If you listen to my words, it would have the same suggestion: that only Latinos would come to wiser decisions, but that wouldn’t make sense in the context of my speech either, because I pointed out in the speech that eight—nine—white men had decided Brown v. Board of Education. And, I noted in a separate paragraph of the speech that no one person speaks in the voice of any group. So, my rhetorical flourish, just like hers [Justice O’Conner’s], can’t be read literally. It had a different meaning in the context of the entire speech.

Judge Sotomayor offered this explanation with such regularity and apparent sincerity that one would actually be led to believe that words can only mean what their author intended them to mean. A novel concept, indeed!

It seems that Originalism has found a defense from another unlikely advocate: the Obama administration. The Obama administration has gone on offense after a YouTube compilation video caught fire when Matt Drudge linked to it on his site. Among many clips of Obama speaking on different occasions was one in which he explained that he was a “proponent of a single-payer, universal health care plan.” The title of the clip is, “SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance.”

Well, the White House is firing back via a response from former ABC news correspondent Linda Douglass. In it, she criticizes the compilation video on very interesting grounds. Countering the suggestion that President Obama’s health care plan will eliminate private insurance, Douglass says:

Well, nothing could be farther from the truth. You know, the people who always try to scare people whenever you try to bring them health insurance reform are at it again. And they’re taking sentences and phrases out of context, and cobbling them together to leave a very false impression.

The truth is that the President has been talking to the American people a lot about health insurance reform, and what is at stake for them. So, what happens is that, because he is talking to the American people so much, there are people out there with a computer and a lot of free time and they take a phrase here and there—they simply cherry pick and put it together—and make it sound like he said something that he didn’t really say.

Let us assume, for the moment, that Linda Douglass is correct. The gist of Douglass’ argument is that President Obama has never said anything that would indicate that he wants to eliminate private insurance. The video appears to show him in his own words, but what we really see is a bunch of clever edits of multiple clips spliced together so it appears that the President has said something that he has never said. We will therefore stipulate that the President has never publicly stated that he wants to eliminate private health insurance.

But for our purposes, let us assume even more in order to make the President’s argument as compelling as possible. That is, we shall not only assume that President Obama has never publicly stated that he wants to be rid of private health insurance, but we will go further and assume that President Obama genuinely does not want to eliminate private insurance. We will, of course, have to ignore the uncut video of him saying, with his own words, that he is a “proponent of a single-payer, universal health care plan.” Yes, friends, what I am asking you to do is, for a brief moment, behave as the left tends to behave, and ignore plain, dispositive facts. With these assumptions in place, I want to examine what Douglass’ (and the White House’s) objection actually is.

The objection is that, despite a video that seemingly reveals otherwise, it is not true that President Obama wants to eliminate private health insurance. His words have been taken out of context, moved around, and spliced together, making it appear that he said something that he really did not say. Is this not an objection grounded in Originalism? I think it certainly is. And I think the following assumptions are essential to Douglass’ objection:

1. The President’s words have a fixed meaning. If this were not so, then it would make no sense to say that it is untrue that the President’s words mean that he wants to eliminate private health insurance.
2. The fixed meaning of the President’s words is not set by those listening to/reading his words. If this were not so, then it would make no sense to object to the video editor’s particular interpretation of the President’s words.
3. The fixed meaning of the President’s words, whatever it be, is accessible to the public at large. If this were not so, then it would make no sense to suggest that someone is deliberately misconstruing the President’s words.
4. The President’s interpretation of his own words is authoritative. If this were not so, then it would make no sense to suggest that the President’s interpretation of his own words is true, while the interpretation made by the person who created the video is false.
5. The President’s intended meaning is the only legitimate meaning of the words he speaks/writes. If this were not so, it would make no sense to criticize someone for taking his statements out of context in order to splice them together in a way that leaves a “very false impression.”

If these assumptions are not true, then Douglass’ objection falls flat. It is common to hear the left argue that the words in the Constitution have no fixed meaning. “The Constitution,” we are often told, “is a living, breathing document, the meaning of which must change to adapt with the times.” An important thing to note is that the change advocated by most proponents of this argument is not achieved by amending the Constitution, a process that adds words to the document to update its meaning. Rather, the change is achieved by reinterpreting the words that are already there. Changing the Constitution by this method runs contrary the the five assumptions above. Thus, if the previous assumptions are true, then there is a glaring inconsistency between the standard by which the Obama administration wants us to understand the President’s words, and the standard by which that same administration wants us to understand the words of our Framers.

A question that is now prominent on my mind is this: if cutting up various words of the President and splicing them back together results in an illegitimate interpretation of his words, then why does it not follow that cutting up various Amendments in the Constitution and splicing them back together similarly results in an illegitimate interpretation of the Constitution? This is, of course, what happened in Griswold vs. Connecticut, the decision that gave us a sweeping, undefined Constitutional right of privacy–a right that we have since learned is “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” (Roe v. Wade). The President insists that we interpret his words according to their original meaning. Is it really too much, then, to insist that the President afford our Framers the same courtesy?

