Angst

And as I sat alone
In tired alienation
A devil came to me and spake
“Life is not for the faint of heart”
“What do you mean, sir?”
I asked the devil.
“Victory is seized by those who
Are strong in spirit and in will

Who relentlessly
Pursue friend and foe
Ever striving, never ceasing
Those who know no limitations,”
He answered to me.
“From whence does a man
Find such a ceaseless mastery?”
I questioned the cunning devil.

The demon replied
To me these very words:
“A man finds the will to power
When he forsakes ethic’s limits
And serves only the self
Kindness is man’s death
Submit yourself to other’s will
And your life shall forever be

Tossed to and fro like
A ship upon the sea.
Command your will and conquer life
Utterly and completely
No friends only slaves
Bound unto thy will
All life is but a vain contest
In which all of men must compete

Some win and some lose
And it is your end
To be found amongst the winners
Thus caste off all inhibitions
Right is for the weak
Who fail at life’s game
The full potential of a man
Is found in unbounded freedom.”

“I cannot do this!”
I wailed unto him.
“I cannot treat a man as a slave
And disregard his dignity.
‘Do unto others
As you would have done
Unto yourself.’ The golden rule.
I cannot forsake this teaching.”

“Oh! Then you are weak!”
The devil accused.
“Have you not heard a thing I said?
those words bind a man utterly,
Tighter than shackles
Restrictive as cuffs.
The crown of victory is seized
By those men who abandon them.

Will men accord you
The same rule you keep?
You will be a foolish puppet
Danced on stage by stronger men
There are only slaves
And stronger masters.
What is it you gain by your rule?
What are the fruits of your labor?

Your toil is in vain
It renders nothing.
Long have I watched you from above
In the agony of your soul
You long for the fruit
That others consume
But you are restricted by fear
And are constricted by weakness.

The fruit that they eat
They offer you none
That fruit can only be purchased
By those who are willing to cheat
And willing to trade
Your rule for the fruit
The fruit is the crown of victory
Victory is won by real men.

Slaves do not mind it
Their subservience
Those of weak wills accept their fate
There is no evil done in it.
Behold nature’s way
Lions hunt gazelles.
The lions are men of power
And the deer are those who are weak.

The fawns are lion’s food
Made for that purpose
So consume your pound of the flesh
As a mighty beast does such
There is but one rule:
Hunt or be hunted
An animal’s defense must be
It’s vicious offense on its prey.”

Thus the devil spoke
And then he left me
Once again in isolation
Leaving his words to lie upon me
Oh! How the haunt me!
And cause temptation!
Truly do I lust for the fruit
That the strong possess by their strength

Yet I cannot leave
The path that I walk
To another no matter how
Lined with fruit trees their road may be
Something is sweeter
Than delicious fruit
No matter how I hunger for
Refreshment in the earthly apple.

Grass

As winter recedes
Spring is ushered in
The snow melts away
And the seeds of grass
Germinate in soil
Sprouts begin to grow
And long stalks of grass
Grow up from the earth

As springtime ages on
The grass grows up high
It grows tall and thick
And they know not of
The grass of last year
Which also grew tall
And the stalks of grass
Marvel at their height

But spring does not last
Springtime is fleeting
And the hot days of
Summer draw up nigh
The tall green stocks brown
Their roots are made weak
By the burning sun
They wither and they die

Then the grass is thrown
Into a hot oven
And burned to ashes
The stocks are laid low
The field is made bare
And Littered with straw
A plain of dead things
Trampled on by beasts

The summertime wanes
Autumn arrives next
Soon the frost comes and
Freezes the hard earth
Making it barren
And no more grass grows
Until the spring comes
Once again the same.

Thanksgiving

As Thanksgiving approaches, I thought I would create a list of all the things that I am thankful for. Too often our prayers contain far too much supplication and far too little thanksgiving. We seem to be able to remember all the problems in our lives but none of our blessings. As Americans living in the 21st century we have much to be thankful for. If you compare our standard of living to that of the rest of the world and then to the rest of the world throughout history, you would discover are supremely blessed. We are free from fear, famine, wars (close to home anyway), disease, and suffering. We often forget the quality of life in places in Africa where daily life is a struggle; a struggle to find clean water, a struggle to find food, a struggle to avoid disease, a struggle to avoid warring militias, etc. We also forget the quality of life in the past, before anesthetics and antibiotics were invented. So this Thanksgiving remember the massive material and spiritual blessings that God has given you.

*My savior, Jesus Christ and the grace and love of God the Father.
*My parents who made me into the person I am today.
*My brothers who always gave me elder brother advice.
*My sister-in-law Jennifer whose kindness and love have always been a great addition to our family
*My adorable niece Karla.
*My many friends both at school and at home.
*The comfortable life that I have been blessed with.
*The liberties that my country has given me.
*The wisdom that God has given me.
*My intelligence that God has given me.
*The ability to worship my religion freely.
*Several great professors at school who have helped my academic maturation.
*My health
*My churches, both at school and at home.
*My freedom from fear due to the fact that I live in a power nation.
*My wealth, compared to the rest of the world.
*My education.
*My maturity
*In general, the Lord has blessed me with a good life, full of good people.

KSM Trial

I thought this was a very interesting article. I have to agree with Pat Buchanan on this one.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/17/are_we_at_war_or_not.html

New Amendment for the Election of Senators and Representatives

I. No senator or representative shall take office unless they have passed a proctored exam, approved by Congress, in order to ascertain their ability to act as a senator or representative. A tougher exam being in place for senators and an easier one for representatives.

II. A grade of three-fourths correctly answered questions shall be required for a passing grade on the proctored exam. The candidate shall have no knowledge of the exam prior to taking the exam. If any candidate violates this article, the candidate shall immediately be disqualified. In addition, after failing an exam, the candidate may retake the exam only once as long as the candidate has scored better than fifty per-percent. Any candidate scoring below fifty per-cent may no retake the test again during the current election year.

III. The questions in the said exam shall be objective and based on the following subjects: English language, history, economics, the American constitution, and comparative politics. There shall be no discrimination of persons in the exam, with the same questions being asked of each candidate per election year and new questions being generated for future exams.

Christianity and Knowledge

Foundational to my epistemology is faith. All of our knowledge is formed by certain categories that have developed in our minds. The modernist dream of finding a neutral, objective, and "rational" body of knowledge is just that - a dream. If postmodernism has done one positive thing, it has been to show that the constructs of the human mind do indeed influence our knowledge. Everyone is coming from somewhere and all knowledge is built upon epistemic assumptions that we hold to be true. These assumptions include; theism, atheism, pantheism, the New Age, existentialism, pragmatism, and countless other isms. All such isms are accepted on faith. This is because there must be a rock-bottom foundation that human reason can spring from. We cannot reasonably reason that reason is reasonable, for this always includes one basic assumption; that reason is reasonable. It is impossible to prove that he can trust our reason. It is impossible to prove that what we experience is reality for, if it is an illusion, all the tools that we use to prove thus are part of our reality and thereby themselves illusionary. Thus I take it as a matter of faith that God exists. This is not a "leap of faith" or fideism. I do not accept this faith blindly. Rather I accept this faith because I believe that it provides the best foundation for accepting all those things in life we accept to be true; reason, science, knowledge, morality, meaning, beauty. As C.S. Lewis said, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen; not because I can see it but because by it I can see everything else. Also, reason is not excluded from faith. Rather from the standpoint of faith reason has been justified and the Christian can use it critically. The Christian can, from the standpoint of faith, use reason to buttress that faith and critically think about faith to ensure that it is coherent and consistent.

In the epistemology of Christian knowledge it is important to remember that all knowledge is God's knowledge. Christians often forget that even so-called "secular" knowledge is God's knowledge. When discussion the Renaissance, it is fashionable for historians to say that it was the "birth" or "rebirth" of secular learning. We should not, however, believe that simply because Renaissance learning was not dominated by theology (indeed I would say that even in the High Middle Ages learning wasn't solely about "theology") that the educational and scholarly trends of the Renaissance was "secular." The spiritual and the secular is a division drawn up by post-Kantian thinkers. To the Medieval or Renaissance mind, there was no such division. The exploration of history, the science, art, and literature were as much a part of the knowledge of God as theology proper. To them, all knowledge was truly God's knowledge because all thins, or rather all good things were created and sustained by Him. Many of the greatest minds that Christendom ever produced, men such as Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards, very much treasured reason. As Augustine said, all knowledge of men, even that of the heathen, that is in accordance with faith is as gold and silver mined from the veins of God's knowledge and should be embraced by Christians.

