Left vs Right: A Common Denominator

A Facebook friend recently reposted an image from the Facebook page of a group called The Christian Left. Their mission statement reads, in part: "See, it wasn’t just Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection that matter. It was his life too! The life he lived is a huge part of the deal, and he asked us to do a few things if you look at his words. Not only is what Jesus said the Word of God, but what Jesus DID is also the Word of God. Looking at the life of Jesus we see that Jesus made room for those cut off from the rest of society. Jesus put a name and a face on all who had been forgotten or pushed aside, even the dead. Jesus called us to carry our cross daily and follow him. That’s what Social Justice means."

I do not disagree with the above, in fact it's all good - at least until that last little statement on Social Justice. Here's why: Social Justice is an ideology conceived and advanced by man. Inherently it seeks to externally force society to behave in a certain manner, i.e. to compel all of society to manifest the social justice ideology (which at any rate would seem to be forcing to society to embrace tenants of a religious belief, but that is for another time). Jesus, on the other hand, makes it quite clear that the first cause of society's ills lies inherently in the heart of man, in his sin nature. This sin nature will result in eternal separation from God if not redeemed by a personal belief in Christ as the only atonement before God for our own sin. To foist Social Justice upon a society is to blind members of that society to their inherent personal need of Christ's redemptive work, and falsely encourage a salvation by works attitude.

Adherents of the Christian Left/Social Justice ideology are no less hateful toward their detractors as the those claiming to be of the Christian Right are towards them. That is how we know an individual member or an entire 'faith group' has lost its moorings in God and joined the political fray: the love of power obscures the light of love. All of politics is but a field of battle upon which the illnesses and indiscretions of the human heart are laid bare. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" Jeremiah 17:9

The cinematic productions of J.R.R Tolkien's Lord of the Rings series cast a superlative portrayal of the darkness - and its effects - that inhabits the heart of man. Our God-given free will, imprisoned by sin, continually aspires to elevate self will, refusing to take a knee of submission before the throne of God.

"So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members." Romans 7:21-23

Paul finally asks, " Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

When we remedy the first cause - the heart of man - society will be just.

But honestly, that whole 'first cause' issue doesn't seem to be very high on any priority list, Left or Right. Perhaps because it involves something far more difficult than simply taking a stand against what ails society. It is coming to terms with a deeply personal defect of a non-material nature, the latter of which we have been re-educated to believe does not even exist.

Gun Control

Last week we learned that the current DOJ head Eric Holder is on the record in 1995 seeking to instigate a campaign within the education system that would effectively treat guns with the same repulsion usually reserved for cigarettes or illegal drugs (the former, of course, receives government subsidies for the production of its key ingredient.) Of course  the right to own a gun is a specific positive liberty delineated by the Constitution of the United States, and mind you the Constitution is a RULE BOOK - a set of restraints upon the government's power and authority - and  we are a nation governed by laws,  not by the whims of a powerful elite. But it really doesn't feel that way, does it?

In the video , Holder states that a school board should daily espouse an anti-violence or anti-gun mantra. “Every day, every school, at every level,” he stated. Holder himself calls this approach “brainwashing.” “We have to be repetitive about this,” Holder said. “We need to do this every day of the week, and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

OK... so I have a Question: If this type of indoctrination is perceived as being so potentially effective at curbing gun violence, i.e. a behavior, why is it not being   applied to Sex Ed classes? Just what are the effects on the lives of teenage moms, and their children, the aborted babies, and the costs to society? They are tremendous and self-propagating. Teenage pregnancy is crippling to the futures of both the mother and her child(ren). And the economic costs to the nation in cash outlays for food, housing, and medical care do not stop with that mother and her children; 22% of daughters of teen mothers go on to become teenage mothers themselves. And so on and so on. Just think of the change we could effect in society if teen pregnancies, and even young adult pregnancies, were eliminated?


Social, educational and financial costs of teen pregnancy (from www.teenhelp.com) 

• The United State spends $7 billion each year due to the costs of teen pregnancy. 
•  Only one-third of teenage mothers complete high school and receive their diplomas.  
• By age 30, only 1.5 percent of women who had pregnancies as a teenager have a college degree. 
•  80 percent of unmarried teen mothers end up on welfare 
•  Within the first year of becoming teen mothers, one-half of unmarried teen mothers go on welfare.  
• The daughters of teen mothers are 22 percent more likely than their peers to become teen mothers. 
• Sons of teenaged mothers have a 13 percent greater chance of ending up in prison as compared to their peers. 