Did you unnecessarily remove anyone’s tonsils today?

Tonight during President Obama’s press conference the president fielded a question about the Mayo Clinic’s reaction to the House health care bill.  Over the past two days Mayo Clinic has posted two updates to their previous statement regarding the house health care bill.  It will be interesting to see how this story plays out over the next few days.

From Mayo Clinic’s Health Policy Blog, 7/21/09

Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill – including insurance for all and payment reform demonstration projects – the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite.

In general, the proposals under discussion are not patient focused or results oriented. Lawmakers have failed to use a fundamental lever – a change in Medicare payment policy – to help drive necessary improvements in American health care. Unless legislators create payment systems that pay for good patient results at reasonable costs, the promise of transformation in American health care will wither. The real losers will be the citizens of the United States.

Recently, President Obama was interviewed by Diane Sawyer on ABC and had the following to say about the Mayo Clinic:

SAWYER: …patients. It is time for Americans to recognize they’re going to get fewer scans, fewer procedures, fewer tests, because the vicious cycle has to stop?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I think what’s important is to say to the American People that you should get the best possible care to make you well. And that the measure of the quality of care is not quantity, but whether or not it is making you better. Now, what we’ve seen is that there’s some communities and some health systems that do this very well. Mayo Clinic, a classic example. In Rochester, Minnesota. People go there. They…spend about 20-30 percent less than some other parts of the country, and yet have better outcomes. And in other cases, you’ve got more spending, worse outcome. So, what we’ve said is let’s put out the research. Let’s study and figure out what works and what doesn’t. And let’s encourage doctors and patients to get what works. Let’s discourage what doesn’t. Let’s make sure that our payment incentives allow doctors to do the right thing. Because sometimes our payment incentives don’t allow them to do the right things. And if we do that, then I’m confident that we can drive down costs significantly.

1. Humanities
2. Communication
3. Christian Thought & Worldview
4. Bible Study & Discipleship of the Heart

Within each category I have determined subcategories, and these subcategories produce my reading lists.

In this, the first post of hopefully many to come, I will lay out my first “Currently Reading” list.  By doing this it will hopefully give you encouragement to formulate your own plan, and also help myself to become accountable!  I have entitled my plan: The Wisdom and Eloquence Campaign.  Keep in mind that the foundation and anchor of this list is my daily Bible reading.  Perhaps later I will describe in more detail how I have come up with my plan.  In the mean time check out this post from Justin Taylor entitled, On Disciplined Reading.

Christian Thought & Worldview

• Wisdom And Eloquence: A Christian Paradigm For Classical Learning by Littlejohn and Evans
• The Consequences of Ideas by R.C. Sproul
• No Place For Truth by David Wells
• How Should We Then Live: The Rise and Fall of Western Culture by Francis Schaeffer
• Spurgeon: A New Biography by Dallimore
• How To Read A Book by Adler

Bible Study and Discipleship of the Heart

• An Introduction to the New Testament by D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo
• The Message of the New Testament: Promises Kept by Mark Dever
• Unlocking The Bible Omnibus: A Unique Overview of the Whole Bible by David Pawson
• The Glory of Christ by John Owen (Puritan Paperback Version)
• Knowing God by J.I. Packer
• Valley of Vision: A Collection of Puritan Prayers and Devotions by Arthur Bennett

Humanites

• Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark Levin
• The New Medicine: Life and Death After Hippocrates by Nigel Cameron
• Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics
• Atlas of Pediatric Physical Diagnosis
• Comprehensive Pediatric Hospital Medicine
• Practical Strategies in Pediatric Diagnosis and Therapy
• The Harriet Lane Handbook
• The Philadelphia Guide: Inpatient Pediatrics
• Neonatology: Management, Procedures, On Call Problems, Diseases, Drugs
• www.uptodate.com

Communication

• This will expand at a later date

For FY 2008 the US balance sheet showed 1.974 Trillion in Assets.  We also had 12.178 Trillion in Liabilities.  This alone is frightening but lets focus a little more on what makes up the liabilities.  $5.8 Trillion is really the part that matters because this is public debt.  To put this one way for every 1 dollar of public debt we have a little over 30 cents of assets to cover it.  Granted the US government can’t liquidate and sell off everything but the point is we have some issues.  The State of Virginia has about $2 dollars of assets for every $1 in liabilities.  Canada has $1.5 worth of assets for every $1 of liabilities.  Those are just two examples to show how extreme the US currently is.

Now I understand that some might read this and say this isn’t the best measurement of the financial position of a country but it does give you a rough idea that something is not right and brings me to my main point.

China owns about $740 Billion of our debt or almost 40% of our total federal assets.  Japan owns $635 billion of our debt or almost 35% of our total federal assets.  China and Japan basically own our country without acting on it.

Hopefully people will read this and understand that we can’t live like this forever.  The day will come when the bill comes due and if we don’t take action soon the current economy will seem like a boom time in comparison.