In this way I view the Bible, not as an exhaustive body of truth as some fundamentalists see it, but as foundational. Since man is depraved because of original sin and distorts his reason, God sent his Word so that man would have a reference point of truth. The Bible gives us a foundation from which to build our knowledge upon. This does not mean that I view the Bible in a lesser sense than other Christians. I believe that the Bible is the absolute and final word on spiritual matters and matters of salvation. However, in the realm of politics, economics, history, and science I believe that the Bible is normative and not comprehensive. The Bible gives us foundations for these subjects such as the chief end of man, the characteristics of God, the finite characteristic our universe, the imago dei of man, and the depravity of man. With an understanding of these profound spiritual truths we can pursue learning in what is termed the "secular realm," though I would prefer to call it the temporal realm or the material. We must remember that the temporal and the material are creation of God and that he has deemed His creation "good." Therefore they are worthy of our study as Christians. Indeed God has commanded us to take dominion of the earth as His stewards. But again, I stress, we do not find answers to these questions in the Bible but rather they pursued by our reason, though a reason that is informed by the principles of Scripture and is guided by it.

I think I can best illustrate this by applying to the subject that I know best; history. Though the Bible is set in history and recordsmany historical facts (the kingdom of Israel, the coming of the Assyrians, the Exile, the rebuilding of the temple, and the Roman Empire, it is not a history textbook. The Bible gives only a sliver of ancient history. The history that it is most concerned with is the history of the People of God which is a spiritual history that is the sphere of special rather than natural revelation. Such a history is not, I believe, discernable from the academic study of history, but rather had to be revealed to us by God. We must also avoid, as Christians, to insert biblical providence into history. The only things we know about God's providence in history is limited to what is record about the events of Scripture. Christians must avoid the arrogance of believing they know for certain the purpose of God's hand in the events of most history (e.g. God let 9/11 happen because of gays). However, the Bible does inform us of God's sovereignty in history. We know that all events are ordained by Him and that nothing occurs which God did not make happen or let happen. Christians also know what the Bible says about man. Christians know the creative potential of beings created in the image of God as well as the depravity of creatures who suffering from original sin. Christianity supplies us with a moral compass to provide a basis from which to judge historical events and apply history to contemporary life (e.g. the Holocaust was morally wrong. Ultra-nationalism should be avoided because of the horrific results that it can bring). Finally, Christianity can humble us in the pursuit of history. As Christians we are fully aware of the imperfection of man. As Christians we know to avoid utopian ideals in both the political/societal and academic spheres. Christianity knows that perfect societies and perfect scholarship are beyond our reach, though we should strive for them (Christ commanded us to be perfect although he clearly knew our inability to be so). Christians can therefore imbue their scholarship and politics with a sense of humility

Nobel Peace Prize

ARE YOU SERIOUS!?!? He hasn't been in office for one year, has had virtuall no foreign policy success, and you give Barrack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize? I don't care what you think of Obama, the man hasn't been in office long enough to make any effect whatsoever ont he course of world events. What is everyone's obsession with this man? He's a political novice that can manipulate the media and yout put him along side Kim Dae Jung, Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, and Lech Walesa. After Obama and Al Gore, I have no more respect for this prize.

Dealing with Iran

A recent poll done by Fox News shows that 69% of Americans feel that President Obama has not dealt strongly enough with Iran. 61% feel that force is needed to be used against Iran in order to stop the country from developing nuclear potential. While I agree that Obama should take a stronger stance against Iran, I think that launching an attack against Iran would be a terrible mistake. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, which do not have strong nationalist pasts, Iranians have a proud history that dates back to ancient Persia. Afghanistan and Iraq are both ethnically diverse and lacked a real national identity and thus felt little loyalty to the state. Iranians, however, who have strong ties to the Iranian state, would be enraged if the US or a US-backed Israel attacked Iran. People with a strong national identity detest any violation of national sovereignty.

The problem with much of American foreign policy is that it emphasizes too much on the present. It doesn’t look back far of enough in the past and doesn’t look far forward enough into the future. The best long term solution to stabilizing Iran is to have the ruling theocracy overthrown by a reform movement and a pro-Western (or at least not anti-Western) government to take power. Attacking Iran would almost certainly ensure that the Iranian people (who have shown strong support to introduce reform) would rally around the government against foreign military action. A good story to keep in mind is what happened with the SPD in Germany at the start of World War I. The SPD (Social Democratic Party) was extremely critical of the German monarchy and intense German nationalism. Yet, with the start of the First World War the patriotic members of SPD rallied around the German flag (at least initially) and approved funds to mobilize Germany for war. Even the most critical opposition can be driven to support of an unpopular government if they feel threatened by foreigners.

Thus the long term solution is to support and aid reformist Iranians within Iran. Force should not be used except as the most desperate course of action. This is because the best hope for removing Iran from the so-called “Axis of Evil” is to support regime change from within Iran by the reformers and the people. If Americans work closely with these people we can secure their friendship. To put pressure on the current Iranian regime the US should enforce harsher sanctions against Iran to deteriorate the economic situation. The biggest complain that reformist have against Ahmadinejad is his poor handling of the economy. If a connection is made by Iranians between Ahmadinejad nuclear ambitions and the deteriorating economy, Iranians at the very least will put pressure on him to end this ambition in order to have embargos lifted. I do not think that the Iranians believe that nuclear weapons are worth the price of a poor economy. Finally, American should pursue alternative fuels and expand domestic drilling which would tremendously hurt the Iranian economy and cause greater unrest. This is a less direct form of economic pressure and may bode better to Iranians so that anti-Western propaganda (in the case of greater sanctions) won’t be handed to the Iranian regime.

Some things to remember:
*51% of Iran’s population is Persian and 58% speak Persian. 89% are Shia Muslim. Thus there is a strong national identity through ethnicity, language, and religion.
*Iran’s revenues: $51 billion, Expenditures: $103 billion.
*80% of Iran’s exports are petroleum.
*Unemployment: 12.5%

Walking the Line

The ancient Greeks had a concept known as the "golden mean." It taught that what is good avoids extremes and instead resides in a middle ground. Greco-Roman philosophy taught that a civilized man was ruled by reason and not his passions. The passions, which were thought to be of the physical realm, were considered either imperfect or downright evil and reason, which was part of the spiritual realm, was thought to be good. Men should avoid both depression and extreme jubilation. Stoicism especially taught that man should forsake his passions and emotions. Thus, the truth was somewhere in the middle. I have tried to apply this to my life today in many spiritual questions. It has been tough as the median is a thin line to walk. What I mainly have in mind are those areas where Christianity preaches one virtue but expediency seems to demand another. Are expedient virtues and Christian virtues in contradiction? Is there any reconciling them? Beneath are some examples:

*Confidence vs. pride - The Bible condemns pride in no uncertain terms. Satan fell because he was consumed by pride and desired the throne of God. Man fell because he lusted after the serpent's words: "you shall be as God." Constantly Christians are admonished to humility. However, good self-esteem is also important for humans. Christ commanded us to "love thy neighbor as thyself." How do we, as Christians, remain confident without being prideful? In today's society the humble are often depicted as lacking confidence where the prideful are seen as being full of it. What is the happy median here?

*Strength vs. weakness - The NT constantly commands Christians to be servants. We are reminded that Christ came to be a servant for the elect and the Gospels reveal that Christ constantly behaved in a manner of servitude e.g. washing his disciples feet. Yet life demands, and this is for men especially, that they be strong. Men, by nature, are meant to be the protectors of the home and family. Men are often judged by their strength; physical, emotional, and mental. How does a man be both lord and servant? How does he be strong yet full of humility and servitude?

*Niceness vs. Kinds - We are told to love our neighbor as ourselves and "turn the other cheek," yet excessive kindness is frowned upon in American society. People regarded as too kind are regarded as pushovers. Nice people are taken advantage of and regarded as weak. How do we, as Christians, remain full of love and encouragement yet allay suspicions that our kindness comes not from insecurity but from devote spiritual beliefs.

*Success vs. asceticism - Americans value success more than any other virtue. Americans praise a man who rises from rags to riches due to hard work regardless of his ethics or motivations. Americans love winners in sports, Hollywood, and business. Yet, Christians are told to seek first the kingdom of God and are warned that "man cannot serve both God and mammon." We are to look for victory, not in this life, but in the next. Yet we are also admonished by St. Paul to be hard workers for a fair wage. Also, is there something sinful of success? Is it wrong to pursue material blessing? These things did come to OT saints such as Abraham, Solomon, and Job. How much should we pursue material blessings when we are called to spiritual blessing?

*Innocence vs. naivety - Contemporary Americans mock those who are naive. Those that are innocent are viewed as repressed. How does a Christian allay the accusations of teetotalism and repression yet remain innocent i.e. be innocent but not naive?


Please comment!

On Democracy

Democracy passes into despotism. -Plato

In is common place in modern American, and indeed the modern world, to say that democracy is the best form of government. Yet, democracy is a relative newcomer to forms of government in the world. With the exception of some of the Greeks and the Roman republic, most governments prior to 1776 were dominated by a monarchy or some other kind of non-democratic regime. In modern times most democracies did not emerge until the mid 19th and early 20th c.'s. Thus there has not been ample time for us to truly judge the success of democracy. In Greece, democracy passed into disunity and they were conquered by the monarchical Macedonians. The Roman Republic descended into civil wars and eventually came to be dominated by the Caesars. Much of the faith in democracy has been generated by the fact that there have been few positive regimes to compare it to. Democracy looks good when it is compared to fascist, communist, or ultra-nationalist regimes. Now let me say that I am not opposed to "democracy," as the term is loosely used today. However, I do not think that the proliferation of democratic regimes means the "end of history" and I certainly do not think that democracies are the perfect form of government. Below are some of the faults of democracy that are meant not to shake our faith in democracy, necessarily, but awaken us to the fact that democracies will not lead to the epitome of government that many have dreamed they would lead us to.