The most logical approach would be to combine gun control education with sexual control education. Brainwash those hormone-ravaged boys about the dangers of unholstering their factory-issued 'piece'... and then, as a society and as part of government policy, hold THEM accountable financially for the babies they produce. Word might get around that sex is a wee bit more expensive than even   Sandra Fluke would lead us to believe.

Of course I jest. Because everyone knows that Sex Ed is not about hammering home the dangers and the unintended consequences of sex outside of a mature and committed relationship, of the inappropriate, careless use of one's 'piece'.  And the powers-that-be in congress  - and they are present in every congress - can't bear the thought of young men being held responsible for the life they've created... no no no, let Uncle Sam raise your child... you just run along and be more careful next time, and in the process creating a generation of 'boy-men' with no expectations placed upon them whatsoever and ill-prepared to become real men.

No, Sex Ed takes aim at teaching kids how to handle sex 'safely', so that they do not have to forego pleasure, but can be trained to minimize the risks.   Yet when it comes to firearms, the same crowd in favor of teaching kids how to 'safely' engage sexually instead demonizes guns to the point of suspending students for drawing pictures of guns during class time or wearing novelty T-shirts with gun related themes.  Gun illustration  , T-Shirt  .

So why not either train children and youth in the public education system as to the correct and safe way to handle firearms, and the responsibilities and consequences of using a gun, while we are simultaneously teaching them those very same lessons regarding their sexual behavior?

Or, conversely, if the route continues to be the demonization of firearms, then the demonization of inappropriate sexual encounters should likewise be taught.

For the life of me, I cannot see the difference. Well, except for that pesky little part about the   Second Amendment.

Economics 101

Previously I have written about Economics (What is an Economy?), but the good folks over at EconStories.tv have made econ education about as fun and entertaining as can be hoped for. Artfully produced and suffused with humorous caricatures of both the Keynsian and Austrian theories of economics, EconStories.tv two rap videos about Keynsian vs Austrian economics succeed at introducing viewers to the premises of these two great competing theories of economics.  What isn't humorous, however, is the implications of each.

The first installment is titled Fear the Boom and Bust.  Fear the Boom and Bust


The sequel is titled Fight of the Century. Fight of the Century



Which way will you choose? More 'top down' or, 'bottom up'?

The Tea Party: In the Crosshairs

What follows is a comment I posted on Facebook after this cartoon showed up on my page. (I've tidied up the passage a bit for the blog).

"You will get very little argument from Tea Party folks about this cartoon. The Tea party supporters strongly maintain that Lawmakers need to be forced to live by the same laws they pass for the People. As it is, we are rapidly becoming feudal, and the more money we send to DC, the more empowered are our lords. Instead, why not keep more of the money in the states, where we have better access to our state level 'representatives' and a bigger voice in how our money is spent... and not spent. When money goes to DC, it simply becomes fodder for the unending power grab, a vehicle for passing out goodies to other states for projects that 99% of the people in the US couldn't care less about nor benefit from.  But you can bet it benefits the politicians big time, because these favors aren't forgotten. And these are conservative and liberal favors. I can't control what a NY or CA U.S. Congressmen  vote   to spend money on, but I can get the attention of my representatives at the state level. We need to quit labeling each other and denigrating one another based on political beliefs... because it is pure bigotry to do so. As citizens we need to share ideas amongst ourselves that work toward solving these problems instead of bickering and backbiting like a bunch of highschool girls, and terminate our fantasy that our political system and its instruments will suddenly 'see the light' and find their way to doing the very hard things that need  to be done. The system is corrupt (and broke).... and the best way to cure it is to starve it down to a controllable size. If you like the status quo and the crony capitalism, then by all means, raise taxes and send more money to DC so the politicians can continue to feed your tax money to the corporate bandits, the 'too big to fail' financial entities, car companies, etc. Its just not my cup of tea.

Quick... join a group

Securing special treatment in the USA can now be described by a simple formula: Identify yourself as a member of a  minority group (any minority group - make one up if need be), set up your ideology for failure in the public square, then watch in amazement as your ideology is fast tracked into a law granting special protections and privileges via the courts. 

(Bonus: Enforcement will come gratuitously via the PC Apparatus - which is not entirely free: it will cost someone their 1st amendment rights.)

