– In April 2004, Bush’s USDA issued legally binding guidances allowing the use of antibiotics on organic dairy cows and synthetic pesticides on organic farms.

– Another 2004 guidance narrowed the scope of the federal organic certification program to crops and livestock, meaning that national organic standards would “not be developed for fish, nutritional supplements, pet food, fertilizers, cosmetics, and personal-care products.”

– Though then-Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman reportedly “rescinded the directives” after activist uproar, the vice chairman of the National Organic Standards Board told the Chicago Reader that the USDA “sticks to their interpretations, only now they are no longer posted.”

– In June 2007, the USDA greenlighted a proposal “allowing 38 new non-organic ingredients in products bearing the ‘USDA Organic’ seal, despite more than 10,000 e-mails and letters from concerned consumers and farmers.”

– This past September, the USDA “abruptly halted a government program that tests the levels of pesticides in fruits, vegetables and field crops, arguing that the $8 million-a-year program is too expensive.”

As an ordained Disciples of Christ minister myself, I am absolutely thrilled by the selection. The Disciples of Christ has a long history in the United States, and, in fact, is the oldest Christian denomination founded in the U.S. Moreover, it was the spiritual home to presidents James Garfield, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan. Any tradition that can claim a liberal such as LBJ and a conservative like RR has got to represent a microcosm of American society that gives hope to all who seek the bridge that which divides us in this country.  

[Obama's] going to have to be more assertive than he’s been. At a time of great crisis with mortgage foreclosures and autos, he says we only have one president at a time. I’m afraid that overstates the number of presidents we have. He’s got to remedy that situation.

It seems the Treasury Department agrees with Frank.

Oh, how quaint. And now, twenty years later, as John McCain makes his selection of a running mate, it turns out my friend was right.  

Having said that, I am deeply troubled by Sarah Palin. Being a social conservative that advocates for abstinence-only programs in the schools, and simply as a parent, I would think that she would have more concern for her daughter and her family than to run for vice-president at this time given the all but certain likelihood — now real — that the news would become public. If it were me, I would want to spend more time with my family and help my daughter get through this difficult situation rather than disappear on the campign trail for the next two months and have my daughter become the poster child for the anti-abstinence crowd.

But I am even more intrigued by John McCain’s decision to put her on the ticket in the first place. He claims to have known about the pregnant daughter situation before asking Palin to join the ticket. I am sure he could see that this might drive a stake through the heart of the conservative cause. No doubt he knew that making the announcement several days after putting Palin on the ticket in the midst of the GOP convention and a hurricane would look like an attempt to bury the story. The announcement states that Bristol and the “young man” will be getting married and I am sure he knew the fact that they are not already married five months into the pregnancy (what are they waiting for, a Thanksgiving Day parade to go with it?) will seem contrived.

And so, I have to wonder, is Sarah Palin that special, or was John McCain that desparate? 

UPDATE (September 1, 2008, 6:45 pm): Grover Norquist is quoted on CNN as follows:

Before, they were excited about her, with the Down syndrome baby. But now with this, they are over the moon. It reinforces the fact that this family lives its pro-life values.

So let’s see if I get this: Teenage daughter literally refutes mother’s abstinence platform and is led into a shotgun marriage while mom goes off and campaigns all over the country (in between consulting with the lawyer she retained to defend her against ethics violations), and all of this is a good thing? These are pro-life values?

Dobson took aim at Obama’s asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. “Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles,” Obama said. Dobson accuses Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament. “I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,” Dobson said. ”He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.”

Of course, Obama is hardly the first to raise the question of which Biblical principles should be applied in creating public policy. And he raises an important issue: just which principles are now antiquated and no longer need to be followed? I hardly think Dobson would agree that the Old Testament texts used to justify a Biblical injunction against same sex marriage would be antiquated.

So the question really is—and this is especially important when you look at what Jesus had to say about homosexuality (which is absolutely nothing)—how can we tell which part of the Bible is antiquated and need not be followed, and which part isn’t? Can you answer that for us, James?