The easiest way to enjoy a mostly ad-free web browsing experience is to use a web browser that can effectively eliminate advertisements. Web browsers are the programs that one uses to access the internet. Web browsers ship with most personal computers by default. For example, Windows users are likely familiar with Internet Explorer, the web browser that ships with the Windows operating system. Programs that come with your computer by default are not necessarily the best programs available, and such is the case with Internet Explorer. We at Matters of Truth use and recommend another web browser: Mozilla Firefox.

Firefox is a very popular and free open source web browser, and one of its many features allows users to add to its default functions by installing extensions or add-ons. Enough people appear to be fed up with the overabundance of annoying web advertising that someone created a Firefox extension that will block most advertisements. Below is a step-by-step tutorial that should get you on your way to an ad-free web browsing experience.

An Example:

By visiting Matters of Truth’s facebook page, we will show you what you will be able to do with Firefox.

First, a look at what that page looks like normally:

Next, a look at what the same page looks like using the ad-blocking method described below:

As you may notice, the advertisement bar that appears to the right in the first image is missing in the second.  The result: a pleasant, ad-free browsing experience.

What You Will Need:

1. An installed copy of the Firefox web browser.  Head on over to Mozilla, download Firefox, and install it.

The Steps:

Step 1:

Once you have installed Firefox, the next thing you need to do is open it by clicking on the Firefox shortcut. This shortcut will most likely be located on your desktop, as shown below:

Step 2:

Once you open Firefox, navigate to the add-ons link by clicking “Tools” in the top menu, as shown below:

This brings up the add-ons menu.  Make sure “Get-Add-ons” is selected.

Step 3:

The add-ons menu includes a search bar that says “Search All add-ons.”  Enter the term “Adblock Plus” and press enter.  You may get several results, but the one we want is simply called “Adblock Plus,” and will probably be the first result on the list.  Select it, and click “Add to Firefox,” as shown below:

Step 4:

Once you click on “Add to Firefox,” an installation window will open, and a countdown will begin.  Double check that you are installing the Adblock Plus extension, and once the countdown reaches zero, click on “Install Now.”

Step 5:

Firefox will install Adblock Plus.  When it finishes, it will ask you to “Restart Firefox to complete your changes.”  Do you really want ad-free browsing?  Then, by all means, restart your browser.  You can quickly do so by simply clicking the “Restart Firefox” button.

Step 6:

Upon restart, Firefox will inform you that you have successfully added an add-on.  How about that.  A web browser that pats you on the back whenever you do something right.  What could be better?  At some point, you will see the Adblock Plus filter subscription menu.  It is important that you select a filter and click “Subscribe.”  The one I use is “EasyList (USA),” and it works wonderfully.

Closing Comments:

Congratulations!  You will now be able to browse the internet in a mostly ad-free environment.  I say “mostly” because, though the default settings in Adblock Plus are very effective at removing most advertisements, some ads manage to slip through.  Additionally, sometimes Adblock Plus is overzealous and blocks something it should not.  Perhaps we will do another tutorial explaining some of the tricks one can use to squash those few advertisements that get through Adblock, as well as one explaining how to tell it to stop blocking something.

Did you like this tutorial?  Let us know in the comments.  Are you having problems with the tutorial?  You can also tell us those in the comments as well.

Ok, so now that people are starting to get upset about government spending the inevitable conservation on government efficiency comes up. You hear arguments against pork spending, wasteful spending, and excessive spending for certain projects. Arguments will call for cutting programs, cutting taxes, or raising taxes in order to make the government more efficient. I must say, all of this misses the point. Government cannot EVER be efficient.

Awhile back I read an article on “The Myth of Efficient Government Service” by Murray N. Rothbard who is a somewhat well known economist and libertarian thinker. While I’m not a huge fan of all his work this article makes a number of great points. Murray argues that efficiency only comes from a scenario where you have a risk of losing something. In government, unlike the free-market, you have no risk and almost unlimited resources. The effect of this is that the government has no rational way of allocating resources and no measure of success or failure that would create efficiency of money.

One point the article does not cover well is the fact that government has no “at risk” investors. You could argue that anyone holding a t-bill is an investor but whether or not they get paid is not dependent on the profit of the USA for that year as the US is not going out of business (yet). So when you pay taxes you basically become a customer. As such you want the most for your money. Since our system permits unlimited borrowing you can always get more for your money which keeps you electing the people giving out the services. Thus we have an inherent incentive to not be efficient in terms of dollars but rather be efficient in giving citizens anything they want.

I could go on but I want to get to my final point. Government will always be inefficient because of its inherent nature. The only way to solve this is NOT to have less inefficiency or attempts at running government like a business but to have less government in general.

As time goes by, we will be adding to and tweaking our site. For now, we’ll jump into the blogoshpere and see what happens.

I find Twitter to be a kind of taunt: “Okay, truth-lover, see what you can do with 140 characters! You say your mission is to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things! Well, this is one of those ‘all things.’ Can you magnify Christ with this thimble-full of letters?”

To which I respond:

The sovereign Lord of the earth and sky
Puts camels through a needle’s eye.
And if his wisdom see it mete,
He will put worlds inside a tweet.

Follow him over at johnpiper.