Triskelos

Singing Praises to Obama

2009-09-24T09:13:00.002-05:00

I read an article recently and a link that I found troubling. A class of Elementary students were instructed to sing a song literally praising Obama and his "accomplishments." Ironically, no one really knows the consequences of his "accomplishments" but they are none-the-less singing his praises.

The question develops, is this right? Maybe there should be indifference. Why not sing and celebrate the first African American President? Well, the lyrics are troubling because they literally praise him for his policies. Is this not indoctrination of some sort? Do these children really have a say if they want to participate and are they at an age where they can really make that decision for themselves? This is wrong. Imagine if a teacher taught the children to sing the praises of Former President George W. Bush. Would this be a quiet matter? I think not.

Here is the link to the school children's song. Judge for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zrsl8o4ZPo

Missed the flight or perhaps the point...?

2009-09-11T00:18:00.006-05:00

So I’m going to preface this article with two comments. First: it’s the first article in a long time on this site, and Second: I’m a bit intoxicated while writing this. With that said, let me just say how ridiculous I think this story is.

CNN is reporting that Mr. Obama intends to nominate a top Los Angeles International Airport police department official to head the Transportation Security Administration, the agency charged with protecting airplanes and other forms of transportation from terrorists. And while I obviously think that the TSA is of crucial importance in the post 9-11 era, I do not think its internal administrative policies should trump its overall importance in protecting Americans from acts of terrorism, whether domestic or foreign.

Yet for some reason, CNN felt it necessary to lead this story by discussing the fact that Erroll Southers, an African American who is the California deputy director of homeland security and a special agent with the FBI, is in favor of collective bargaining for TSA airport screeners.

Are you kidding me!? The newsworthy issue here is that this guy supports the idea that the baggage screeners should have the right to go on strike if they feel they aren’t paid enough? Why is it that I had the idea that this guy was supposed to be more concerned with the airplane I’m on not being hi-jacked, blown up, or flown into a building? In addition they discuss how he opposes Bush administration policies which prohibited such action because they would impair the agency during times of disaster.

So my question is do you think the media (especially CNN) manipulated the story in such a way that it deviates from the true discuss of whether this gentleman is qualified to protect our air transportation or do you think it’s discussion of unionization and emergency efforts trumps any attempt at securing our air borders and national security?

The Bull in a China Shop

2009-04-21T17:43:00.005-05:00

Everyone knows the cliche. The implication is that a person goes in carelessly, or I guess maybe intentionally, to a situation and destroys the place. This is my impression of President Obama's LESS THAN 100 days in office. It is almost impossible to even keep up with all the changes he is making to our country but I will not comment on all of them for lack of time and space. This is more than my complaining about differences in ideology. This is becoming fear for what we as a country can and/or will become under his policies. Let me explain.

The most recent mud slinging at the Bush administration over the interrogation tactics is appauling. How in the world can anyone say that the tactic of water boarding on key terrorists was not helpful? For the record, which the media fails to reveal, water boarding was used on three people. One would never know that based upon the media's and the left wing extremists' reports. Other reports say these tactics revealed important information that helped protect the citizens of this great country. Ironically, the people who performed these interrogations did the jobs we have entrusted them to do. Or, do the people of our country so quickly forget the attacks on 9/11 where over 3,000 Americans died?! This is outrageous. The other forms of interrogation that is under investigation is almost comical: one terrorist had a neck brace put on to prevent injury when he was getting pushed around; another, who had a fear of stinging insects, had a caterpillar put on him and was told it stung. Seriously, even if these tactics were harsher, we are in a war and these men are trying to kill us. Would any one of you out there act differently if you thought your family was potentially the next target? If these interrogations failed, they might have been.

Second, this is a threat to our national security! As one general put it, by making this information public you are allowing the next terrorists to train and prepare themselves in the case of capture. These terrorists do in fact train to go through these interrogations so as not to give up information. Not only this, but by softening our position we can only be emboldening our enemies as we go after our own people who did what they thought right to protect our country. Our enemies do not play by the rules. They don't care about our rules. If we were not at war and we were not constantly a target, I agree, these tactics would be a excessive but we are not. American lives are continually in jeopardy and it is the President who is responsible to make sure that safety is ensured.

Third, come to find out, new reports are surfacing that many of these Democrats accusing the Bush administration were in fact informed of what was happening yet had no objections at the time. If this is true then this is obviously more a political move than it is a matter of virtue (which I believe it is). The leadership in this country, whether Republican or Democrat, needs to start acting like leaders and stop basing decisions upon poles and "popular opinion." It is also way too easy to look at something far removed from the freshness of 9/11 and judge whether these tactics were extreme or not. Frankly, that is unfair and hypocritical. It is also interesting that Obama has flip-flopped on whether or not to prosecute these lawyers and aids over their interpretation of the law. Especially after the U.N. (which is useless in and of itself) publicly condemned this as well as other left wing extremists.

Fourth is the matter if Obama can distinguish between friend and enemy. Prior to April 15's tea parties, the Obama administration publicized a new threat to our homeland security. Interestingly enough, myself and people with similar convictions earily resembled this new threat. The threat is of "Right Wing Extremists." There is some language in there that is quite troubling, in fact very troubling. Also worth mentioning is the fact every tea party was a peaceful demonstration, not a cause for conern despite what CNN would like to portray (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOrPzVECSjo; not family viewing? It was a peaceful demonstration!).

The document begins by saying, "The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment."