*Democracies take far longer to make decisions than more authoritative regimes do.

*Democracies open way for the "tyranny of the majority." 51% of the population can enforce their will on 49%. Even if a constitution protects the rights of citizens, a large proportion of the dissenting population is forced to share in the poor decisions of the majority. If the majority leads the nation into ruins, as much as 49% of the dissenting population is forced to share in that ruin.

*The majority can confer on itself privileges at the expense of the minority; welfare, a graded income tax, corporate bailouts, labor concessions, special interests, etc.

*Democracy, ultimately, puts the hope of the nation in a common populace who may not be properly educated in politics,economics, and history. Can we really trust a populace that is ill-trained to decide on such weighty matters? (especially when they take as Gospel the broadcasts of mass media).

*Politicians can be elected purely on their popularity and ability to provide to special interest groups (labor unions, black caucuses, the NRA, big business, etc.). In a monarchy, ministers may be appointed according to merit but in a democracy they are elected by popularity.

*In parliaments with proportional representation, the vote can be splintered among a host of competing parties so that the government is hopelessly fractured. For instance, Labour, the ruling party in the United Kingdom, has a majority of only 35.2%.

*There is no centralized decision making in democracies. Bureaucracies can grow to a size and complexity that make them difficult to govern. Often there needs to be a person with great authority in charge.

*Governments that are elected do not have the permanence of other governments, such as monarchies, and therefore make decisions that are best for the present and not the long term, e.g. Keynesian economics.

*There has become an increasing apathy toward government by the general population. Not only are people ill-educated in matters of state they are apathetic towards them as well.

Functions of Government

The Purpose of Government:

*Government is the upholder of civic virtue. It exists to ensure that society is preserved and tyranny does not result.

*It is also the upholder of justice so that equity exists among the citizens of the society. That evildoers are punished.

*It exists to protect citizens from harm, either from criminals within society or from foreigners abroad.

*Government should promote the prosperity and welfare of society. This means the promotion of education and helping the less fortunate through effective ways; homeless shelters, soup kitchens, help finding employment, etc.

*It also should protect and preserve the natural resource of the country through environmental regulations and national parks.


The Prohibitions of Government:

*Government may not become tyrannous. It must seek justice and virtue in all it does. It must avoid corruption, fiscal irresponsibility and exploitation of its citizens for the benefit of the rulers. Rulers are but stewards.

*It may not impede the citizens freedom of conscience.

*The government may not do evil to the citizenry.

*The government is a steward of the public funds and may not use them irresponsibly.

Apartment Pictures

Here are the pictures of my apartment now that we finally got everything set up.


The Kitchen


The Living Room...It's kind of bare but Ryan is getting us some posters
and Matt is bringing up a lap because there is no overhead light.

Matt and my bathroom

My room

My room again

Why History?

I continue the defense of my major:

*History produces identity. It helps us understand who we are and where we came from.

*It can demolish myths that have been constructed for dangerous and self-serving purposes by groups, cultures, and nations.

*History helps us understand other peoples, how their culture developed, etc. It helps us deal effectively with other peoples.

*Understanding where we came from, how we got to the present, is important if we are to shape the future. The past affects the present and the future and if we are to shape the future, we need to know about the past. You need to know why or how something is before you can fix or change it.

*History teaches us about human nature. What man is capable of, both good and evil.

*History is fascinating. There is a sort fo thrill in finding out how your ancestors lived or being connected with the past that produced you.

Hopeful Mom and Dad feel that their money is being well spent after reading this.

The 25 Most Influential Books in History

The following are the top 25 most influential books in history, in my opinion. Feel free to add any that you think I have missed or disagree with the order.

25. Tao Te Ching – Lao Tzu

24. The Qu’ran

23. Utopia – Thomas More

22. On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres - Copernicus

21. The Annalects – Confucius

20. The Institutes – John Calvin

19. The Leviathan – Thomas Hobbes

18. Bondage of the Will – Martin Luther

17. Summa Logicae – William of Ockham

16. Summa Theologica – Thomas Aquinas

15. Physics – Aristotle

14. Either/Or – Soren Kierkegaard

13. The Republic – Plato

12. The Social Contract – Jean Jacque Rousseau

11. On the Genealogy of Morality – Friedrich Nietzsche

10. Two Treatises of Government – John Locke

9. The Origin of the Species – Charles Darwin

8. Novum Organum – Francis Bacon

7. The Prerequisites for Socialism and the Tasks of Social Democracy – Eduard Bernstein

6. Das Kapital – Karl Marx

5. Discourse on Method – Rene Descartes

4. The City of God – St. Augustine

3. Critique of Pure Reason – Immanuel Kant

2. Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica – Isaac Newton

1. The Bible

Praise Songs

Last week, after church, I heard several ladies talking about the music that was sung during the service that had just ended. They said how much they liked the song selection and how upbeat they thought the songs were. Some of these women were among those who I know have earlier said how the praise songs make them feel so uplifted. Since my church has become too small to have two services, one traditional and one more contemporary, the service now features hymns and psalms during the service and then two to three praise songs after the sermon to finish up the service. Occasionally there are praise songs played before the service starts as well. For many years it was been well known by my family members that I extremely dislike praise songs. However, after a conversation I had with a college friend toward the very end of the school year last year, I have felt that I should make my opinions less private and more public. Grove City College features a form of contemporary worship called “Warriors” every Thursday night. I have always felt a bit guilty for not going because the worship is so popular among fellow students. I was relieved, however, to find out that my friend equally disliked contemporary praise songs. Based on the conversation that we had, I have come up with several reasons why I have come to so dislike praise songs.

I remember, several years ago, reading an article about an atheist who auctioned himself off to people of several religions. Whoever won the auction, the atheist agreed that he would follow them in their religious practices for an extended period of time. The winner of the auction was a pastor. After the atheist’s tour of several churches, he remarked how he disliked the music. He said that many of the songs sung were on the level of something a child would sing. Something that was really worried me lately is how intellectually lacking many of today’s churches are. While there has been resurgence in interest in religion since the 1980s, much of that interest has been superficial and has lacked an intellectual base. As I turned 18 a few years ago I had a real spiritual crisis as I felt the church had not properly prepared me intellectually. This problem is no more evident than in praise songs. While hymns of old contain so much doctrine and spiritual truth, most praise songs are reduced to nothing but mantras. Compare, for instance, a praise song and a hymn sung last Sunday at my church:

Blessed Be Your Name (excerpt)
Blessed be your name – In the land that is plentiful
Where Your streams of abundance flow
Blessed be Your name
Blessed be Your name
When I’m found in the desert place
Though I walk through the wilderness
Blessed be Your Name
Blessed be the name of the Lord
Blessed be your Name
Blessed be the name of the Lord
Blessed be Your glorious name.

Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing
Oh, to grace how great a debtor,
Daily I’m constrained to be!
Let thy grace, Lord, like a fetter,
Bind thy wand’ring heart to Thee:
Prone to wander, Lord I feel it,
Prone to leave the God I love.
Here’s my heart Lord,
Take and seal it
Seal it for thy courts above

The first song says two things: praise God in times of plenty and praise God in times of want. However, that is all the song is about. This message is then repeated in every verse and the bridge. The second song, the hymn we learn 1. Man is constrained to be a debtor due to Christ’s forgiveness, 2. God will bind our wandering hearts to Him, 3. This is because, even Christians who love God, are prone to wander, 4. God will take our souls and seal them for all eternity in heaven. Moreover, none of these themes are repeated in the hymn. Verse one is a call of praise, verse two explains why the hymnist is praising God and verse three is the hymnist’s prayer. Many hymns contain such deep and rich biblical truths and sound doctrine. I would encourage you to read Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, Crown Him with many Crowns, A Mighty Fortress is our God, O God, our Help in Ages Past, Onward Christian Soldiers, and, my favorite hymn, Be Thou My Vision (See below). My chief problem with praise songs is that they tend to be shallow and repetitious. Notice, in Blessed Be Your Name, the constant repetition of “blessed be.”

That brings me to my second problem with praise songs. The repetition and upbeat melodies tend to, psychologically, make a person emotional. I cannot help but think of the World War I American propaganda song “Over There!” that was intended to raise support for the war in Europe. When these things happen, it can be dangerous because it make a person feel that he or she is truly being pious when, in fact, it is merely an upbeat song causing emotion in a person and not true conviction. It bothers me when many Christians who like praise songs think themselves truly pious because they can get a so-called “spiritual high,” completely with hand raising, from these songs yet do not understand even the fundamentals of the Christian faith and live a life that is far from “worthy of the calling we have received.” When emotional praise songs substitute for real piety we are being seriously mislead in our Christian walk. Next time you are listening to an upbeat song on the radio or on your iPod that is repetitious, check your emotions and see how similar they are to when you listen to a praise song.

