Storm Watch

marriage is public

2010-06-02T14:20:00.003-05:00

One of the most common and most devastating illusions of modern Americans is the belief that marriage is essentially a private matter. The truth is that marriage has always been inherently and necessarily public.

In fact, marriage is the first public act. It's the most fundamental act of civilization, found in the most rudimentary tribal societies.

Throughout history, mutual affection between spouses was desired but never essential to marriage. Parents and guardians arranged the marriages of their children, usually for economic or political reasons. The primary purpose of marriage was always to join families and ensure their continuation.

Marriage is a social glue. By binding one family to another, it extends consideration and tolerance. Countless times, marriages have subdued hostilities and strengthened alliances between people of different customs and goals. The mere existence of that familial bond is often a source of mercy and sacrifice.

Marriage is the love of action, as opposed to feeling. Love is about togetherness, about sharing life. As the mind and body are dependent on each other, so feelings and actions influence each other. Love was always a part of marriage, but it was about learning to love... not finding oneself "in" love. Love rightfully involves affection, but we have elevated the importance of affection to the point that it is the foundation.

These days, people often look down their noses at old traditions like arranged marriages, believing our civilization has progressed to the point that people can now practice marriage as it was always meant to be. But they're wrong. It's not progress. Modern ideas of marriage have lowered the bar.

We've lowered expectations. We no longer demand that anyone learn to love someone different than himself or herself. Once they're married, we no longer have any expectations of how that marriage should bear fruit. Hell, we don't even demand that they remain married (that they remain family).

We've forgotten that marriage is first about family, not about romance. Marriage is the cornerstone of any society. When our ideas of family are corrupted, the entire culture crumbles with it.

AI composers vs human composers

2010-03-10T22:09:00.005-06:00

Can artificial intelligence programs compose pleasing music? I would answer yes. Can they match many human composers? Yes.

But are human composers at risk of losing their jobs? Not a chance.

As I responded at First Things:

Brian Eno has done similar work on what he calls generative music.

I am a composer who happens to have the gift of being able to listen to a musical style and quickly compose something that sounds similar. Each style, and each particular song, has its own patterns. They’re not too difficult to recognize if one knows what to look for. Though no AI system can match human logic, much less human creativity, I believe music theory and pattern recognition could be programmed well enough that software could create pleasing music.

But note the composers who Cope’s program is touted against. The music of Mozart and Bach is more straightforward and symmetrical than that of Romantics like Beethoven or Tchaikovsky. There is more reliance on modulation (repeating a pattern from a different base note). The music appeals more to intellect than emotion. It more often evokes general moods than takes one on emotional adventures.

Has an AI yet created a masterpiece with mass popularity? Or can an AI start a new musical movement?

I can trust that Cope’s software is capable of creating pleasing music. I have experienced Eno’s generative music in a game called Spore, and it performs well as environmental music. But software will always have limits which human beings do not. I’m reminded of the film War Games.

Let’s not forget that music publishers have tried for generations to codify popular styles and churn out hit songs by formula. Undoubtedly, they have had much success… but not as much as they would like.

privacy and trust

2010-02-19T16:20:00.001-06:00

Increasingly, emerging technologies force us to find a balance between privacy and trust.

The latest example is this story of student laptops with webcams that can be remotely activated by the school district. The expressed purpose of this feature is to take a snapshot of a laptop's user after the student owner has reported it to be stolen. Some students and their parents worry that the webcams could also be used by district employees to spy on the owners, such as to view a pretty teenage girl undressing.

Many people are already involved in similar situations without realizing it. Many automobiles have GPS locators. Similar to the laptop example, this technology was installed to help catch thieves and other criminals. But only regulations and the good will of individuals prevent GPS tracking from being used to monitor the movements of vehicle owners.

If your vehicle includes OnStar technology, then it is possible for an OnStar technician to activate it to shut off your engine or listen in on your conversations. Again, there are regulations in place to prevent this. But, as government and company bureaucracies prove every day, regulations are only as good as the people who enforce and obey them.

The honest truth is that both sides of this laptop "scandal" have reasonable arguments. The technology is morally neutral. Human beings are not.

So it boils down to trust. The more that's at stake, the more trust is necessary. Do you trust the school district? the car company? the government? By that, of course, I mean trust in the individuals who comprise those organizations. Human beings are flawed. Even when we mean well, we sometimes act unjustly. Is the leap of faith merited by the potential benefit? If that trust is abused, is it worth the risk?

Let's consider both sides. And let's remember that no organization, government or commercial, is any more or less trustworthy than the stranger who chooses whether or not to fulfill its promises on a given day.

impotent independence

2010-02-17T13:15:00.001-06:00

Judging by the attention payed to them by media and politicians, one would think independents (a growing portion of the American population) play a powerful role in politics. But the truth is their influence in elections varies tremendously from state to state.

Many states have closed primaries and caucuses in which independents cannot participate. So the only choice many independents have in regard to national politics is between the dominant Republican and dominant Democrat, unless they favor a third-party candidate for a Congressional seat. A viable presidential candidate can only be a Republican or Democrat, since those parties control the electoral college.

Would opening every primary and caucus help? Only if each voter was limited to participating in a single party's candidacy election. Otherwise, we would see an increase in the already common practice of candidacy sabotage (such as when a Democrat votes in a Republican primary to disrupt Republican leadership, rather than to support a Republican candidate whom that voter truly believes in) and genuine votes would be diluted. Even with a limit to one vote, sabotage would still occur.

And because of the timing of primaries, selection of candidates is severely limited for many Americans, independent or otherwise, by the time one's state comes around in the process. During the 2008 presidential election, I wanted to vote for Fred Thompson. I couldn't. I live in Texas, and Thompson dropped out of the race before Texas got a say.

This is one reason why, like Mark Steyn, I am not optimistic about the future of American government. The Tea Party movement demonstrates that many Americans want something other than what we're getting from both the Democrat and Republican parties. But much of that frustration will be silenced by the voting process.

beauty of the senses (all of them)

2010-02-14T13:16:00.001-06:00

When people think of beauty, they think of sights and sounds, of ideas and emotions, of actions. Funny that we never think of tastes, smells or touch as beautiful. We recognize this beauty, but we don't express it as such.

a cool summer breeze, a hot shower, an arm around your shoulder, a pet's fur beneath your fingers...

the smell of jasmine or your favorite herb, of the ocean air, of a juicy steak or fresh orange...

the taste of a family recipe, of ice cream, of clean water on a hot day...

Why are such things only "pleasant" or "refreshing" or "sweet"? Why do we not call them "beautiful"? Is this a peculiarity of English in particular? Or is it a habit of all languages?

In any case, I believe we would all do well to seek beauty with our whole being, and not only our dominant senses.

the meaning of respect

2010-02-10T12:34:00.001-06:00

Loving someone and respecting someone are not the same.

