Monday Highlights

Good morning. Internet issues here at work for a bit. Fixed now.

  1. The feminization of Christianity (and Jewish Orthodoxy) … I think that the example of the role of women in the Church in Russia during communist rule is an important point. The women save the church there in times of stress and the prosperity our culture enjoys currently riding the petroleum bubble is perhaps as stressful as persecution, just not in so obvious a manner.
  2. Bioethics and modern (protestant) denominations as stress as well.
  3. Credit crunch? Maybe not.
  4. But in our minds … perceptions differ.
  5. A perception of the Geithner/Obama relationship.
  6. Dissent in mythical economic consensus.
  7. That’s not where I’d place math in its role in our modern society … and it doesn’t have to “inspire any kid” just the ones with real talent.
  8. Church and state … in the UK.
  9. A prayer request.
  10. Zap.
  11. Boom.
  12. POV.
  13. School.
  14. Verse.
  15. Bang.
  16. Two arches.
  17. May God grant them many years.
  18. Origen.
  19. NPR, fairly unbalanced.
  20. Examining economists.
  21. Well, Congress gives many major league sports, baseball in particular special status regarding anti-trust. Why shouldn’t they limit their profits? It always strikes me as odd the “free market” American sports are heavily protected and structured while socialist Europe has a free wheeling market driven sports environment, e.g., compare baseball to European cycling.
  22. Considering Orthodoxy.
  23. Uninformed (or unlettered) liberals?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One comment

  1. Boonton says:

    A perception of the Geithner/Obama relationship.

    I think much of the Obama cirticism regarding Geithner has been pretty vapid, including this article. Why is Obama sticking with Geithner? Because few others want the job and no one has any real idea what will work. It’s not because Geithner somehow symbolizes Federal coziness with the financial sector. It’s because the free market cannot fix the financial sector.

    With criticism I think the reader should ask “can I tell exactly what the author would propose in place of what he is bashing”? with Krugman this is easy, he wants the major banks nationalized. With most other critics, though, I don’t get any clear sense of what they want. Sometimes they seem like they are strict Ayn Rand types advocating letting all the big banks go down into bankruptcy. Other times they seem like they are impling that some other plan is what’s needed. But aside from hinting that this ‘other plan’ is more simple, more clear they don’t actually say what it is.