Lastly, praise songs are in the arena of popular culture. The Church does not belong in realm of popular culture. Popular culture is the realm of commercialism and I absolutely abhor people who try to “sell” Christianity. Christianity is a historic religion. It is not some fad that will quickly pass away. High culture, like hymns, can be appreciated by all generations but the praise songs will one day become obsolete and a future generation will not be able to appreciate them because they belong to an era of pop culture that has long since ended. Imagine listening to praise songs done in the likeness of Frank Sinatra or Buddy Holly songs. I feel incredibly uncomfortable praising the Lord in a song that contains music that could be used to sell pop or hair products. Finally let me say that I believe hymns are much better for reverence, which is a very proper thing to do in a service. They are slower and beautiful. They allow you to focus on what the words are saying, something I do not feel is always possible with praise songs.

I would like to say also, due to the popularity of such songs, that I do not feel that such songs are unbiblical or evil. Also, I do not believe that just you prefer praise songs to hymns that you are a lesser Christian. The above is my opinion only and I will not try to throw Scripture at you to show that you are unbiblical for worshipping with such songs. I only ask that you consider the above and see if you don't come to the conclusion that traditional forms of music are more conducive to worshipping our Lord God.

Be Thou My Vision

Irish hymn, 8th Century

Be thou my Vision, O Lord of my heart;
Naught be all else to me save that thou art;
Thou my best thought, by day or by night,
Waking or sleeping, thy presence my light.

Be thou my Wisdom, and thou my true Word;
I ever with thee and, thou with me Lord;
Thou my great Father, and I try true son,
Thou in my dwelling, and I with thee one.

Riches I heed not, nor man's empty praise;
Thou mine inheritance, now and always;
Thou and thou only, first in my heart,
High King of Heaven, my treasure thou art.

High King of Heaven, my victory won;
May I reach Heaven's shores of bright Heaven's Sun!
Heart of my own heart, whatever befall,
Still by my Vision, O ruler of all.

ObamaCare: The Chief Problems

This is an update on my previous blog post about so-called healthcare reform, “Health Care for All?” Now that Obama and his fellow Democrats in Congress have revealed a little more about their vague plan to supposedly “make healthcare more affordable” I am able to better accurately point out the flaws in what they are proposing – as well as how astoundingly little the Obama administration knows about basic economics. Much of the plan is similar to the plan that Clinton proposed back in 1994, greater regulations in the insurance and health care industry, with the addition of a government option which people who are unhappy with their current healthcare can choose. Basically, under this plan the government will either subsidize part or all of the medical expenses of people under the government plan or force health care providers or insurers to provide their services to people at a reduced charge. How exactly the government will provide cheaper healthcare for those under the government plan I am not exactly sure. Either way the government plan will actually increase, rather than reduce, the cost of health care for most Americans. Greater “regulation” of the health care and insurance industry will certainly increase the price tag on health care.

First, we must remember the basic message of my last blog on this subject; government may reduce the price of health care for a certain individual or group but cannot reduce the cost of providing healthcare services. The cost of healthcare is determined by supply and demand. If the government mandates a price ceiling on healthcare for those under the government plan, this will mean that the healthcare companies will have reduced profits. They will either have to reduce capital investment from reduced profits or they will have to charge the middle class who are not under the price ceiling more. In the first case the quality of our healthcare will be reduced because the company will have fewer profits to put toward increasing the quality of their insurance or healthcare services, whether this means less coverage, less doctors hired, or less new technology and medical advances. In the latter case it will mean that the hard-working middle class will not save money on health care reform but will end up paying more. If Obama does not create a price ceiling, but only subsidizes healthcare for those under the government plan, this will mean a ballooning deficit for the federal government, which will mean increased taxes for the middle class.

I believe that the current proposals for the cost of this health care plan are grossly underestimated. What democrats fail to understand is that whatever measures they use to make health care “affordable” for those under the government plan, the result will be an increase in demand. With the price of healthcare reduced for those under the plan they will visit the doctor more often than usual. In addition, when they are not footing the cost of the bill, the incentive for people to engage in less risky health behaviors, such as smoking, excessive drinking, and overeating, is reduced. Remember, the biggest health problem among America’s poor is obesity and heart disease. Many of these people also smoke. The public will not become healthier from this plan but less and the bill will be footed by those hard working Americans who actually have to pay for their healthcare. For my solution to reduce healthcare costs, see “A Healthcare Solution” below. For more about the contradictions in ObamaCare see this Time article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1914973,00.html

There is also the question about whether or not abortions and euthanasia will be funded under this healthcare bill. While Democrats claim that nothing in the bill supports such an assertion, others point that the working, like most of the proposal, is ambiguous enough that it may include these ethically questionable procedures. Even those who believe that abortion and euthanasia should be left up to the conscience of the one receiving and performing the procedures should be upset that people who find these things ethically immoral are being forced to fun them.
Ultimately this plan will not help reduce the cost of healthcare or increase the health of Americans. All it will do is make health care more inefficient, costly, and stagnant and entangle the government in more controversial ethical questions.

Making Peace With the Pirates

Now that the dust has finally settled across the Pirates organization I have had some time to think about the mega-fire sale that just destroyed the Pirates’ starting roster. When all these trades started last summer I was angry. I continued to be angry this summer when Nate McLouth was traded. It seemed like more of the same. Once it appears that the Pirates will actually have to pay their players higher salaries, they send them backing to Boston or New York to save payroll in order to fund alternative jerseys, fireworks night, free bobble heads, or some dreadful country music concert after the game. Yet as the trades continued it appeared that the Pirates’ management was up to something. While I don’t share their optimistic spin, I believe that local sports commentators are right in saying that these moves are part of Neal Huntington’s plan to rebuild the Pirates’ farm system and that this is a step in the right direction.

Huntington has said that his vision for the Pirates’ is to build a “championship-caliber team,” not merely an above .500 team. To actualize this, Huntington felt that the current Pirates’ roster was of mediocre talent at best and could be traded off to bigger ball clubs in exchange for young talent. I still wouldn’t under value the Pirates’ former players as much as Huntington and some commentators have. If Bay, Nady, McLouth, and Sanchez were still Pirates I think that the team would have had a chance to make .500 this season. On the other hand, these players would have become too expensive for their worth and probably wouldn’t have vaulted the Pirates to the playoffs anytime soon. Thus I have come to accept that the trades are for the best.

Nevertheless, I have some reservations. First I fear that the talent that Huntington has brought into the club isn’t of the caliber he claims it to be. If the players that have been traded are as mediocre has Huntington claims, then why is the talent they got in return expected to be so good? I hardly think that the scouting for Atlanta, New York, or Boston is poor. But perhaps Huntington and his scouting crew are geniuses? The fact that Huntington gave large (for the Pirates) contracts to Snell and Sanchez only to trade them this summer gives me some room for doubt. This is also considering Snell clearly did not have the mental or emotional ability to compete in the majors. Also, if the new prospects do pan out, the Pirates ownership must be willing to give out good contracts to rising talent. Bob Nutting cannot expect a team of rookies to win the World Series. To build a winning franchise requires patience. If Huntington and Jim Russell feel that the talent coming up through the minors is good, Nutting must be willing to pay big money. It could be several seasons after these players come up from the minors before the team really becomes a “championship-caliber team.” I have serious doubts about this as I believe that Nutting is more committed to a “high profit-caliber team.” A good sign of whether or not ownership is committed is, if McCutchen, Jones, and Milledge become good outfielders, if ownership will reward them with big contracts or force Huntington to trade them for yet more prospects.

In conclusion, I will remain a loyal Pirates’ fan at least through 2011. By then I should have a better understanding of the direction of the organization. Perhaps Huntington will prove to be a scouting genius and the rising talent will finally end the Pirates’ woes. Then again perhaps in true Pirates’ fashion, ownership will force management to trade off any player with a hint of talent to the Yankees due to “payroll concerns.” Like I said, the situation of McCutchen, Jones, and Milledge will be a good marker of the organization’s commitment. If, however, Huntington’s grand over-haul of the Pirates’ farm system is a failure and the losing season keep on coming, I will sever my relationship with the Pirates indefinitely. In the meantime, I will remain a fan, but I will be tempered of any “this year is the year!”-type hope. Either the Huntington’s plan works or I will forsake the Pirates once and for all due to all the time I wasted with them.