Love is a gift which should be freely offered to every person you ever meet. It is not something to be earned. It should not be offered as a contract ("if you care for me, I'll care for you"). Whether a person is kind or selfish, noble or wicked, God created that person with beauty and wonder beyond any chance of ever being fully tainted, lost or scrubbed out. God loves every one of us all despite the number or depth of our flaws. Unconditional love is a struggle for all, but is a duty to which we should aspire.

Respect, on the other hand, should be earned. It cannot be given without expectations and retain any value, any meaning. It is good to be optimistic about a fellow person's future actions and condition. It is not right or helpful, however, to deny that person's flaws or to distort the respectability of their present actions. Respect and honesty do not compete -- they fulfill each other.

Love involves seeing the good beyond flaws, but it does not ignore those flaws. Love is willing to see everything and address anything. You can love someone and not respect them, but that love means no degree of disrespect will ever cause you to cast that person aside. Love is about togetherness. You can both desire and choose to be together with persons who have yet to face their failures and strive to be good.

body scanner radiation

2010-02-05T14:17:00.004-06:00

Here's my main concern about the proposed use of body scanners in all U.S. airports.

I'm inclined not to object to the privacy concerns, though I don't dismiss those out of hand.

And let's temporarily ignore where the money would come from to install, operate and monitor these scanners (either taxpayers or airlines).

No, the first question that should be asked is this: When did x-ray scanners become so harmless that repeated use on people without lead shields is not a problem?

I don't doubt that these full-body scanners are relatively harmless in comparison with the sort of scanners used by surgeons and dentists. But have airlines and our politicians considered how frequently many people fly? Doesn't a small exposure to radiation, harmless in itself, become worthy of concern when it is repeatedly dozens of times?

Or have they considered babies and young children? What about the elderly with weak immune systems?

It is possible that these fears are unwarranted. I don't claim much knowledge of recent developments in x-ray scanning technologies. But are these not common concerns that should be addressed by Congress and the airlines which have already implemented body scanners? If our politicians genuinely care about the issue and are not merely pretending concern, I expect questions like these to be addressed in the near future.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

2010-02-02T13:24:00.001-06:00

It's important when considering the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy to recognize that efficiency cannot be the crux of a sound argument, even if efficiency means saving lives. In other words, if allowing gays to announce their homosexuality to fellow soldiers threatens unit cohesion and morale, thereby increasing the likelihood of soldier deaths and defeat, that is not in itself a strong argument in favor of retaining the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. I say this because that is the argument I usually see Republicans making.

If saving lives was all that mattered, why would we recoil in horror when learning about how Vlad "the Impaler" of Wallachia (Bram Stoker's inspiration for Count Dracula) impaled the heads and corpses of his enemies? Those scare tactics saved the lives of his soldiers and even played a role in protecting Europe from Ottoman invasion. So what if tens of thousands of bodies were staked like ornaments and left out for the crows? It saved lives.

No, most of us reject the use of such a strategy because we recognize that our lives are about more than survival. Life is an intrinsic good, but merely breathing in and out is not fully living. We are willing to sacrifice our lives for some things because we know there are things more important than these bodies.

If one is to honestly defend the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, more must be considered than just whether or not the policy protects lives.

Haiti: thoughts on disaster

2010-01-17T22:50:00.004-06:00

Life is rarely as bad as it is for the people of Haiti right now. At any given moment, many people throughout the world struggle against famine, lack of shelter, destruction, crime, war, disease, and other disasters. But for all of it to arise suddenly in one place is uncommon and horrifying beyond imagination. I'm saddened to think that their troubles have only begun. Panic and despair have not yet reached their peak in Haiti, I'm afraid.

What can we do?

We can donate. I suggest that you avoid donating directly to government, if only because it is heavily bureaucratic and bureaucracy inevitably leads to waste. Be wary of scam artists -- evil does not disappear in times of sorrow. I'm sure there are many charities that are collecting goods (food, clothes, etc) as well as money, so don't just think of giving in dollars. And, if you can, find charities that do not merely want to give, but can give. With so much Haitian infrastructure inoperable (roads, airports, government, etc), not every group that wants to give has been successful in getting their aid to the people. Look for charities, such as Catholic Relief Services, that have already demonstrated that they can reach the Haitian people and explain specifically how they are helping.

We can pray. Prayer is powerful -- more effective than I think most people realize. Holy living is powerful. When you were a child and a brother, sister, or friend had a birthday or other celebration, was the joy and love given only to that person? No, you shared in his or her reward. And when you acted selfishly and were punished, was it only you who suffered? Human beings live as one family with God. When you speak to God and live with a charitable heart, God bestows blessings not only on you but on others. God loves every person in Haiti and is helping them all as we speak, but He wants your love to give to them as well.

We can learn. For many, it can be difficult to imagine disasters such as these ever striking where we live. But there is no place on Earth safe from catastrophe. Don't just sympathize with the Haitians; learn from their examples, both the good and the bad. By now, you might have read about people in Haiti simply standing around and waiting on rescue. In a situation like this, if you are certain that help is coming or you truly have no other option, then it might be best to wait. But, generally, the key to survival during any crisis is to make no assumptions and to be always active toward sustaining and preparing yourself. Remember that, and remember that to love one's self and to love others are always inseparable. If you wish to survive, look after those around you and, I promise you, good will come of it.

we own Haiti now

2010-01-14T16:20:00.008-06:00

Unfortunately, this guy is exactly right:

"The sad truth is that no one is in charge of Haiti today. This vacuum, coupled with the robust response from the Obama administration, has inevitably created a situation where the U.S. will be the de facto decision-maker in Haiti."

We now own Haiti just like we owned Iraq after we toppled Saddam Hussein. America isn't just in Haiti for a few months. We'll be there for years.

We were already supporting Haiti with hundreds of millions in charity. Now our support will be in the billions. Obama will likely go much farther than merely getting the Haitians back on their feet. We'll be paying for brand new infrastructure... and we'll be paying with debt.

Also at issue is who Obama puts in power once that infrastructure is in place, and what form the government will take. Will the new government be friendly to the democratic U.S.? Or will it be more like Cuba or Venezuela (more progressive and Marxist)? In any case, that decision isn't likely to bite us for decades. The huge financial investment we're about to make in Haiti, on the other hand, will have imminent consequences.

Please don't mistake this as an argument against helping Haiti. The Haitians desperately need aid, and I'm happy that Obama offered our government's help immediately.

I'm just pointing out that this creates an additional large and long-term strain on our economy. It will also serve as a powerful political distraction... and possibly justification for the creation of another slush fund (ala TARP). Economically and politically, it's almost like another war.

Be charitable, but be wary of America's budget constraints and of political opportunism.

Christian hospitals, schools and abortion

2010-01-14T15:40:00.001-06:00

Keep an eye on this situation in Columbia. How it unfolds in that country might offer some insight into how Catholic hospitals and schools in the U.S. will respond to similar laws.

