Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

I listened to parts of the State of the Union Speech last night. I think Bush comes across well in his speeches, but last night was not one of his best. It seemed to be too cluttered.

What was interesting was watching Ted Kennedy in total denial. Here is a man that has outlasted any usefulness he ever had. Bush tried to work with him early on, but Kennedy’s rabid partisanship destroyed any chance for bipartisanship.

Hillary was in good form. She was amused at most of the things Bush said. When Bush mentioned her husband’s support of marriage, the cameras didn’t show her reaction. Probably a good thing.

Bush laid out a lot of proposals, and clarified some issues he’s mentioned recently. The most important, in my view, is the faith-based social services being allowed to compete for grant money with all the secular groups.

Prior to welfare becoming entrenched, churches supported the poor in this country. That was their major role in the community. Anyone needing help went to see the pastor or priest, and he would find the necessary help. Poorer families could always count on at least one solid pot luck meal each week in the church basement with other parishoners, and several in some churches. Church tithes went to pay for all the necessities of the building and support, and the extra was used to help others.

Since the expansion of welfare, though, there has been little need for church involvement in welfare. Churches have drifted to other uses of the money. A tremendous cycle gets going in many churches. The more money they have, the more they want to build so they can attract more people, then they need more room. Churches have grown to the point that the larger ones have two or three different services each Sunday to accomodate the congregation. The focus is on “saving lives,” through membership in the church. Little time or money is spent, as an organization, in saving lives through the basic necessities of life. There really is no need–the government now does that.

Except, there are some who take these steps outside the organized church. There have been many preachers and devoted laymen who established social service organizations to help those in need. They still retain their faith, and use a non-denominational approach in giving people the spiritual help they need in conjunction with the physical. It is something missing in government operations, and something that should stay out of government operations.

That doesn’t mean it isn’t valuable. In fact, it may be the most valuable help people get. As sense of worth and belonging is often what is missing in a person’s life when they reach this point. Faith-based programs can help where government programs can’t.

The argument against this move has always been “separation of church and state.” In this situation, the government is doing nothing to promote a religion. As long as grants are distributed on the basis of a program’s success rather than on which denomination is getting the money, there is no conflict with the Constitution. People forget that Jefferson’s letter to Baptists in Connecticut, where that phrase comes from, is only one of many letters he wrote on the topic. Another, more important, is ignored. From France, he wrote to Madison (who was writing the Constitution) and expressed his support of the new document. However, he also wrote that it needed to include “freedom of religion.” The Bill of Rights echoed many of his suggestions, including this one.

Bush echoed this last night as well:

Religious charities of every creed are doing some of the most vital work in our country — mentoring children, feeding the hungry, taking the hand of the lonely. Yet government has often denied social service grants and contracts to these groups, just because they have a cross or Star of David or crescent on the wall. By Executive Order, I have opened billions of dollars in grant money to competition that includes faith-based charities. Tonight I ask you to codify this into law, so people of faith can know that the law will never discriminate against them again.

Reading has always been a big part of my life. I was extremely fortunate to have a mother who loved to read. And her sister, my Aunt Janie, also read voraciously. She?s ?my other Mom? and sometimes viewed me as her son more than Mom did. Between the two of them, I never wanted for a story or book to read.

I?ve become a reader of blogs in the last year or so. There are a lot of really good ones. In fact, there are too many for me to keep up with regularly. I?ve compounded this by starting my own. It can become consuming. What bothers me most, though, is that I?ve become addicted to tweeking it. First I wanted to change colors of the original Blogger template I chose. Then I wanted to adjust how links were displayed. Then I decided my archives needed organization, so I changed to Moveable Type. In the process, my whole reason for having the blog got overshadowed. I started it because I found I couldn?t put together coherent paragraphs any more. I was out of practice.

I?ve written many things, some have been published, some have languished on an editor?s desk, and others never even got into the mail. But, I?ve never seen myself as some great writer. I?m an engineer. Engineers don?t write. At least, that?s the common perception, especially in engineering schools. Geeks can?t put word to paper. It?s a right-brain left-brain thing.

What I?ve found on the internet, however, is exactly the opposite. Some of the best sites are written by engineers. USS Clueless and BlogO?Ram are just two. And lawyers figure prominently: Eugene Volokh, Glenn Reynolds, Neal Boortz, and the guys at PowerLine are my go-to links. Wow, lawyers and engineers mentioned in the same paragraph and no blood was spilled!

On an analytical level, it makes perfect sense. Chemists, physicists, and mathematicians are technical, but focus on their particular area (I know, it?s a sweeping generalization). Engineers consider all those fields in their work, and use that knowledge as a tool. A parallel exists in law. The liberal arts all contribute to the knowledge base of lawyers. My experience is that people who study literature, or psychology, or philosophy, or political science don?t read technical information the way engineers read literature, psychology, philosophy, or political science. I believe lawyers also read a great deal about other fields.

(I once considered getting a law degree. I stopped in at Vinny?s School of Law and Bartending to pick up some information. The wonderful lady in the admissions office was quite enthusiastic when I told her I had a mechanical engineering degree. ?We love to get engineers. What was your GPA?? I shuffled my feet and told her it was only 3.2, she laughed. ?You won?t have any trouble. The ones we worry about are the 2.5 GPA Literature majors.”)

So, I gravitate toward engineers and lawyers in my web reading. But, as a good engineer, I explore all avenues. Lileks and Sullivan, Vinny (not of bartending fame, as far as I know) and Farah and Horowitz. I may be a geek, but I?m well-read!