A Healthcare Solution

I put this modest proposal before our mad government who appears ready to spend us into oblivion with Obamacare. Save the $1 trillion plus (remember, Social Security and Medicare weren't suppose to cost too much either!) and instead implement this plan which probably won't cost the US government even $1 billion dollars. If you read my post "Healthcare for All?" you should understand that the government cannot lower the cost of anything, only the price. You also should understand that prices are brought about not by greedy CEOs, for competition among healthcare providers and the elasticity in demand mean that the price is only that amount where the minimum amount the healthcare provider is willing to charge for their services and the maximum amount the consumer is willing to pay for that service meet. Prices are determined by the market. They are controlled by supply and demand. When the demand for medical services increases, the price for that service increases. This is basic economics. Any economist, regardless of his or her political persuasion will tell you this. Thus rising healthcare prices are the result not of greed and price-gauging but high demand. I put forward that the reason American healthcare costs so much is that it costs a lot to keep Americans healthy! We are McDonaldnation. When the majority of American adults are obese and unhealthy they are going to require more medical attention for for things like lung cancer, skin cancer, and heart disease. Therefore, what I propose is that the government starts to offer incentives for American citizens to remain healthy. Every year Americans can go to their physcian and have a physical. There will be rankings from excellent health to average health to poor health. For every health level average and above, tax-payers can claim a deductable that correlates to their level of health for each member of the family. Thus, the government will give you incentive to keep healthy during the year. By eating healthier, eating less, excercising more, and refraining for smoking due to proper incentive, Americans will need to go doctors less (an apple a day keeps the doctors away!) and the demand for health with decrease and with it healthcare prices.

Time to Jump Ship?

I am sitting on my couch watching the Pirates game. The score is 7-3 Pirates. "Finally!" I say to myself. After an abysmal road trip that followed an mass exodus of Pirates talent for prospects, which left the offense impotent, the Pirates were in line for a tough win against the World Champion Phillies. It is the bottom of the 9th and as I sip my lemonade Matt Capps takes the mound. Anyone who has be around me while watching Pirates games knows my extreme dislike of Matt Capps. For a closer, he pitches far too many long balls as his favorite pitch, as far as I can tell, is a fast ball across the center of the plate. Yet over the past month Capps has been solid, not blowing a single save opportunity, although he has come dangerous close. Yet he has a four run lead, typically enough even for this pitcher with an ERA in the 6's. But Capps always has a way of surprising me by achieving all new levels of awefulnesses.

I proceeded to watch Capps give up a towering home run. OK, its just a solo, now we'll get out of it. Then Capps, with one out and a runner of first proving a double play opportunity, Capps decides to be his usual self and totally ignore every base runner. It is a stolen base without contention. No double play. Ryan Howard is at the plate. All he needs is a homerun now to tie the game 7-7. Surely such a feat is extremely improbable! Yet with one swing of the bat the improbably becomes a reality has Howard hits a fly ball that is gone. Ok 7-7. No base runners, 1 out. Let's finish this and get to extra innings. Oh but Matt Capps is truly ready to outdo himself. Now common sense would tell you to pull Capps out of the game. Yet John Russell decides to place continued trust in his closer and let him continue. Next thing I know the bases are loaded, still 1 out. Then comes a walk off hit to win the game. I sit stunned. A five run inning in the bottom of the ninth. I send a text to my friend "Why do I still watch these games...." And its true. Being a Pirates fan means being a glutton for pain. Yet as St. Paul says, suffering produces peserverence. Perhaps by keeping the virtue of faith and suffering I home to further my sanctification.

Now this is another blog about why the Pirates suck. No, no. I have vented my anger enough. Before us today is a very, very important question: Is it time to abandon the Pirate ship? Or should I go down with the ship? The decision to forsake your fandom is a very serious one. It's even harder when the team is your hometown team that you have cheered for since youth. For awhile now it is no secret that I have cheered for the Red Sox come October. I love the city of Boston (yes, I loathe the Patriots BUT they are technically from Foxborough) and I despise the Yankees. Below are a series of pros and cons for jumping ship. Please read them carefully and everyone who reads this blog, comment and tell me your opinion.

Pros for ceasing to be a Pirates Fans
1. Its not bad luck that makes the Pirates an aweful team. It's sheer incompetence. We aren't talking about the Cubs or pre-2003 Boston. We're talking about a team that has successfully managed to destroy itself from within over the past 17 years. Does that team deserve support?
2. When you love something, sometimes you have to let it go. As long as the Pirates continue to sell tickets to PNC Park and make lots of $$$ management simply doesn't give a damn about the team's record. By continuing to give unquestionably blind and loyal support I only further the apathy that the front office has. Only when they have to win will the Pirates actually win.
3. I love baseball. When you love a sport its fulfilling to actually enjoy the thrill of the playoffs. Yet as a Pirates fan my season always ends with September. Its like loving cake, but never getting the icing.

Cons Against jumping ship.
1. Faithless is he who says farewell when the road darkens. OK the Pirates don't deserve my support but maye I should still stick it out. I am a Pittsburgh native and a Pittsburgh sports fan I ought to remain. Don't be one of those "bandwagon" fans (Cowboys, Yankees).
2. If I jump ship now, the taste of victory (if it ever comes) will not be as sweet. If they win when I am 70 years old I won't be able to tell my grandchildren through tears how I kept faith in the Pirates through all these years and have finally been vindicated.
3. I love baseball. Since baseball does not have the good sense to be as nationally televized as football I can maybe watch 2 games a week on ESPN if I'm lucky. And out of that two a week every week maybe a dozen will be Red Sox games (providing they remain successful). The best place to find baseball fulfillment is at PNC Park. If I cheer for any other team I can say goodbye to watching my team play in their ballpark. I may be watching the Pirates suck but at least I'm watching them!

With Healthcare for All? Part II

4. There is no such thing as a Free Lunch. It is also very misleading to call government-funded healthcare "free." As already noted, government can reduce the price of a good or service with price controls but never their cost. Whenever the government plans on doing anything that involves the public treasury, it is good to remember that the treasury is supplied by the public. The government does not generate its own wealth but must levy taxes in order to pay for its expenses. This includes healthcare. In reality, free healthcare is not free but is paid for by citizens who are supposedly receiving hand-out! Initial estimates are that the healthcare bill will cost 1.6 trillion over 10 years, or $5,333 a person! This means (if the price was spread evenly)that if you pay less than $5,333 a year in medical expenses, the cost of your healthcare will actually go up. Of course the price is not spread evenly. Some will get this healthcare for nothing while others will pay very little. Yet still the healthcare is not free, those people who save money with government healthcare are only forcing their fellow citizens to pay for it. Government-funded healthcare is a misnomer. It should be called fellow citizen-funded healthcare. Of course, most will reply that it is the rich with "disposable income" who will be funding the majority of the healthcare. Yet, why is it fair that the wealthy should pay a greater percentage of their income than the poor? What evil have those wealthy who have earned their money by honest means done to society? Often the evil rich are the doctors who keep us healthy, the surgeons who save lives on the operating table, the entrepreneur who makes our lives easier by finding a more efficient way to bring us goods and services, the inventor who improves the quality of life, the scientist who cures a disease, the businessman who employs us, etc. One of America's most basic principles is the equality of all people. We violate this equality when we force on one group a greater proportion of income tax. Going back to incentives, when we tax the doctors, inventors, and businessmen too heavily, we reduce the incentive of doing their jobs. The high incomes paid to doctors compensates them for all the medical school they went through and in the same manner the businessman is compensated for climbing his way up the corporate ladder, spending less time with family and friends, and working late hours. If we tax these people and their businesses too heavily, it shouldn't suprise us if we wake up the next day to find less of them. Therefore, free healthcare is not free but comes at the expense of fellow citizens and other sectors of the economy. With a population of 300 million and price tag of $1.6 trillion, a government funded healthcare system is more weight than our economy can bear.

6. Worst, worse, better, and best. The greatest problem we have is when we make comparisons we make them as black and white. In reality, we are oftne comparing apples to oranges. While other countries are not sent into abominable poverty and poor coverage by their haelthcare systems, we must remember that this does not imply the success of the system. Healthcare and the economy may have improved, but if there was no government healthcare system, it may be improved even more. Also take into mind the very poor health of Americans. Obesity is higher in this country than in Europe. Some speculate that the growing obesity in this country is the reason why the price of healthcare is soaring. Therefore, if American's health is failing, don't always blame the healthcare companies. The best way to improve American healthcare is not with government intervention but with a more healthy lifestyle by Americans.

With Healthcare for All? Part I

President Obama hopes to succeed where President Clinton failed: securing universal healthcare benefits for all Americans. For most Americans without a basic understanding of basic economics, the lure of universal healthcare is overwhelming. The public is flooded with heartbreaking stories where Americans cannot afford health treatment or medical bills put so-called "working Americans" in massive debt (the Obama administration is especially empathetic about the latter). Now, don't get me wrong; my heart goes out to all hard-working Americans who find it hard to make ends meet when healthcare becomes expensive. But we must understand that the world is not perfect. Unfortunately no government has the power to create a utopia and thus we must always settle for the best possible outcome, which is never the perfect one. We must always ask ourselves what are the hidden consequences of our actions and will it lead to a positive gain or a loss? Few Americans are capable of weighing the various consequences because basic economic knowledge precludes them. Below is a list of reasons why socialized healthcare does not lead to a positive gain.