Here in America, we have already seen Catholic adoption agencies forced to disband, rather than to participate in evil as mandated by Massachesetts law. It's only a matter of time before such laws touch Christian hospitals.

Closing a hospital is not like closing an adoption agency. Lives are directly on the line. Thousands of non-Christians rely on Christian hospitals. It would be a more difficult decision for the Christian operators to end their services under such circumstances. And, if a decision was made to close a large hospital, I expect most governments might go so far as to claim ownership of the facilities and threaten employees with legal consequences to make them remain at work.

And then there's the schools.

It's a complicated issue with consequences difficult to foresee. So, as I've said, keep an eye on Columbia.

the Word

2010-01-09T06:20:00.002-06:00

A lot is lost in translation from ancient Greek to English when we read that Christ is "the Word made flesh". The word used was logos. It means much more than simply "word". It is a pivotal concept in Greek philosophy.

Logos means something like "beautiful design" or "wondrous order". It testifies to the inseparable relationship between beauty and order, happiness and virtue, peace and arrangement.

Imagine a beautiful piece of furniture. Its dimensions may be described in mathematical relationships. A throne appears and feels differently than a sofa, regardless of ornamentation, because it is high rather than wide. It is pleasing because of how the wood and/or other parts are shaped and arranged. But, in designing the chair, the carpenter does not think only in terms measurements and materials. The science of his method and the beauty of his goal are inseparable. If he considers either without the other, his work will fail.

Or consider an athlete. To play well requires careful motion, reaction, and strategy. But to focus only on the mechanics of the game would be to miss the point. These things create the enjoyment, the thrill and sense of flow, but the sport is not merely a series of actions and plans. It is the feeling -- the fun or exhilaration, the thrill of victory -- that results from those actions and plans as well.

In other words, beauty and order are two aspects of the same thing. Beauty is the impression and purpose of order. Order is the shape of beauty.

That's why artists learn and practice their craft before making masterpieces. It's why cooks learn about proportions and ingredients. It's why architects study materials and engineers study math (the language of measurable relationships). All beauty is logical, even if it is not the logic we recognize or focus on. All logic is beautiful, even though we often fail to appreciate it.

So when Christians say that Jesus is "the Word made flesh", what we are really saying is that He is Logos made flesh... that Christ is Beauty and Order itself.

forbidden fruit

2010-01-04T23:28:00.006-06:00

Many people mistake the concept of original sin as implying that human beings are essentially wicked... that we are ugly beings that must be made beautiful. Well, that's not what it means. Human beings are essentially beautiful creatures, and sin is not the essence of who/what we are.

The real meaning of original sin is that we are all -- inevitably, inescapably -- flawed. We all, from time to time, choose to do things we know with certainty that we should not do. This behavior shows up in every child and keeps causing trouble all the way to the end. Original sin means simply that we are willful beings -- imperfect willful beings; and that imperfect will and imperfect intellect of yours are bound to lead you astray from time to time.

But where does the "sin" part come in? Sin is a word that refers to willful separation from God. It's a violation of love, which is about togetherness. When you sin, you are choosing to turn your back on God (and on your fellow human beings, though they will not always notice). Original sin is sin because those inevitable missteps separate us from God... from His love, His many gifts, and His guidance.

Some sins are severe, for sure. But don't think of sin only as grave and malicious acts leading to damnation. Sin can also be simple and relatively innocent things, like leaving the dirty dishes for someone else to wash or letting the new kid sit alone in awkward silence. Sin isn't necessarily a dire subject.

For all Christ spoke about sin, He spoke more about love. If you focus on learning to love well, sin will become less of a problem without you having to think about it all the time. Focus on love. God does.

"climate change" is here to stay

2009-12-08T13:30:00.002-06:00

Folks, let's be realistic about these CRU emails and how they'll affect policy. This scandal will hardly put a dent into all the climate nonsense.

First, the talk has been shifting from "global warming" to "climate change" for years now... ever since it started to become common knowledge that Earth's climate has been cooling during the past decade or so. For people who put their faith in obvious lies, it's not a problem when the lies change. Leftist dictators don't need a good excuse to expand their power. Any excuse will do. "Climate change" works so well because hedonism is a natural fallback when people lose belief in God.

Second, far too much relies on this climate change nonsense for it to go away quickly, regardless of anything. Countless researchers get grant money by tying their research to the subject. Countless organizations and programs (jobs) have been founded on the idea. Countless sales are dependent on widespread fear of imaginary pollution. And many politicians around the world who are trying to expand their power have a much easier time of it while people are afraid the sky is falling.

I'm sorry, guys, but "climate change" is here to stay. This isn't even a matter of perception over truth. It's about desire over morals. Many, if not most, of the people pushing this stuff have some awareness that what they're saying is false. They just don't care.

limited government

2009-11-16T11:00:00.005-06:00

Such an important quote:

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please." --Thomas Jefferson

Unfortunately, there is no longer anything that America's government is unwilling to stick its nose into. Our government has become involved in nearly every aspect of our lives. Compared to Britain and others, that influence might be slight, but it will choke America all the same.

an impotent Constitution

2009-10-22T17:00:00.006-05:00

As I responded here:

America is defined by human beings (culture), not by laws. We were never a nation of laws. The Constitution only ever had power so long as it reflected the values of most Americans. Now, at least half of our government's actions, many of which are supported by laws, are in direct violation of the Constitution.

The Constitution is inevitably ignored or rejected by modern politicians because the values of Americans have been corrupted and no longer match the philosophies on which the Constitution was founded. Even those who share the values of our Founders often accept the fruits of corruption (such as the "free money" of Cash-For-Clunkers and recent home buyers' programs). Alternatively, believers in the Constitution mildly accept unconstitutional laws and programs.

Laws, including Constitutional laws, are only fruitful when they are supported by citizens willing to obey them and officials willing to enforce them. Without such cooperation from individual human beings, the Constitution might as well be a John Lennon lyric. It is a plan for action... not the action itself.

America is dying because our culture is dying. To save our Constitution, we must save the hearts and minds of individual Americans from lies, cowardice, and ignorance.

Our Founders hearkened to God. We must do the same. That means focusing on changing individual hearts. No system of government is any better or worse than the individual persons who comprise it. Help America's citizens to find their way back to truth and justice, and our government will inevitably reflect those citizens' intentions.

smashing sand castles

2009-10-14T15:50:00.002-05:00

I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and I believe we always have a moral obligation to see wars through. But right now I feel like we're just smashing sand castles over there.

A sand castle is made of nothing special. Smash it, and it can be easily remade.

Tanks, ships, jets, missiles, bridges, oil refineries... things like these must be manufactured at considerable cost of time, money, resources, and engineers. Destroy them, and they cannot be quickly or easily replaced.

On the other hand, there's IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices), rifles and small arms, suicide bombers, spies, roadside bombs, etc. These things can be easily found or produced. The necessary resources are readily and cheaply available anywhere in the world. You can't cut off the supplies. Destroy these weapons, and replacements are almost inevitable.

