Biased/incomplete polls

OK, this finally got to me. I've often read the SF Chronicle online and they frequently have online polls. But just about every stinking time, the options are incomplete. Take todays:

Should a law be passed to prevent the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube?

a. Yes, no one knows what she wants.
b. No, her husband is acting on her wishes.
c. Pass a law - to keep politicians from getting involved.

Now this either need to be a yes/no survey, or there need to be more options. My answer would be "Yes, we are ethically obligated to feed people even if their husbands don't want to." My answer isn't option a. I don't care what she wanted (although I believe that her husband is mis-stating the situation). I don't think people have the right to commit suicide and I don't think a feeding tube is "life support".

But I don't get that option. I get a biased set of options that doesn't even recognize the possibility that there is something greater than personal choice involved here. That just chaps my hide. I'm going to spend the next few weeks (or however long it takes to get a good sample size) collecting these polls for a stick it where the sun don't shine letter to the editor.

kencraw on 03.18.05 @ 11:38 AM PST [link] [1 Comment ]

The Amazing Race report

I haven't mentioned this on my blog yet but my brother and I have been commenting on the new season of the TV show "The Amazing Race". You can see the comentary here>. Make sure to click the link on each team's name under Brian's commentary to see each team's commentary for the entire season. As a part of that commentary we rank the teams.

The reason I'm blogging it today is for me to publish some statistics. I haven't calculated this yet, so this is not a case of bragging (since I could be losing to my brother) but for the rest of the season I'm going to track four numbers statistically:

1. Week Ranking stability: formula = sum of team's ranking change that week/number of teams remaining.
My goal is less than 1.
Note: Eliminated team is not included.
2. Season Ranking stability: formula = sum of week rankings/number of weeks.
My goal is less than 1
3. Philimination accuracy: formula = (sum of (previous week ranking - actual Philimination place)) / number of Philiminations.
My goal is less than 3
4. Skill score: season stability * Philimination accuracy
My goal is less than 3
OK so here are the numbers:

Ranking stability week #1: Ken 1.81 Briain 1.27
Ranking stability week #2: Ken 1.20 Brian 2.20
Ranking stability week #3: Ken 1.00 Brian 2.00

Season ranking stability: Ken 1.34 Brian 1.82

Philimination accuracy: Ken 4.00 Brian 3.00

Skill score: Ken 5.36 Brian 5.46

So, while I'm not quite living up to my goals yet (elimination by it's very nature will get more accurate as it goes, so I'm not too far off), I feel like I'm honing in on the ordering I want and will improve as the weeks go on. It is interesting to note that while I have lower stability numbers, Brian has better predicted the exit order and hence we have fairly equal Skill scores.

Tune in next week for updated statistics.

kencraw on 03.18.05 @ 11:00 AM PST [link] [2 Comments ]

Wesley Smith has a blog

While reading on Jimmy Akin's blog today I saw this entry. I saw Wesley Smith talk at a conference a few years ago. He was excellent. Most people who are well versed in bio-ethics are unable to communicate in normal language so it is difficult to understand. Mr. Smith on the otherhad, while he'll quote from all the medical journals, talks in a very clear, honest and forthright nature. I've been meaning to read his book The Culture of Death but for the longest time my the book stand by my bed was holding more books than recommended by the manufacturer and recently the book budget line-item hasn't had room for it (donations are always accepted! ).

Nevertheless based on his talk and the Amazon reviews, I recommend the book because it is a topic that sorely needs more attention.

In any case, now that I know he has a blog, he's getting a reference on mine.

kencraw on 03.17.05 @ 02:47 PM PST [link] [2 Comments ]

Gay Marriage/Polygamy

I was listen to an interview with Mark Leno, a pro-gay "marriage" assemblyman (who is gay himself) from San Francisco talk about the rights of gay couples. After Mr. Leno had gone on at great length about the rights of two consenting adults to be able to marry and that this is the last remaining discrimination to be addressed in this country the interviewer asked him what the difference was with THREE consenting adults. "Isn't the number two just arbitrary?" he asked.

Mr. Leno's response just about made me fall out of my seat. He said that there was something fundamental different about two people and the relationship that two people have.

Doesn't that sound surprisingly similar to the the relationship between a man and a woman is unique and sacred argument that us believers in heterosexual marriages present? It does to me.

It seems to me that the Polygomy argument is the best one that we have right now to fight gay "marriage". No significant gay group is willing to concede that polygamy is acceptable. Since there main argument is either a) hetrosexual marriage and gay marriage are exactly the same, which is obviously false or b) that you can't force a traditional definition of marriage on us, we can really attack them on argument b. The reality is that the gay community, when they push argument b, doesn't have a good argument to counteract the polygamy response. Even the most liberal/activist judges aren't willing to go down that road quite yet. So if we can make it clear to the judges that they either have to endorse polygamy or keep the traditional definition of marriage, I think it will give us enough leverage to keep them from making the ridiculous decisions.

kencraw on 03.15.05 @ 01:46 PM PST [link] [No Comments ]

California Marriages and the great myths of the 20th century

Well, we've all heard the news. A California judge has decided that it is discriminatory to prevent two men or two women from getting "married". If you haven't heard about it yet and you're worried you might have low blood pressure, go over to the San Francisco Chronicle to read about it.

