelosi. I disagree, and suggest another possibility in my comment to his post.

No Comments

Jim Wallis of Sojourners and author of the God’s Politics blog provides a “voter’s guide” of biblical issues Christians should consider in evaluating candidates on Tuesday’s ballots. Here is a link to the full text of Wallis’ “Voting God’s Politics.” The following is my own abridgement of Wallis’ issues list:

• Compassion and Economic Justice: Does the candidate support measures that provide for family economic success and security, … that promote fair and decent wages, that show a serious commitment to lifting children out of poverty, and support policies on aid, debt, and trade that would bring extreme global poverty to an end?

• Peace and Restraint of Violence: Is the candidate committed to a serious plan for ending the war in Iraq … to remove American forces while seeking both security and peace for Iraq, to the elimination of nuclear weapons, to supporting security and freedom in the Middle East, and to strengthening international law to fight terrorism?

• Consistent Ethic of Life: All life is a sacred gift from God … public policies should reflect a consistent ethic of life. … Abortion is always a moral tragedy, but how do we find real solutions for preventing unwanted pregnancies and supporting women caught in very difficult and desperate circumstances? Does the candidate support policies that will dramatically reduce the number of abortions, end capital punishment, and stop genocide, especially in Darfur?

• Racial Justice: Racism is a sin and undermines the integrity of a society. Is the candidate committed to reversing and ending racial discrimination in all aspects of our society, especially in the criminal justice and education systems?

• Human Rights, Dignity, and Gender Justice: Each human being [is] created in God’s image. … On immigration, how do we welcome the stranger, respect the law, and insure national security? And how do we combat the growing epidemic of sexual trafficking and virtual slavery? Does the candidate support humane and holistic immigration policies and comprehensive immigration reform? Do they insist on policies that end torture, stop human trafficking, promote religious freedom, and protect women?

• Strengthen Families and Renew Culture: Does the candidate support policies that strengthen marriage and families, restore integrity to our civic and business practices, and act to prevent violence in our society — especially the alarming incidence of domestic violence against women and children.

• Good Stewardship of God’s Creation: The earth and the fragile atmosphere that surrounds it are God’s good creation … Global warming is a religious issue. Does a candidate support protections to clean air and water, to reduce the dangerous emissions that cause global warming, to shift from our addiction to oil and fossil fuels to cleaner, safer, and more renewable energy sources? Do they support the transformation to conservation and new energy sources that could provide jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, help solve the Middle East crisis, and even reduce the threats of terrorism?

1 Comment