What is Al Qaeda? Is it strictly an organization with finite members? Or is it an ideology with limitless recruitment and found in many nations? Terrorism does not require much knowledge or training, nor great resources. Al Qaeda has demonstrated that it can pull off relatively sophisticated attacks, but surely such capacity can be found in many other terrorist organizations. So how does eliminating Al Qaeda, if we can, protect us?

What are the goals of our military in Afghanistan? That's what I don't understand at the moment. Cutting off the head of the snake, removing the senior members of the terrorist group which attacked us repeatedly, is a definite and achievable goal. But ridding even one nation of terrorism is not.

My question is genuine. Are we pursuing realistic goals? Or are we smashing sand castles?

anger from love

2009-09-21T14:35:00.002-05:00

There's a flip side to this. When attacked by liberals with labels like "homophobe" and "racist", the response of conservatives is often to ridicule those liberals. That's unproductive. Only half of social maturity is how you treat others; the other half is how you respond to mistreatment.

If you ridicule someone, it is unlikely that person will start genuinely listening to your arguments or try to reconcile anytime soon. Christ's command to "turn the other cheek" (often mistaken as a rejection of violence) is counsel against vengeful behavior like this.

If you want to change and hallow hearts, you must strive to keep love in your own heart during the worst tantrums of injustice. If God can be angry, then it is certainly alright for us to be angry at times. But just anger is fueled and tempered by love. If you find yourself losing your hold on love during a debate, it's time to walk away and pray.

emotions

2009-09-16T12:56:00.001-05:00

Emotions are like colors. There are a handful of primary emotions from which all others are derived. Perhaps, there are only three primary emotions: joy, anger, and sadness.

Emotions, like any instinct, have a proper direction. They can be misaligned, and it is the responsibility of all individuals to strive to align them correctly. When harmonized with truth, those primary emotions are as follows.

Joy - response to harmony between what is and what should be
Anger - response to injustice and errors of will
Sadness - response to separation... either from a particular object (a person or being) or an abstract concept (like justice)

Other emotions are subsets or mixtures of these. Frustration and envy, for example, are derived from anger... of feeling things are not as they should be. Despair, a loss of hope, is a form of sadness. And so on.

One cannot be ethical before being moral. Ethics is applied morality. For example, being ethical in business means applying basic moral concepts like fairness and honesty in complicated scenarios, like sales and distribution. Being ethical in medicine means applying the value of sympathy, among others.

Likewise, one cannot effectively manage secondary emotions before first correcting his or her primary emotions. Ask yourself if you are angry, sad, and happy in response to the right things. Any honest, patient person will find room for improvement. Work on training those core emotions and it will bring you peace.

humanity and value

2009-08-17T23:22:00.014-05:00

Free will is the essence of humanity.

Other animals merely exist. They are what they are. They change, but do not choose to change. Sometimes they let themselves die or risk their lives for fellows of their species, but they do so driven by instinct or emotions alone. They do not ask "why".

Humans can't help but ask "why" (Why live or die? Why labor or sacrifice? Why [anything]?). Unlike all other creatures, we are given a hand in our own creation. We do not merely exist. We do not merely "be". We recognize a calling to "become"; we choose when and how to accept that call or not. It is a great gift.

So, if the essence of humanity is free will, does that mean a person without free will (such as a baby or someone in a vegetative state) is not fully human? not fully deserving of human rights? No, it does not mean that. The person is still fully human in the same way a non-functional car is still a car. The essence of a car is automotive transportation, but it does not cease to be a car when it breaks down and can no longer transport. Nor would the car's creator or owner certainly abandon the car if it stopped working.

The absence of essential traits is not necessarily an absence of identity or value. Thus, the child who has not yet developed basic human characteristics while growing in her mother's womb is indeed human and irreplaceably valuable. Thus, the old man who can do little more than breath in and out, and that with the help of machines, is still a fully human person deserving of love. Not an "it", but a "who".

Our Creator does not cast us aside when we cease to act as we were intended. We should not abandon each other.

hypocrisy and truth

2009-08-04T17:09:00.006-05:00

If a thief tells a child not to steal, is the advice bad because of its source? Of course not. The impact of the advice might be lessened by the source, but advice is good or bad regardless of source.

Any statement is always true or false independently of its source.

All people sometimes act in opposition to their own reasoning and beliefs. It's foolish. It's also human. All people are hypocrites to one degree or another.

It is never reasonable to reject a fact or argument based only on the knowledge that someone is speaking hypocritically. That a person does not have the courage, discipline or love to act according to his or her beliefs makes that person a poor example, not a poor adviser.

power doesn't corrupt

2009-07-22T12:02:00.001-05:00

Popular belief is that power corrupts. I don't think that's true. The reality is power amplifies and emboldens the corruption already within.

Most of the corrupt actions we criticize politicians for have counterparts in everyday life among everyday people.

For example, I used to be a manager at a video rental store. I worked at that store and another in the chain for two years. Almost every employee at both stores had no problem giving friends and family free rentals, despite company policy against this. Politicians similarly use other people's money to cut their friends and family deals. The only difference is in scale. Because the politicians have more power, the same action has far greater results.

In that case, power does not corrupt. Power merely amplifies the results of corruption.

At every retail store I've worked at, many employees have stolen small items when believe they would not be caught and punished. Video store clerks often steal candy and drinks. Grocery workers often steal apples and other perishables. Likewise, politicians waste and steal the money of citizens when they realize they will not be punished, or even caught, for doing so. There's a difference between what a person will do when threatened with sanctions and what that person will do when there are no sanctions.

Power can give breath to corruption which would otherwise be kept hidden.

The point is that power is only a problem indirectly. It's a problem, not the problem. The fundamental problem is the flawed nature of human beings. Great power amplifies those flaws. But power also amplifies goodness and charity.

The potential for abuse in systems is important, but systems are seldom the heart of our problems. Human beings should always be our focus. Focus on individuals. To heal any system, you must first heal the individuals who comprise it.

keep an eye on Russia

2009-07-07T14:15:00.001-05:00

So, Obama met with Medvedev. Out of that meeting comes a statement that Medvedev, Putin's puppet, is "trustworthy" and a preliminary agreement to reduce our nuclear stockpile by the largest percentage yet agreed to by any president. Then Obama met with Putin and received his version of Cold War history.

Let's back up a step. Does anyone remember Russia's recent invasion of Georgia? Why would you? It's a distant, unfamiliar nation. And the only response of the United States, like that of all other countries, was to complain. Russia then cut off gas to Georgia and many other nations of Eastern Europe; in the dead of winter, no less. Again, we complained.

Let's back up another step. Does anyone remember Germany before World War II?

Russia isn't through seizing territory. They were not punished the first time, so there will be a second time. And Obama just wants to be friends. Afterall, Putin and Obama are not so different ideologically.