1. Government can reduce the price of something but never its cost. Part of Obama's pledge is to make healthcare affordable for the average American. Unfortunately, government cannot wave a magic wand and reduce the cost of anything. True government can force healthcare providers to sell their services for a limited amount but this does not mean that the costs required to provide those services will decrease in the slightest. This means that health care companies will start to lose money when a price ceiling is placed on a good or service.

2. Price Gouging is Impossible "But!" the average American will cry, "who cares if the health care companies revenues are less? Aren't they all a bunch of greedy price gougers anyway?" Yet the health care providers are not capable of price gouging. Why? Because health care companies do not set prices. What!? Yes that is right, producers do not set prices. Prices result in the interactions between buyers and sellers. Publilius Syrus once said: "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it." The price of something is maximum price a seller will sell his goods or services considering the minimum amount the buyer is willing to pay for them. A seller may put the price tag for his goods or services extremely high, but all this will do is cause customers to stop buying those goods and services. Patients will choose other health care providers who do set their prices so high and thus the price-gouging health care provider will lose customers and money. Companies have an incentive to sell for the least amount possible rather than the maximum amount.

3. It's about capital. Hight profits are not a bad thing either. People often think its scandalous when companies make huge profits, especially the health care industry which is in the business of people's health. Yet what few people realize is that the profits that businesses make are not horded in a vault somewhere, where the CEO can mimic Scrooge McDuck and go swimming in a sea of money. Few healthcare companies are privately owned, which means that essentially the company is owned by the public and the high profits stay within the company and not in an owner's wallet. Most of the high-ups in large corporation are salaried so high profits do not mean that their personal incomes will increase. Most of the time the CEO is hired and paid by a board of executives so price-gouging by no means will make him any richer. Instead all those profits, which is called capital, are re-invested back into the company to produce a better business, whether by improving the quality of the good or service or hiring better workers. Thus when you restrict the amount of revenue a health care company receives, you are reducing its ability to improve. That meants less money is spent on cancer research, workers won't receive raises, coverage isn't expanded, etc. Socialized healthcare, by restricting the amount of profits, will stagnate the quality of healthcare.

4. It's also about incentives. Socialized healthcare also reduces incentives, both by healthcare providers and American citizens. First, when health care is "free" an artificially high demand is generated. If McDonalds started to hand out free cheeseburgers, imagine how many people would come to McDonalnds to buy cheeseburgers! Most likely the line for burgers would be out the door and around the corner. On the other hand, when cheeseburgers are sold for the regular amount there is no line out the door and around the corner. The reason is that the price of a burger means that only those who really want a cheeseburger will come into McDonalds to get one. When they are free anyone who passes buy will come in and get one and eventually demand will be so high that McDonalds will run out of burgers! The long lines at the registers also means that those who really wanted the cheesburgers, say a kid and his dad who just finished up a soccer game, will have to wait in the same long lines with all those people who may not really want a cheeseburger all that much. The same is true with universal, "free" healthcare. Once healthcare is cheap for anyone, people will start to visit the doctor more than they did when they had to pay at the very least a co-pay. When healthcare actually cost a person for using it, they are more likely to consider whether or not they really need medical attention. It will also means that doctor's offices and hospitals will have large lines as more people use healthcare now that it is free or very cheap than when it cost money. People who truly need medical attention will have to wait in very long lines along with those who show up with the common cold. As demand for healthcare increases it will also mean that the cost of health care (though not the price) will increase and the quality of healthcare will decrease as a company's profits decrease. Workers wage's won't increase and so talented workers will go where they will be paid better. This could create a shortage of doctors and nurses if their wages do not rise with the rest of the workforce. This means less doctors will go to medical school and less nurses will go to nursing school. In this way just as the demand for these jobs increases, their supply decreases because the health care companies can't pay them enough. The would-be doctor will become a lawyer or an engineer instead. When this happens, our health care system's quality will decrease dramatically.

Part II will be up tomorrow.

Navigating Through the Media

We live in a busy world where there barely seems to time to relax for some people. Whether it’s because of work, school, children, or keeping the house in order, we seem to have a chronic lack of time and thus we prefer things fast; fast food, fast internet, fast transportation, and fast news. Often times getting things faster is a good thing because it helps us be more productive and gives us more time to relax. However, Americans need to realize that some things simply cannot be rushed. One such thing is a cultivated and informed intellect. Due to Deweyan educational philosophy which has dominated American education since 1900, the traditional Republican ideal of the educated individual has gone by the wayside in favor of educational specialization. People are no longer educated but trained. This is extremely dangerous for our American Republic since an informed and educated electorate is fundamental to the democratic system.


It is our civic duty to elect representatives who will keep to the constitution and protect and better our country. Therefore it is important that every American, regardless of their status in society, be informed about current issues and their context and be able to discern between good and bad policies. To be a discerning voter one must also be a careful learner. Fast media is another thing we cannot afford in our society. As tempting as it is to get all of our information from media outlets we must remember that the primary concern of all media is ratings. This does not necessarily mean that media is untruthful but there is a tendency by the media to sensationalize and distort stories in order to get more viewers. The specific media outlet may also be motivated by the biases of many of the reporters and anchors, whether conservative or liberal. Finally most people working for new agencies are not experts in politics, history, or economics so their coverage of politics, world events, and policies may not always be trustworthy. Therefore, below I have written some advice as to how to be well-informed in the age of mass media.


1. Do not use mass media as your primary source of information on politics, policies, or the external world. As stated above, mass media can be sensationalized, over-simplified, biased, or simply uninformed. Take a break from reading fiction and read several good books on history and economics by scholarly, peer reviewed authors. Popular authors will have the same faults of mass media but a peer-reviewed book has been swept over for biases, inaccuracies, and distortion. These books will give you a good foundation for when you watch the news or read a newspaper so you can know about the historical context of an event and pick up distortions of the facts, sensationalizing, and oversimplification in the mass media.

2. Do not rely on the talking heads or talk radio for your information either. They can be interesting and entertaining or may even be political whistle blowers. Yet like mass media, despite claims otherwise, their chief concern is ratings. They also have the same concerns as traditional media outlets. In addition talk radio and talking heads do not even pretend to be unbiased so there is precious little critical thinking in the news they present.

3. Prefer newspapers and media outlets’ online articles to their visual counterparts. Having the text in front of you allows you carefully digest the information presented and reread parts of the article. Sometimes when something is said on TV it can sound better than it would if it were carefully read. Also, many anchors and reporters are chosen more so because of their attractive looks and good presentation than their expertise in the world around them, while newspapers and online articles do not have this problem

4. Whenever you watch the news or read the article look for the chief facts about the news story, thing such as what is the story about, where does it take place, and who is involved. Stay away from mass media interpretations of the stories and its significance. Use your own critical thinking, background studies, and later research to determine these. Also, do not feel obligated to read the entire article, but scan for the important facts.

5. Subscribe to a good monthly journal where significance and interpretation from the previous month can be discussed by experts.

6. Always think critically when reading or watching the news.

7. Do not watch the news media religiously but only keep the news on for extended periods of time when real news stories are under way, e.g. wars, elections, national crises, etc. All other times news tends to be hyped and sensationalized for ratings.

8. Remember, although blindly trusting the media is tempting because it is fast and easy accessible, it tends to always be of the highest quality because it depends on hyped headlines and non-experts. Therefore, do research on your own and make sure that you are an intellectually cultivated individual. The security and prosperity of our nation depends on it.

Some Thoughts on the Church

This morning I was grabbing some dollies from the parking at Lowe’s where I work when I came across a truck that was covered in bumper stickers that were conveying messages of what one might call the persuasion of the religious right. Essentially, they were comparing President Obama to the Antichrist and democrats as demons. Some of the bumper stickers used Bible verses while one was laced with profanity. Another thing to keep in mind that this couples of the “Religious Right” was at Lowe’s at 10:30 am on a Sunday morning (due to a scheduling mistake I was forced to work Sunday morning even though I had informed Lowe’s that I had church every Sunday). Now I am a both a committed Christian and a committed conservative. I am fearful that many of the programs that Obama is instituting are coming not from good economics but rather from the president’s commitment to egalitarianism and democratic socialism and will do a great deal of damage to this country’s economy and its finances. However, I believe that it is absolutely inappropriate to disrespect the President of the United States, especially by using sections of the Bible. St. Paul taught, regarding those in positions of civic authority, that we must give “respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.” (Romans 13:7). It is helpful to keep in mind that Paul was speaking of those very pagans were persecuted Christ’s Church.


What I saw this morning reinforced my fear that the Religious Right is doing more harm to Christianity than help. Some in the Religious Right are also extremely un-Biblical in their ministry, if it can be called that. They make many secular people fear giving Christianity any force in society because of the Religious Right’s angry rhetoric, such as: God Hates Gays, God allowed 9/11 to happen because of gays, and God sent Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans because of its immorality. First this is unbiblical because God forbids us to assume that we, apart from His Word, can assume to know His will (see Isaiah 55:9). They belie the fact that the chief message of Christianity is not hatred towards non-Christians but rather grace. Often Christians believe that must choose between a full-out crusade against secularists in society or acceptance. I would propose that neither of these choices are biblical. As Christians we are called to live godly lives, fulfill the Cultural Mandate, and fulfill the Great Commission. The Bible nowhere tells Christians to launch a Crusade against the non-Christians of the world. Rather non-Christians are to be dealt with evangelism, where as Christians we can convey to those who do not know Christ his wonderful love that, at the price of the cross, bought us grace so that we might be restored as the children of God.