Simple enough, until you play it all out to its logical conclusion.  When our rights and protections  are sourced from our affiliation with some group or organization, rather than the 'inalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator', the specific protections from government abuse incorporated into the U.S. Constitution are usurped by the manufactured rights and privileges accorded to various groups.

Not a member of a recognized group? Sorry, but that means you are a loser.
Oops,  'loser' is mean spirited.

Let's just go with Epic Fail.

An American Cause: The Violence in Mexico

Do you deplore the violence in Mexico and on the border? Hopefully not a single drug user will dare to answer that question with a 'Yes'.

The raging violence and systemic corruption in Mexico, the murders of innocent citizens on both sides of the U.S./Mexican border, is the product of the American drug user. Each and every drug user, from the homeless junkie to the elites in Hollywood and corporate America, can hold their hands before their eyes and see the blood of the border war trickling down. The corruption and violence that exist in Mexico are the products of the American drug users' ravenous cravings to feel good. It turns out that the price of drug use is measured not in dollars, but in human lives and the suffering experienced by surviving family members of those who bear the title 'casualty' in the overall equation of making rich Americans 'feel good'. (And for the record, if you can afford to purchase drugs, a non-essential luxury item, that is the new definition of rich.)

The darkness and emptiness of America's soul craves filling. A gnawing sense of hunger and want, misguided and unchecked, has morphed into a sensuous craving for euphoria, for heaven on earth. Seeking a utopia where hardship, suffering and despair are shoved to the furthermost recess of our collective mind. For all our wealth (now being revealed as the illusion that it has always been), Americans are restless, dissatisfied, always on the prowl for 'more', be it possessions, food, luxuries, or just plain pleasure, we are relentless in our hunger. But because we are seeking to fuel a dying fire not with oxygen and timbers, but with water, the craving only grows.

Wealth and status do not impact drug use; emptiness does. The advantage of opulence, prestige and materialism is insufficient to prop up even the icons of the privileged world. The root of drug use and euphoria is selfishness: it is extreme preoccupation with self and the pleasuring of self. It is narcissistic and toxic, as evidenced by the unchecked hunger for drugs in this country in spite of the desperate consequences it has for those in an economically underdeveloped country. The impact of drug- affiliated corruption on poverty levels in Mexico is simply the compounded interest of the destructive investment made by drug using Americans bent on retreating from the real canvas of life into a make believe world of amusement and pleasure. And so they flee into a cave of neurons and synapses and there they suckle the nectar of self-indulgence, momentarily escaping the reality that stands ready to confront them when they dare leave the honey cave.

Americans are long on possessions, on fluff and bling and other perishable 'assets', but far too short on spiritual vision and substance. Bankrupt comes to mind. Principles, values and virtues are vanishing from the life accounts of Americans, and America the Nation can be no greater than Americans, the human beings of the nation. A nation comprised of soulless, selfish people cannot through some strange alchemy become a Nation of stalwart fortitude and a beacon of hope for the huddled masses across the globe. Afterall, what can the cowering lost offer to the one who has learned through hardship and trial that intangible principles and abiding faith are the foundation upon which a life, a meaningful life, is built.

On America

America is an incredible country. In the history of the planet there has never been such a place, such a convergence of human spirit and will set free to sail the winds of chance and discovery and fortune.

The human mind is unrelenting in its creativity and objectivity: it is inherently curious and conveniently endowed with the capacity to ferret out answers to the questions posed by itself. Individually, we each possess these attributes in different qualities and quantities, and when we commingle in the free market system known as Capitalism, we erupt in a synergy that expands our species’ very notion of possibility, if not in fact reality.

As a capitalist free nation, American citizens are free to endeavor in legal enterprises and then be rewarded as the marketplace sees fit. But financial reward, materialism, should never be viewed as the enduring blessing of freedom. Because my passions and gifts differ from the mechanic’s whose differ from the surgeon’s whose differ from the teacher’s, we are each variously compensated by the marketplace. When the joy of living and of being an American is reduced to how much stuff we can acquire (viz a viz money), we have prostituted our joy and freedom, exchanging that which has intrinsic value for that which possesses only fleeting worth.