I'm betting Putin will make his next move within two years, during Obama's presidency. If Russia is able to seize territory a second time without real sanctions, the invasions will continue, and we will be complicit.

dreams tempered with wisdom

2009-07-06T12:01:00.002-05:00

Austin Hill reprinted the email he received from President Obama on the 4th of July this year. Within that letter is the following:

"And as America comes ever closer to achieving the perfect Union our founders dreamed"

Right there is a fundamental misunderstanding, or (more likely) a willful misinterpretation, of America's founding.

The Founders did not dream of Utopia. They did not believe they were setting the groundwork for a "perfect Union". They certainly did not believe the Constitution was merely a set of guidelines from which America would begin, as Obama's actions clearly demonstrate he believes.

No, our Founders were Christians who believed in the Fall of Man and realists who acknowledged that humanity will always be flawed. They believed that all governments, including the one they began, have a natural tendency to drift toward either dictatorship or anarchy. Read The 5,000 Year Leap and you'll see this in their own words.

The U.S. Constitution was written in response to tyranny... which is to say that it was written in response to the natural and inevitable corruption of the human heart and our limited wisdom. It was also written with hope and faith in the inherent beauty of human beings. Its authors were plainly aware, as evidenced through their own words, that neither corruption and foolishness nor beauty and wisdom can ever be completely struck from individuals or from the social systems those individuals comprise.

Furthermore, America's Founders believed that what progress which could be made would be made apart from government, not through it. They expressly asserted that government must be limited to only protection of the most basic individual rights and the facilitation of states' rights. They perceived government as a necessary burden with which one should never be comfortable.

In his actions, Barack Obama proves to be the antithesis of America's founding principles. The longer he, his fellow liberals, big-government Republicans and other cowardly politicians remain in power, the farther we will drift from the Founders' true dream... a dream in which America is defined by its individuals and its culture, rather than by its government.

green poverty

2009-07-02T15:08:00.001-05:00

The irony that the Democratic Party is commonly perceived as the party of the poor is overwhelming. Hippie environmentalism has a habit of hurting the poor.

Who are most often penalized by vehicle emissions standards? Those who can only afford used vehicles in "poor" condition. Who have suffered most from the high corn prices caused by ethanol mandates? The poor and starving everywhere.

By now, you've probably heard that the energy bill currently before the Senate would authorize federal authorities to prevent the sale of any home until they have verified that it meets politicians' whimsical environmental standards. Well, using common sense, ask yourself: Which homes are most likely to fail these environmental tests? Those belonging to the poor, of course.

Who are most likely to have poorly sealed windows and door frames, or lack window screens, thereby wasting air conditioning? Who are most likely to have faulty and inefficient appliances? Who are most likely to have large families producing a lot of waste? Which families won't have the money to repair their homes to meet these environmental standards?

Which workers need to live closest to their jobs, to save transportation expenses? Who rely most on manufacturing jobs, and must be able to relocate (sell their property) quickly to find new employment?

If you need evidence that Obama could be reelected even if the economy plummets and all else falls apart, look no further than Democrats' popularity after repeated offenses against the people they claim to represent. If this energy bill passes, it will be yet another example of snooty idealism at the expense of America's most vulnerable citizens.

obligation to the weak

2009-06-30T15:14:00.001-05:00

I often hear Glenn Beck, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and other Libertarians I respect suggest that America should not be policing the world. They seem to suggest that our military should protect nobody other than Americans. Let me offer an analogy to demonstrate how ludicrous that view is.

Suppose you walk out of your home and happen to witness a group of young men beating up a girl in a yard down the street. She's on the ground in a fetal position, bloodied and crying, as the others kick her, shout at her, and spit on her.

None of them are your kids or your near neighbors. They are not on your property or anywhere close to it.

Nobody is ending the violence -- not the parents of the kids, not the property owner, not the police. You have notified them and given them time to respond to the incident. But, for whatever reason, nobody is doing anything, besides perhaps ineffectually pleading with the young men to stop kicking the girl.

Now, you're a strong and skilled fighter. You know you're capable of forcibly separating the assailants from the victim. But, of course, you still might be injured. And you've got a family of your own to take care of. If you get hurt, your family might be more vulnerable, your property less secure.

To complicate matters even further, the violence against the young girl is not that strange. Similar violence and injustices are taking place around your area, and only some of them are being policed in any way other than verbal condemnations. You can't help them all.

So.. what do you do?

It's ironic. There are so many conditions and circumstances in that analogy, so many complications. Yet is it not still obvious that you would be morally obligated to intervene?

It is certainly not right to intervene in every injustice, because free will should be honored. We must allow people to make mistakes. We must expect others to stand and fight for justice as we do. To baby others diminishes the strength of their wills; undermines their freedom.

But it is also certain -- it is common sense -- that the strong have an inherent moral obligation to protect the weak. When a stranger life is in jeopardy, when a stranger's most basic God-given rights are being attacked, we must intercede if we are able, even at risk to ourselves.

I do not deny that a nation's military actions are more complex than that, particularly in the present world. A standing army is an unfortunate necessity; we cannot give every soldier the right to choose his battles. Modern military actions require huge amounts of money and resources. And nations of millions of people cannot interact in the same ways that nations of hundreds can.

My analogy is indeed limited in its usefulness, but I believe it demonstrates clearly enough that America, the world's strongest nation at this point in history, cannot guard only itself. The strong must protect the weak.

inflation and gold

2009-06-29T18:56:00.009-05:00

It strikes me as silly when people say inflation isn't likely and use the gold market as evidence. If inflation was coming, they suggest, the price of gold would be rising.

All that's really saying is "I don't think inflation is coming because those other people don't think inflation is coming." The price of gold is an indication of fear. The fact that most people aren't afraid of inflation doesn't mean they shouldn't be.

Come on, Kudlow. You're smarter than that.

conservatives vs Libertarians

2009-06-25T12:36:00.007-05:00

As I stated in a response to someone's Freedom Watch comment here:

Far more Americans listen to and agree with Rush Limbaugh than listen to shows like Freedom Watch and agree with Libertarians. Limbaugh is one of the most important allies Libertarians have. Reject people like him and the Libertarian cause is hopeless. Glenn Beck represents a nice middle ground.

The main difference between traditional conservatives like Rush and Libertarians is expectations.

Libertarians call for government shrinkage on a scale that has no historical precedent anywhere in the world (without violent revolution). Conservatives like Rush and myself want our government to return to its original boundaries as well, but we reject the idealistic view that it can happen quickly.

The return to the Constitution must be gradual and begin with average citizens, not politicians. Our government is a reflection of our culture. Change too much too quickly and we'll end up in another civil war, or like Russia with crime organizations picking up where the government left off. The government will attack its citizens before it gives up half its power.

Start reading histories on the American Civil War. Slavery was an issue, but it wasn't the issue (as public education teaches). Only a tiny percentage of Southerners owned slaves. Do you really think Southerners took up arms to defend the property of rich aristocrats? Do you really think they put their lives on the line out of hatred for blacks? Let's not forget that the Confederate States of America existed long before the war began. Let's not ignore the fact that no national leader, no politician, is going to let half his country walk away without some sort of resistance. Let's not ignore that the South was America's breadbasket and producer of some of America's chief exports.