Sometimes pastors, especially some of the ones I see on TV, give full sermons condemning the godlessness of the world. To be sure, the Bible affirms that the very definition of the “world” is that which is godless. It is the City of Man. Yet St. Paul says “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. ‘Purge the evil person from among you.’” (I Corinthians 12-13). Christians must never accept the godlessness of City of Man, which is the world, but are to leave the judgment of the world to God. Rather Christians are to focus on improving the piety of the church. Christians need to say less harsh things about non-Christians and say more about the failure of those within the Church to fully live up to the model that Christ set for us. Over and over again the Apostles taught that the best way to transform the world for Christ was not through angry rhetoric but by living godly and joyful lives so that the world might see the power that is in Christ. Christians are also should be imitators of God’s mercy by loving the unsaved just as God loves us who were at one time also unsaved. It is important to remember St. Paul’s constant admonition not to boast. Thus Christians should remember that, apart from the grace of God, we are no different that the homosexuals, the sexually immoral, and the moral relativists who compose much of what Christians refer to as “the world.”


It is telling that all of the condemnations in the apostolic letters are aimed, not at condemning the world, but at condemning the immoral and scandalous behavior of those in the church. Christians always be models of God’s grace and love to fallen world as we are called to be imitators of Christ, who is described as the friend of sinners. So did God send 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina to punish immoral Americans? Perhaps, but only God knows for sure, therefore I will not speak with confidence as to why God allowed these things to happen. Personally, I believe it is just as likely that God sent for the church so that in a time of crisis God’s Church might emerge as a leader in these troubled times in a fallen world. Therefore, Christians should be concerned about improving the piety of the church so that the transforming power of Christianity can be truly manifested.

History

History is for most people a boring subject. For most this is because it is about the past, which people don’t feel has much to do with them. The American industrialist Henry Ford once said “history is bunk.”Many people would agree emphatically with his statement and add that they should never have to take the miserable subject in school ever again. However, before you write off history, let me pose this profound statement to you: history is the only thing you can know for certain. The scientist will immediately scoff at this statement. But please pause and think it over for a minute. Say you are researching how chemical A will react with chemical B. The event happens and you prepare to draw a conclusion. But upon what basis are you to make your conclusion? Why, it is history! The history of the event of the reaction of chemicals A and B. Unless as a person, you are capable of reliving the exact moment of the chemical reaction while simultaneously writing the conclusion your information is passed upon the memory of past events. We are all involved in history everyday by recalling past memories and interpreting them or understanding them.

History is fundamentally important to our everyday lives. We avoid touching a hot stove because we remember in the history of our lives touching such a stove once in the past and being burned by it. Most of our actions are based on our remembrance of the past. Imagine what your relationships would be like with your friends, girlfriends or boyfriends, and husbands or wives if you suddenly suffered a bout of amnesia and could not remember anything. You could not remember how to please them or talk to them or, if need be, deal with them. In reality everyone is concerned with history in one form or another. History is not important not only on a personal basis, however. If, as a society we refuse to remember the past we will be like the foolish little boy who cannot remember that the hot stove burns him. Now I do not mean in any way to convey in this analogy that history comes in cycles. I do not believe it does, but the problems and challenges we face today have been experienced by countless generations before us because they are the challenges and problems of humanity. It is foolish to have their examples and not learn from them. History does not repeat itself but the human experience and human characteristics endure throughout history. History does not simply teach us about people who lived long ago but also tells us about ourselves. It teaches what humanity is capable of; both in creative power and in depravity.

History is also important because cultures develop historically. History tells a great deal about where we and other countries in the world are today and how we got there. Understanding the history of the United States should be important to anyone who claims to be a good American citizen. We can understand what policies failed in the past and avoid them in the future. If you listen to any of the talking heads on TV or radio they almost always will try to use history as a verification of the policy they are promoting. If Americans had a better understanding of history they would see that such historical "proofs" are often the result of bad history (See my blog on historical fallacies). History helps develop a critical mind. An understanding of foreign cultures and how they developed is also key for voters who are elected leaders that deal with American foreign policy. I believe one the reasons that Americans are so disliked around the world is because we have a poor understanding of other countries. For instance, I believe that Americans have a poor understanding of the Middle East or even Europe which has not helped the United States positively interact with these areas of the globe.

I would encourage you to take a closer look at history and understand its importance. People are far too influenced by Deweyian "practical" education. The average person and even a great many in acamedia are specialists and do not have a broad education. As a result they tend to be very narrow minded. An education in engineering has a good many applications. It helps us build better buildings, machines, and bridges. But engineering cannot tell us more about the world around us or ourselves. History, which is ultimately the study of people throughout history, is the best at educating us about the world and equipping us with the tools to be good citizens.

Between One Socialist and Another?

Preident Obama is extending an arm of friendship toward Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez at the Summit of the Americas. The two have discussed resuming diplomatic relations which were severed last September by the Bush administration. Chavez was even nice enough to offer Obama a book. It's title: Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. The author, Uruguayan journalist Eduardo Galeano, blames countries like the US for exploitng Latin America. Obama said that the book was "a nice gesture." This is akin to if Khruschev offered Kennedy a copy of Das Kapital at the Vienna Conference and Kennedy referred to it as a "nice gesture." I would humbly suggest to writers such as Galeano that the notoriously corrupt and irresponsible governments (such as Chavez's) that have misruled Latin America for over two centuries are the real exploiters. Obama claims that his warm exchanges with Chavez are part of his campaign to "reach out to" America's enemies (the assumption being that it is the fault of America that they are our enemies). I would like to point out to Mr. Obama that Chavez has currently undermined the democratic process in Venezuela by changing the constitution, albeit by plebecite, so that he can become president for life. Chavez has also accused a Venezuelan opposition leader of trumped up charges of fraud. Economists also believe that Chavez may be driving his country toward fiscal ruining. He has relied on socialist programs to gain much support from the populace but with oil prices at $40 a barrel and the Venezuelan state-owned oil company PDVSA running what is believed to be severe defecits by some, Chavez could be cooking a recipe for ruin. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden has said: "Here's a case where I would watch for behavior, not for rhetoric, and the behavior of President Chavez over the past years has been downright horrendous -- both internationally and with regard to what he's done internally inside Venezuela,"

So why is Obama courting this would socialist dictator? Apart from the fact that Chavez and Obama's fiscal and economic policies are alike in many aspects, it would be good to remember Venezuela has lots of oil. In Obama's justification for friendly relations with Venezuela he noted that "they [Venezuela] own Citgo, the oil company." When Bush removed a horrendous dictator in Iraq there were cries of "blood for oil" yet similar denunciations are not made when Obama gets cozy with a man that has undermined the democratic process in his country and is well on the way of becoming a dictator himself.

Some Historical Fallacies

Today I sat in my economics class at college and had a hard time controlling the outburst that was building within in. It is the last day before Easter break, and as many of the students had skipped class to catch early flights back to their homes our professors decided to give a lecture on the economics of war. However, in the process, my libertarian professor proceeded to put forth some serious historical fallacies. Since I have to wait several hours to be picked up before heading home, and my roommate is taking the xbox, I have decided to empty my anger at the class by correcting his mistakes. Now, don’t get me wrong, my economics professor is a really nice guy. But he, like the other libertarian economists at my school, have a very poor understanding of history because their view of history is filled with libertarian bias. They try to universalize an ideology that works well with economics but not elsewhere.

He tried to make the case (correctly) that wars do no benefit economically for a country. Wars, he said, are started only because the ruling elite see an opportunity to expand their power. First I would like to point out that this libertarian economics professor is, ironically, making a Marxist argument. A Marxist view of history teaches that wars are fought for the benefit of the ruling capitalist elite for their economical or political benefit. History is driven not by ideals or ideology but for material gain. The problem with this view of history is that it was destroyed in the First World War. Socialists and capitalist alike enthusiastically clamored for war and there were celebrations in the streets of London and Berlin when war finally broke out on August 1, 1914. World War I was fought primarily over nationalist sentiment that had reached a boiling point in the 1910s with a volatile diplomatic environment as countries practice realpolitik to advance their national interest. Wars do not benefit monetarily, but, like other costly transactions, a decision is made that the material costs of the war outweigh the national interest or ideological victories that might be won. Wars, in short, are not fought for material gain, which is a point lost on many libertarians and leftists to this day.