America is a sacred trust. For everyday Colonial farmers and merchants to have been compelled to engage in a war of impossible odds against the military might of the Crown belies the desperate political environ that had grown up around them. These Colonists were stirred to action while at the same time drawn inexorably toward the destiny that would become self-government. Today, like every day since the Colonists declared war against Britain, we personally experience freedom to pursue our own happiness because of the courage and dedication to principle to which the Revolutionaries had committed themselves.

What are the principles that motivate Americans today? How might those who brought America into nationhood view our performance as keepers of the trust they handed to us?

America derives its blessings from her moral grounding, the fruits of human ingenuity, and from certain provisions of the government for the general public, namely a national defense and an infrastructure that benefits the masses. The role of government in the United States of America is not, and shall never be, the intentional redistribution of wealth from one individual to another. The position of most liberal and even some moderate politicians today would be viewed by our Colonial predecessors as heretical, a dereliction of duty, an extinguishing of the sacred trust that is the heart of America.

Today America is synonymous with Freedom. Freedom to try, freedom to fail, freedom to succeed. But not the freedom to demand money from others simply based on disparity. Consider this: In academia the student is given the opportunity to perform to the best of his or her ability and to be rewarded with an education and a GPA that will serve them for years to come. But since not all students are equally intellectually endowed and/or motivated to excel academically, should we instead redistribute the wealth of the overachievers to the underachievers, handing over points and grades from the first group to the latter? The successful students’ A grades become C’s, and the failing students’ become C’s. Hardly a worthy objective or means.

Certainly we have among our citizenry those who need extra help and attention. People with physical or mental disabilities may be limited in their ability to participate in capitalism. And that is why the human spirit is also dressed in compassion. We help those who truly need a hand.

But we should never think it courageous or honorable or even acceptable to demand from others their rightfully acquired possessions. If it is not right for me to approach my wealthier neighbor and demand money from him, it is no more right for the government to do so in our stead.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Truth or Veneer?

A brief conversation with a friend this past week got me to thinking about truth.

What concerns me is that we may largely be a people who do not seek truth so much as solutions.

The topic of conversation was Intelligent Design and Darwinism. The University of Kansas has been hosting a weekly or monthly forum that regularly invites icons of either school of thought: Intelligent Design (ID) or Neo-Darwinism. At one such meeting the renowned atheist Richard Dawkins was the guest icon for Neo-Darwinism and he was by all accounts quite eloquent and passionate in both his grievances against ID and support for Neo-Darwinism and atheism.

Because we have become a culture of veneer values, I suspect we are too easily smitten by such polished speech. President George W. Bush has revealed this penchant of ours in its negative form. I don't suppose there's a single late night comedian that doesn't denigrate Bush at least twice per show for his substandard delivery of the English language.

But to what extent are content and delivery related? Has our appetite for Oscar Award entertainment so deadened our minds that we cannot listen to and evaluate spoken ideas that are having a bad hair day? Do we really prefer the silver-tongued orator whose content and logic are flawed over plain (or even stammering) speech that is sincerely spoken?

Do we value polish and veneer, or truth?

I fear our expectations have begun to mirror the Hollywood gauntlet: those who would be stars must be flawless. Doesn't matter that it takes self-starvation, enough silicone to heremetically seal two Boeing 757's, and an ego the size of a small country to create the myth. No, what seems to matter is that they give the appearance of being this deity of perfection, and what they really are or are not is of no consequence.

So knowing that everything that glitters isn't gold, what about us still allows us to give a pass to the smooth,impeccable and passionate delivery of a speech whose content is evasive and nonsensical? Is it that a finely constructed fortress of words appears beyond breach, so no countermeasures (i.e. THOUGHT) are deployed, leaving the message to stand as approved and accepted?

Or is it that the dissenters cannot find print space?

It is imperative that we never cease pursuing the truth.

If we expect to find something of value in this life, then we had best be in the market for Truth. And if Truth is what we hope to find, then learning to identify false logic and empty but intimidating rhetoric must become part and parcel of our thinking.

In a few short months the 2008 presidential candidates will begin to announce their candidacy. Americans will be inundated with plenty of ideologies and promises and plans, some served up with great panache by gifted orators, some by the not-so-gifted. But with any luck, U.S. Citizens will step out of their American Idol mindset and work very hard to dissect the promises, arguments and accusations that are about to be launched at them. We don't need a superstar. We need leaders who are not afraid to lead, leaders about whom it can be said, 'what you see is what you get.'

Wanting solutions can be very different from wanting the Truth.