I'm not blaming the North here. I'm not calling Lincoln a bad president. I'm not saying the Civil War was unjust. I'm just pointing out that the histories of that war presented in public schools are blatantly ridiculous, and the true nature of that war has relevance for today. Our country broke apart before when competing forces were pulling us in wildly different directions and trying to make drastic changes.

As I've said before, some drug addicts can quit cold turkey and be alright. But most need a more gradual withdrawal, or they break under the strain. Americans have become reliant on this corrupted government. If you try to force everyone to quit that addiction immediately, the reaction will be explosive and violent.

logic is insufficient

2009-06-19T14:29:00.006-05:00

As I stated in response to James Allen's article here, logic is never sufficient ground for political or cultural opposition.

Logic can never be the sole emphasis of communication with our opponents, because humanity is not solely logical. Even the most rational person often rejects logic in favor of emotion. And logic without emotion is like a machine without fuel: unproductive. Our reasoning alone does not define us.

We must appeal to our enemies with smiles, wit, laughter, and charisma. Obama in particular must be counteracted with charismatic conservatives.

We need writers and artists with love for God, truth, humility, and self-sacrifice. We need reporters and pundits who can entertain without ad hominem and bitter sarcasm.

Too many Americans are confused, fooled, or have lost direction. But providing direction isn't enough. We must also inspire them to walk the right path after they see it. Evil is always the easier way, and logic alone cannot offer courage.

religion and politics

2009-06-18T11:35:00.002-05:00

Separation of politics and religion is literally impossible.

Religion is, first and foremost, a comprehensive and organized perception of what the world is and how it should basically be responded to. Religion does not require belief in gods or spirits, nor a congregation. Every person subscribes, willingly or not, to a basic framework of beliefs which play a vital and necessary role in that person's day-to-day decisions and long-term goals.

A politician's or voter's foundational perceptions of the world cannot be excluded from his or her activities. To remove that foundation, was it even possible, would be to reduce all the person's motivations to whims; reduce all the person's rationales to shallow, spontaneous musings.

Are some religious beliefs irrelevant to politics? Need God be mentioned?

A good friend who is atheist once said that an atheist and a Christian will often perform the same action for the same motivation (love), so faith in God is unnecessary. I disagree. What my friend failed to recognize is that most Christians (as well as other believers in one God) don't think of God as a Divine Watchmaker, as a Creator who did His work long ago and now just sits back and watches history unfold.

We believe that God is always present and always active in the world. It is only through His power and love that we are able to do good. As a flute is worthless without a musician blowing through it and guiding the tune, a human being can accomplish nothing without God working through him or her.

Just as importantly, God is a "person" and not an abstract entity. It matters immensely whether or not I choose to acknowledge the persons with me. Obviously, that is an understatement when the "person" is my Creator, my King, who has adopted me as son and brother. It is His love that sustains me. How could I pretend His presence does not matter?

That is why it's a slap in the face when Christian, Jewish, or Muslim politicians exclude any mention of God from their rhetoric. We can and should expect atheists to tolerate Christian references while we debate with universally accessible logic.

America's Founders sought to protect us from the institutional combination of political organizations and religious organizations. They saw in Europe's history and in their own experiences that political officials and religious officials must act separately, even as they strive toward similar goals and share in public debate.

As I have explained above, all people are religious. We all have definitions of the world which affect how we respond to the world. It would be ridiculous to suggest that politicians can prevent their perceptions of reality from influencing the creation and enforcement of laws. So, obviously, religious influence on political decisions does not equal "establishment" of religion.

One last note. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is not coincidental that the freedom of religion clause, the freedom of speech and press clause, and the right to assemble and petition are all part of the same Amendment. The Founders obviously saw these issues as different branches of one issue; one freedom.

starting small

2009-06-17T14:25:00.001-05:00

Historically speaking, governments don't shrink except by force. But anything's possible under God, so perhaps American can be turned around.

Idealism doesn't help us secure liberty. Eliminating the income tax, eliminating the Fed, eliminating the FDA or EPA, etc -- that's not going to happen anytime soon. Most Americans respond with doubt and caution to such proposals, because those are constants and most human beings dislike radical change in their lives. Even voters who support such cuts commonly doubt that they are possible.

Start small. Before you call upon American voters to demand dramatic cuts to government spending and power, convince them to demand small cuts. Or convince voters to demand merely that no new programs or committees be created.

Too many conservatives, and Libertarians in particular, are asking Americans to quit their government addictions "cold turkey" instead of a step at a time. The first step of coaxing a voluntarily withdrawal is to convince the addict that quitting is possible. That requires small changes.

Don't expect Americans to fight for liberty while they're still facing the breadline.

like Cuba?

2009-06-16T22:35:00.002-05:00

I was thinking about buying Glenn Beck's new book, Common Sense, on Amazon when I noticed this review-comment:

....

As a former Cuban immmigrant (50 years ago) I see so many similarities between my former country before the revolution and the US today, that sometimes I think I'm re-living a nightmare.

Signed:

Andrew J. Rodriguez
Author: "Adios, Havana," a Memoir

A skeptic might say Andrew is just advertising his own book. But Obama gives every evidence of sharing the worldviews of dictators past and present, and too many in our present government agree with him.

political blitzkrieg

2009-06-16T17:23:00.001-05:00

One thing Glenn Beck called right a long time ago is Obama's strategy of political blitzkrieg. The president and fellow liberals are changing America's government, and even world government (see the recent proposal to expand the IMF) at a breakneck pace. It's all coming so fast that American voters can't focus on any one issue for more than a week at most before another amazing decision makes the news.

The Germans used blitzkrieg as an effective military strategy for a long time. I was once told by a military historian that history's greatest generals (Patton, Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, etc) all favored offense to defense. Patton's own relentless pushes at the enemy are greatly to thank for Germany's defeat. I'm no historian, but I recall that one defeat of the blitzkrieg strategy came at Stalingrad, where German supply lines became stretched and the Russians kept pouring in defenders to hold the city at any cost.

Without wanting to stretch the analogy too far, does military history help us at all to counteract blitzkrieg as a political strategy? Or is there a historical example of sustained, rapid-fire politics being derailed by an opposing party?

One thing, at least, that can be done is for websites to maintain a list of Obama's radical activities... a list that keeps last month's news on the front page alongside today's news, for perspective. Americans desperately need perspective. Beck is the only news voice I hear consistently tying separate issues together into a broader view, and even he is being overwhelmed by Obama's magical mystery tour.

escaping debt

2009-06-13T18:35:00.004-05:00

No company should be able to post "record revenues" and receive bankruptcy protection in the same year.