Secondly he put forth the libertarian myth that the American entry into World War I, and thus breaking the “sacred” advice of our founding fathers, had terrible consequences on the rest of twentieth century history. He stated that the American intervention inadvertently caused the rise of the USSR because the approach of the “yanks” caused the Germans to send V.I. Lenin back to Russia to foment revolution and end the Eastern Front. First I would like to point out that the Kadets and the Mensheviks had already thrown the tsar in March before the US entered into the war in April. Second, the Germans did not need any motivation to send Lenin to Russia to collapse the Russian state later in April. The war was already costing the Germans millions of lives and the German population was living in perpetual starvation by the time 1917 came and any chance to exploit the political stability in Russia would be seized by the German General Staff. Contrary to what my professor said the Germans were not “holding their own” in the war, but rather needed an immediate end to the conflict, even if the US had not entered the war.

Whether the US had gotten involved in World War I or not Lenin would have made his way back to Russia and launched the October Revolution. Even if the Germans had considered the risk of sending Lenin to Russia outweighed ending the war (unlikely given the state of Germany in the spring of 1917) can it honestly be believed that Lenin would not have made his way back to the Russia to take part in the “inevitable unfolding of history?” The consequences of the US entering the war actually benefitted the European situation by decisively ending the war. By 1917 the populace that had embraced war in 1914 was now shocked by the affects of total war and growing angry with appalling poverty and starvation that the war had caused. Socialists and communists had been steadily growing louder and more radical. Earlier in 1917 the French army mutinied and refused to continue fighting until it the mutiny was crushed. If the senseless slaughter that the Europeans were unable to extricate themselves from continued longer, it was likely that disillusionment with the war may have caused a socialist revolution across Europe. Such a revolution almost occurred in Germany in 1919.

Thirdly my professor claimed that the US also, by winning the war for the Allies, paved the way for Hitler and the Third Reich. I will not deny that Versailles was a major contributor to the rise of Nazism, but history is not inevitable. The Germans had fourteen years to choose their course and unwisely, for a variety of reason including Versailles, chose National Socialism in 1933. But this is not to say that the Germans could not have chose otherwise or that Hitler was inevitable given Versailles. The Americans under Wilson actually presented a peace plan (the Fourteen Points) that would have staved off the effects that a punitive peace had on Germany, but David Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau reneged on their agreement to the Fourteen Points in the spring of 1919.

These stories are merely the propaganda of libertarians who want to equate deviating from the Jeffersonian model with mortal sin. The advice of Washington in 1798 not to become involved abroad was given in a historical context that has long since passed. Strictly adhering to foreign policy advice made in the 1790s simply was not prudent in the 20th century and remains so in the 21st. Contrary to libertarian rhetoric a proactive government is not a heinous sin. It was precisely the isolationism of the US during the 20s and 30s that facilitated the rise of Hitler in the 1930s. Hitler was able to make his territorial claims on Europe because he knew that the US would not intervene. While the US should not entangle itself in needless foreign interventions, a proactive US foreign policy can be quite beneficial both to Americans and the world. As a Christian, I think that that what Paul says concerning government is true: “for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” (Romans 13:4)

Saving Conservatism

It is no secret that the last two elections have gone badly for conservatives. Over the last four years Republicans have lost both houses of Congress and the White House to democrats. It has been a reversal of the situation in the early 2000s when Republicans won the White House in 2000 with George W. Bush and the Senate in the 2002 Congressional elections. How long with this stinging defeat last for conservatives? It is impossible to tell. Although some talk radio hosts like to think that the recent elections have not been a referendum on conservatives, it is hard to see what else this has been that reaction of disillusionment on the part of many Americans to what they see as the failings of conservatism. How long the American public holds this view depends on how conservatives react to the current political environment. I will suggest several things that might not solve all the problems facing conservatism today, but are critical to putting conservatism back on track.

The first problem with conservatism today is its repugnant populism. Beginning in the 1980s as many socially conservative blue-collar workers became disillusioned with the liberal social agenda of the Democrats, Republics were quick to reach out to this demographic to extend the conservative base. However, this outreach has caused a numbing down of intellectual conservatism in the party’s platform. Demagogues in the form of talk radio have hijacked the conservative movement by appealing to the “common sense” of the “common man.” Solutions are often put forth bluntly, with slanderous rhetoric that angrily attacks opposition. In this case, conservatism has become more reactionary than conservative. It conjures up in the historic memory of the common man this idea of classic Americana that has viciously been assaulted by liberals and needs to be restored. Typically this type of reactionary conservatism uses this ideal and mythical model of Americana instead of reasoning as the basis for party platform and tends to extremely inflexible in its beliefs. In a streak of anti-intellectualism, liberals are put forth as elitists that need to be countered, not with equal intellectual fire-power, but with the common sense of the common man. It offers over simplistic answers to complex questions. This switch has drastically isolated the educated class, especially college students who abhor conservative’s tactless rhetoric and lack of interest in engaging with the intelligentsia. Conservatives have continually failed to sway this demographic because of their inability to present intellectual appeal. Academia is often demonized. While it is true that academia is usually contrary to conservative ideals, what it needs is to be transformed by conservative ideals rather than blow apart by them. Rational discussion, opposed to bumper sticker ideology, is key.

Secondly conservatives had over-relied on social conservatism. Both Republicans and President Bush heavily relied on conservative evangelicals for their core basis of support during the last eight years. The fear among social conservatives that turning against Bush and Republicans, despite some egregious violations of other conservative values such as limited government and fiscal conservatism, would surrender society to the social liberal agenda. In short Bush was able to maintain popularity among conservatism throughout his term by appealing to social conservatism all the while undergoing massive government expansion, increasing the national deficit, and committing some foreign policy blunders. Now I by no means mean to bash Bush here. Liberals have done that enough, but certainly I feel that Bush betrayed some serious conservative ideals, perhaps unintentionally, by relying too heavily on social conservative support. Unfortunately the advances of social conservatism by governmental means are rather limited outside sanctity of life legislation and proposing a marriage-protection article to the Constitution. Pushing a social conservative agenda also isolates non-social conservatives who, nonetheless, could cooperate with conservatives on other projects (e.g. fiscal responsibility). In short, social conservatism is best resigned to grass-roots movements because pushing a social conservative agenda in big government can cause resentment and end up being counterproductive.

Finally conservatives need to rebuild their moral capital. Many Americans felt betrayed by conservatives’ fiscal irresponsibility to the point that they perceived little difference between Republicans and Democrats on the issue. Also, the angry rhetoric coming out of talk radio (such as Rush Limbaugh’s tactless statement that he hopes that President Obama fails) does more harm that it does good. Conservatives need to return to core values such as discipline, fiscal conservatism, and constitutionalism. Many social conservative’s worries could be better addressed by appointing conservative judges who do not legislate from the bench. Conservatives need to rein in spending and only then will they be able to criticize Obama’s Keynesian economic policies without appearing hypocritical. In short, conservatives need to regain the moral high ground that they have lost from out-of-control spending, rushing into war in 2003 with faulty intelligence, and angry rhetoric from talk radio. While it might be tempting to lash out at Obama, conservatives need to criticize Obama with the respective his office deserves, a respect that liberals did not accord to Bush during his presidency. Only by doing this will conservatives regain the moral high ground in the minds of the American people.

In short conservatives need to rebuild their political movement based on dispassionate politics, discipline, fiscal conservatism, ethical responsibility and guardianship of traditional government practices. The Republican Party needs to de-emphasize its populist appeal and reach out intellectually to college students and young professionals. It must be smart, flexible, disciplined, and kind. Placing its eggs in the basket of populism is a poor investment because the social conservative, blue-collar demographic is rapidly decreasing in favor of a more idealistic and college-educated professional. All of this begins with building a firm intellectual basis, which, by necessity, must be more flexible. Conservatives must prioritize their agenda and cooperate with others, even liberals, in order to achieve aspects of it. Conservatives must cease to be seen as reactionary and instead as actually conservative; i.e. preserving long-standing values while being flexible with change and figuring out how to intelligently apply traditional values with new challenges.

Citizens of an Eternal Kingdom

Just as a note, this rather dated. I wrote it back in November after the election but I feel that in the wake of economic decline, which was met with a policy that I believe is disasterous, this entry is still relevant.


As another election has come and gone it is cheerful to remember that as Christians we citizens, not in the kingdom of this world, but of the next. Ours is an imperishable glory that no election or revolution can steal away. It is woeful for me to think of those who are citizens only of this world and put their hopes in the hands of imperfect men. But as Christians our hope is in God, who is eternal perfection and will never disappoint us. The hope of the secularist is set upon the rough seas of this world and is tossed about by the its waves and winds. If men, whom they have so heavily invested in, fall so does his hope. But Christ is sure and his victory is ever-lasting and cannot be stolen away by the votes of fools. God will never disappoint us. Now, this does not mean that Christians should forsake this world and withdraw from it. Rather we should always work for good in this world so that the glory of God may be made known to those who reject Him. The Kingdom of Heaven is not something of the future but exists in the present and we should work to be make it known for the glory of its king. Let the world known that in this kingdom is love, mercy, charity, fellowship, hope, faith, kindness and knowledge. Let every Christian vote his conscience so that the world may know where he stands. Always work for the better of this world as even Christ prayed for those who crucified for him. The mercy and love of God knows no bounds and neither should those of His kingdom.