After reading more about it, I've decided it is time to write an article/essay entitled: "The greatest political myths popularized in the 20th century". I haven't come up with my complete list although I want to keep the list short, but here are some of the myths I'm considering:

1. Privileges are the same as rights
2. Past errors by groups mean they're always wrong.
3. No state established religion means separation of Church and State
4. Equal protection means you can't make distintions
5. Sex is not associated to procreation
6. Quality of life is all that matters
7. Money facilitates happiness (this may transcend the 20th century)
8. Overpopulation is a big problem/it is immoral to have a lot of children
9. Being charatable/reconcilitory requires compromising your beliefs

Any others to recommend? Anything in my existing ones where I'm missing an over-arching myth?

kencraw on 03.15.05 @ 11:40 AM PST [link] [4 Comments ]

Question of the Week: Aren't annulments just "Catholic divorces"?

The short answer to this question is "no".

An annulment is not a divorce. An annulment is a statement that a marriage never existed.

Catholics believe that there are two aspects to a marriage: Natural and Sacramental. the natural aspect is fairly similar to civil in that it is the human aspect of the marriage. However there is more to natural than just the civil aspect. In Massachusetts right now two men or two women can be civilly wed. This is not a natural marriage. A natural marriage still requires that the union be of one man and one woman and that they come together and live as one family.

The Sacramental aspect of a marriage is that binding together that Jesus speaks of in the Gospels:

"But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife),
and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate." (Mark 10:6-9)

A Sacramental marriage is a marriage in which God has joined two people together.

The Catholic Church takes this teaching of Jesus very seriously. Christ tells us "no human being must separate" a Sacramental marriage. As such, we will not grant a divorce of a sacramental marriage. We will not separate those two who are bound together by God.

The annulment process is the process of determining whether a Sacramental marriage existed (not a natural marriage). The Church has requirements as to what constitutes a Sacramental marriage. I won't go into what those requirements are, but if those requirements are broken, then no Sacramental marriage exists. All the annulment process does is determine if that is the case.

The process is very much like a court. The person requesting an annulment must present their case as to why a valid Sacramental marriage did not exist. They have a canon laywer to do this for them. There is also another canon laywer who is the defense. They are not the representative of the other partner in the marriage, but of the marriage itself. It doesn't matter if both parties want an annulment. The marriage is still defended. Finally there is a judge who will decide the matter.

If an annulment is granted, that means that in the Church's eyes, the Sacramental marriage never existed and that the two people who were married, were not Sacramentally married and as such were not bound together by God. Because they have never been Sacramentally married before, they are able to do so or as society would see it, get "re-married". This is a mis-statement because the person has never been, in fact, married before.

kencraw on 03.14.05 @ 10:43 AM PST [link] [2 Comments ]

Reflections on Sunday's readings

I love the Sunday readings during Lent for year A. They walk the faithful down an important path by spending time focusing on the "big" events documented in the Gospel of John.

However, this year was different for me. For some reason the story of the raising of Lazarus fell flat. Something about hearing the story as often as I have made it feel repetitive. Maybe I wasn't as open to it because I was in the dreaded "cry room" (which I've always believed refers to the parents, not the kids).

However, one line from the first reading from Ezekiel stuck with me and I realized that it had stuck with me the previous times I have heard these readings. How true do these words ring?:

"I have promised, and I will do it, says the LORD."

How much easier our lives would be if we could just accept those words as Truth. I often see myself questioning God or His methods or His will. I feel like I'm doing things right, but the situation is not turning out the way I hoped. From those "facts" I determine that the problem must be God's because I'm CLEARLY doing everything right.

It reminds me a joke about a phone tech. support person as a child:

Two children are playing with a "string telephone" (you know, two cups connected by a string). The future tech. support guy pulls too hard on his "phone" and the string comes out. He proceed to talk into the cup at great length. After a while the other boy comes over and says that he can't hear a word the boy is saying. The boy replies, "well, I'm speaking in the the phone just fine, so the problem must be on your end."

I know I have this attitude with God far too often. I believe that I am doing everything right and therefore it must be someone elses fault. God must be letting me down.

But God makes it clear that He keeps His promises. It should be re-assuring to us. It helps us to know that when God promises, we can take that promise to the bank. It should stop us from dispairing "why God are you failing me?" and turn our question into "I know that God delivers on his promises. How can in, in the spirit of that confidence, tap into that promise?"

May God give us all the peace of knowing His faithfulness to us.

kencraw on 03.14.05 @ 10:18 AM PST [link] [No Comments ]

Scripture Quote of the Week

"I have promised, and I will do it, says the LORD."

-Ezekiel 37:14

kencraw on 03.14.05 @ 09:59 AM PST [link] [No Comments ]