Debt holders have a right to be paid fully if at all possible.

nothing to fear

2009-06-12T21:08:00.002-05:00

Evil is an absence, not a presence. It's a hole waiting to be filled.

Darkness cannot prevent the light from shining through. So don't fret too much about the darkness. Walk right in, and God will be with you.

the face of Republican principles

2009-06-11T18:03:00.001-05:00

John McCain didn't get the Republican nomination in 2008 because he was the most popular candidate. Republican voters didn't ask for conservatism to be watered down, modified or abandoned. McCain got the nomination because the conservative vote was split between various other candidates. He got the nomination because he was the last man standing after his opponents fought among themselves.

Though voters share some values, each prioritizes those values in a different order and to a different degree. Huckabee was most perceived as the pro-life candidate. Romney was the economic mind. Giuliani was the commander-in-chief. Paul was the revolutionary. Thompson represented all of these values, but lacked charisma. Most Republicans are pro-life, capitalist, want a strong commander, want to see the government shrink back within Constitutional boundaries, and want a charismatic leader. They want all of these things, but their votes in the Republican primaries followed their priorities.

McCain won the early primaries because votes for him were not diluted so much by votes for other candidates. Republicans were not truly given a choice between tradition and change. From the conversations I had with my large extended family during the election, I can say with absolute certainty that conservatives with the same core values were split between candidates.

Votes for Huckabee removed votes from Thompson. Votes for Romney removed votes from Huckabee. And so on. But fewer votes were removed from McCain by support of other candidates. So while the other candidates in the primaries had to share elbow room, McCain stood apart and untouched. By the time conservatives realized they needed to compromise to elect one of the more conservative candidate, it was too late.

My point is that the maverick's nomination by Republican voters does not suggest a desire for change. Most Republicans today hold the same values as Republicans a decade ago.

false generalizations

2009-06-10T14:10:00.003-05:00

On the one hand, I hate constantly having to point out that I'm generalizing during conversations in this era of political correctness.

On the other hand, I'm am frustrated by the frequent use of misleading generalizations by people I respect.

Sure, most voters are in favor of the government making spending cuts. But make cuts and many of those same voters will cry havoc because they don't want those programs cut. Everyone agrees spending should be responsible. But that doesn't mean specific cuts will be approved by the public.

Sure, most Americans identify themselves as Christians. But how many of those put their beliefs into practice? How many are Americans before they are Christians? How many believe in the "separation of church and state" nonsense?

Sure, many Americans believe the government is too big. But how many of those always turn to the government for solutions?

Conservatives must not win voters with misrepresentations and charming lies. If their campaigns aren't based in truth, then they deserve to fail.

pain and punishment

2009-06-09T23:42:00.001-05:00

Even conservative members of modern American culture tend to be hedonistic in their consideration of pain. Physical pain is treated as inherently worse than psychological pain, even though physical pain is more predictable (and therefore controllable) in degree and means of reparation.

Our entire system of judicial punishment is based on this faulty disposition. Which is more humane: 10 years in a big cage (prison)? or 10 lashes with a whip or cane? The answer should be obvious.

If a person is carefully (as opposed to maliciously) lashed, that person can be out of a hospital in mere days or weeks. The pain forces the criminal to contemplate. He or she is completely healed within months and able to live a full, productive life. Physical scars are a reminder to the criminal of the crime's cost. What's more, lashing the person costs taxpayers little.

On the other hand, jailing a person for years at a time accustoms that person to a predictable life without responsibility. Food, shelter, and daily routine are all given for nothing and completely secure. The person is removed from loved ones and almost all capacity for contributing to the world for a huge portion of his or her life. Without love and responsibility, do you really think a person is likely to become a better person? to be rehabilitated? The prison term acts as a black mark on the person's employment record, among other records. It can't be hidden like scars on the back or chest could be. Even so, there's no regular reminder of the criminal's punishment once he or she is out. And the cost to taxpayers is immense.

I ask again: 10 years or 10 lashes? Which is more humane? I'd take the lashes.

People give pain too much weight these days. I've cut fingers to the bone, skidded across concrete on unprotected skin, bled and swollen... yet I only remember those pains vaguely. I don't still feel the pain. I only remember that there was pain, and I'd like to avoid repetition of those experiences.

I'm not proposing gross tortures. I'm just suggesting that corporal punishment is morally acceptable... moreso, in fact, than common prison sentences. Americans need to recognize this error in our culture and to act on that awareness.

waste management

2009-06-09T00:14:00.002-05:00

While a complete and unconditional ban on all plastic bags is a bit extreme, I do agree that plastic bags probably should not remain as prevalent among retailers as they are. Paper bags and permanent bags are certainly more responsible.

However, as with most issues, that something should be done is not to say that government should dictate or manage the operation. Many thing which are right or wrong are properly dealt with by economic and social sanctions.

In any case, I've sometimes wondered why volcanoes are not a part of our waste management system. There could be problems, but the option isn't even explored. I'm talking about shield volcanoes here... the sort that ooze lava constantly, like Mount Kilauea in Hawaii.

Lava can recycle anything; absolutely anything. The only questions are:
(1) What would it cost to safely transport waste to active volcanoes?
(2) What toxic chemicals would be released into the air as a byproduct? and how far could that poisonous air be carried by wind currents?

Volcanoes release plenty of toxic chemicals as is, such as sulfur and carbon monoxide, so I doubt the latter should be a great concern. So the first question is the crux.

Imagine the benefit to Hawaii's economy if the continental United States were to constantly ship garbage to be air-dropped on their shield volcanoes and burned instantly. Yes, nature still does it best, I think.

simple diplomacy is bad diplomacy

2009-06-08T18:30:00.001-05:00

Suppose someone told you they had discovered the way to convince anyone of anything, to end any debate, to bridge any divide. You'd raise an eyebrow and laugh in their face, right?

So why should a politician be taken any more seriously when he or she acts as if one method of diplomacy works in any scenario, with any nation?

The fundamental problem of liberal diplomacy is that the same strategies -- polite meetings and angry resolutions -- are applied to all problems. And, if that work... well, we'll just rinse and repeat until it does.

Different societies and governments, like different persons, have individual characteristics which demand different methods of interaction and persuasion.

simple laws

2009-06-03T22:43:00.002-05:00

How many laws don't you know?

Judge Napolitano of Freedom Watch has said numerous times that "the camera is the new gun" in the fight for freedom. He recently pointed out that it is legal for anyone to record video of an arrest as long as the camera operator does not physically interfere with the arrest. Yet cameras have been confiscated and people arrested because even many police are unaware of this law.

America's legal system is so vast and so complicated that even lifelong lawyers often disagree on what particular laws mean, as well as where and how they should be applied. We have so many laws that a person reading them every day of his life would never know them all.

This is a key reason that the Founders wanted the least possible federal power and an emphasis on limited, local power. When government influence in one's life is restrained and comes mostly from direct neighbors, it's actually possible to know what you can and cannot do.

That is not a purely theoretical claim. All across America, and in every other nation, there are small towns and rural areas beyond the interest or enforcement of professional politicians. The people of those towns generally know all the laws they need to know.

They don't know the laws because they read books or heard lectures. They know the laws because their laws are mostly common sense and common courtesy. To regain clarity, we must regain freedom.

reverse discrimination

2009-05-29T13:23:00.001-05:00

There's much talk of "reverse discrimination" in light of Sotormayor's infamous statement. I think it's time to start talking about discrimination against whites and men as simply "discrimination". Liberal leaders love to abuse language and use it as a weapon. Conservatives needn't accept these abuses.

The phrase "reverse discrimination" is a loaded term. It makes a false distinction between discrimination against whites / men and discrimination against other groups. It implies that discrimination against whites is different in kind from discrimination against blacks or other minorities, which is not true. In either case, one person is simply choosing to reward someone like himself or to act on a stereotypical perception.

It's simple "discrimination" either way. If blacks have been more often discriminated against than whites, or women more then men, that history does not alter one person's moral obligations to another today. Moral questions may arise and be complicated as history progresses, but the moral standards to which Christ holds us are timeless.

fascism is built on desperation

2009-05-29T11:45:00.002-05:00

As I stated here, I believe Obama doesn't want America's economy to improve.

Through his speeches in past years and his actions, it's clear that he doesn't want merely to repair America, but instead to redefine it. He can't do that while Americans feel content and secure. He needs American citizens to feel desperate in order for them to continue trusting him. Desperate people latch onto even wildest ideas for solutions.

It's like military boot camps. You can better train a person who offers no resistance. Boot camp begins by breaking people down, lowering their resistance and undermining self-reliance.

If you break a person's autonomy, that person becomes much more malleable. Liberal leaders know they'll have more success if they fill people with fear, anger and exhaustion. They know that feeding dependency among citizens will weaken us. They want desperation, because that's the road to fascism.

poverty in America

2009-05-29T10:10:00.001-05:00

Capitalism is undeniably beneficial for the poor. It's precisely because America has favored capitalism over socialism that the poor in this country live in far better conditions than the poor in most, if not all, other nations worldwide.

The vast majority of our poor have furniture, refrigerators, TVs, air conditioning and heating... even means of transportation. Trickle down economics helps the lowest, whatever the gap between classes might look like.

It's because our nation protects and facilitates private charity that homeless shelters abound. It's because of our religious freedom that churches are everywhere and regularly provide food, clothing, shelter, and even job training and placement. There are few places in America where a person lacks the most basic necessities due to any reason other than that person's choice or mental maladies. Even in those places, the person need but ask to be escorted to where he or she can find aid.

America does have problems of poverty, but they are fundamentally different from and less severe than typical poverty in other parts of the world. Whatever this present push toward socialism is motivated by, it is not sound reasoning.

the face of evil

2009-05-28T18:10:00.001-05:00

Most of the world's evils don't come at you like a screaming madman with a gun. Evil usually manifests itself as poison and corruption. It works slowly and disguises itself, lowering our defenses.

Obama is dangerous because, unlike other leaders with totalitarian ideals, he has a powerful charisma and exceptional skill with lies and manipulation. He derails criticism of means by referencing common and noble goals. He uses charm to soften opposition. He manipulates language so that people are too busy debating what reality is to debate how to respond to that reality. Obama demonstrates no respect for honesty and no respect for his political enemies.

I agree whole-heartedly with Glenn Beck on this. Never take Obama at face value. He's always waving one hand while working against you with the other. Always try to match his words to his actions. Always ask why he's saying what he does. There's good in him as well, like there's some good in all of us, but nothing is straightforward with Obama.

modern guilds

2009-05-28T10:14:00.002-05:00

Guilds exist today just as they existed centuries ago. The American Bar Association and American Medical Association are two prominent examples. Guilds will play a vital role in the liberal push to reshape our culture.

Even though they're technically not government organizations, these organizations are governmental by default. A lawyer cannot practice his trade unless he is licensed by the ABA, and the ABA has the power to revoke that license. Doctors similarly can't practice without the AMA's permission.

The power these organizations have is already being abused. For example:

Christiansen is especially concerned about a 2007 "ethics committee opinion" issued by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The opinion states that if member physicians refuse to do abortions themselves, they must relocate near an abortion provider to whom they can refer women. The college's board also requires doctors to abide by these new abortion-on-demand rules to obtain or retain their board certification.

As a result, pro-life obstetrician-gynecologists "may not be permitted to become board-certified or recertified, which is a requisite for hospital privileges and practicing medicine in general," Christiansen said.

Catholics and other Christians are likely to be particularly affected by guild regulations.

Don't be fooled into focusing only on government legislation and politicians in this cultural war. America's founding values are being attacked from many angles.

a boundless universe

2009-05-28T00:34:00.003-05:00

If you've ever seen the movie Contact, then you might remember a particular line that's spoken at least twice. The film closes with this line. If human beings are alone in the universe, it's said, that "seems like an awful waste of space".

That line always stuck with me because it demonstrates how two people can look at the same evidence and draw very different conclusions. When I consider the vastness of our universe and think that no other intelligent life exists in it, what I see is God's love.

Imagine that you are offered a dozen flowers. A gesture of affection, right? Now imagine that you are offered endless fields of flowers -- so many flowers that you could never possibly see them all, though you lived a thousand years.

Would you call that an awful waste of flowers? Probably not. More likely you'd recognize it as an awesome expression of love.

The universe is vast beyond measure because God's love is vast beyond measure. We have been given more beauty and wonder than we could ever possibly know, because true love does not hold back.

a nation of people, not laws

2009-05-27T17:40:00.000-05:00

Laws can be good, but all law is ultimately subject to free will and power. Government officials can choose to acknowledge laws or not. Police and judges can choose to enforce law or not. Citizens can choose to obey laws or not obey.

To say we are "a nation of laws" can be wise or foolish, depending on what one means by it. It's wise to recognize the necessary roles of inheritance, traditions and community agreements in our lives. But it's foolish to forget that the success or failure of any society ultimately traces back to that society's culture and the decisions, rational or not, of individual citizens.

Any organization, any system, ultimately reflects the persons operating it. Read The 5,000 Year Leap and you will see that America's founders understood this. No system is immune from corruption. We cannot achieve a just, limited government by focusing on rules.

Don't place your faith in rules and laws. Place your faith in people. Focus on individuals. Focus on conversation, always guided by reason and love, to change individual hearts.

If you're a Christian, you should recognize this as the way Christ taught us. Jesus lived in a society which invited pleas from its citizens -- yet He never journeyed to Rome or His regional governor, nor even to the Jewish leaders, to petition. Massive crowds, citizens of many backgrounds and varied political standing, listened to and followed Jesus -- yet He never led marches, labor strikes, or encouraged any sort of public demonstration. Christ focused exclusively on healing and informing individual hearts, and on prayer. He focused on changing individuals.

So should we.