First, they admit there is no evidence any harm is going to be done. No evidence. Second, they are turning opposition to Obama into a race issue. This is ridiculous. If my opposing President Obama's policies, which by the way he has even admitted to wanting to change the foundation of our country , makes me a racist then I'm a racist. BUT, I am not a racist if you mean I oppose him because of his skin color. Ethnicity, race, and/or color is not the issue here. I believe President Obama to be more extreme every day in his ideologies. He is hypocritical for criticizing the Bush administration for excessive spending then he goes and quadrupals it in his first year. His ideologies reflect more of a Communist than they do a Capitalist. Maybe this is why he condemns "right wingers" and shakes hands with people who hate our country.

There are other very disconcerting things about this document. It also states, "Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

Uumm, where do I start? First, let's deal with "hate." This term is used very broadly to describe those who oppose homosexual marriage, people's religious convictions (such as Christians believing there is one way to heaven), and even conservatives who oppose President Obama's policies; therefore, they must be racist. Also, the rejection of federal authority in favor of state or local is actually constitutional. The federal government is not a monarchy. The President of the Unite States is not Czar. Nor is he a Communist dictator. The Federal government has limited power over the states. Finally, the issues mentioned here that the "right wing extremists" would rally under are quite confusing. So if you strongly oppose abortion, or you would like the government to actually do its job concerning immigration (i.e., like secure the borders, like consider it a crime to illegally cross the borders, etc.) you are right wing extremists? Seriously?

The document gets into more than this. I didn't even get into what it says about the military. If you would like to read it, the link is hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf or I'm sure you can search for it with Google.

As I have seen the actions this new adminstration has done, I feel like I'm in an alternate reality. Our President is befriending enemies and accusing conservatives who differ in ideology. He is reaching out to our enemies all the while apologizing for his country as he travels the world. If he is that ashamed of our country he should have never run for President. Personally, I think the President needs to stop focusing on his popularity and start running this country in a responsible way. Instead, he chooses to be a bull in the china shop and dismantle most everything.

Medical Tourism...Catch a Colonoscopy and a Show!

2009-03-30T11:06:00.016-05:00

Never before has it been more apparent than now of our current healthcare crisis. With rising uninsured, to rising premiums, to decreased coverage, our nation is posed with a problem just as large as our current economic woes. The range of solutions go from regulation of insurance companies to socialized medicine. The later, of course, I vehemently oppose.

Looking through recent news publications I happened upon a renewed interest in "medical tourism". http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/27/india.medical.travel/index.html This is an increasing regularity among Americans, but has been going on throughout the rest of the world starting with the ancient Greeks. Many uninsured patients have found it exponentially cheaper to fly overseas to seek treatment. This may be a shock to some, but is gaining a lot of popularity.

You can search google and find many travel sites specialized in this type of tourism. Where one procedure in the US may cost upwards of 150k, the same procedure can be done in India for less than 15k including travel expenses. Some insurance companies are climbing aboard and offering policies that cover many of these procedures/trips. Most of the coordinating hospitals/countries offer teleconferences with the doctors to get necessary info and answer any questions. As well as offering state-of-the-art medical facilities that many here can't even get without going to a large city.

So this brings me to the question of how can we adequately take care of our own citizens without sending them into bankruptcy? Here are the stipulations that we must accept; 1. The level of care must not decrease, but continue to provide the most current of treatments, 2. Must provide for preventative medicines, and 3. Must be affordable (that in itself is probably the most difficult to address). Although our current Administration has an intense desire for this, I don't think that leaving it up to Congress and the likes of senators like Barney Frank to make it work is the answer. It needs to be worked out by an non-governmental committee of Physicians, Hospital Administrators, Insurance CEO's, and of course a representation of "patients". I think that it would be the only way to develop a plan that includes aggreements and compromises from all parties effected with less political agenda.

If I were on a committee to help develop a healthcare reform plan, here is what I would suggest.

First of all, we need a type of nationalized basic insurance policy. By basic I mean preventative care, non-specialized physician office visits, generic prescription coverage, and ER visits. This should be made available to all people. It would would be paid out of pre-tax wages like any other insurance premium. Most people would be likely to accept insurance if it is this way because when you never see the money come to you, it doesn't affect your perception of paying for it in the same way. Upon employment each person would have the option to accept the coverage or not. It would not be mandatory and would be based off of a percentage of income not a fixed rate, up to a certain point. Children, up to working age, would have coverage regardless of a parents current coverage. It would also be non-discriminatory of pre-existing conditions and this national coverage would automatically qualify you for advance private coverage without any conditions being classified as pre-existing. Disabled and retired would still have Medicare (although a reformed and more beneficial form) would still be available.

Secondly, Health Insurance Companies need reform and some type of regulation (not government control). Focus needs to be on prevention of disease rather than treatment of it once it has developed. I understand that certain things cannot be caught and prevented, but I am speaking of diseases like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, certain types of cancers, etc. These are diseases that can be prevented or screened for that a lot of insurance companies don't like to pay for until you need by-pass surgery or chemotherapy (much more expensive than prevention). A tax deduction for insurance premiums would encourage competition between companies and help bring down the cost. These companies should be working with the patients/doctors not against them.

Thirdly, malpractice needs reform. Our nation has become the most litigous bunch of sissies I have every heard of. This is a huge factor in the cost of healthcare today. Regulations need to be in place that limit the types of lawsuits to the ones that are ligitimate. Doctors are only human, and do make mistakes. If a patient comes into the hospital and dies, but would have died if they didn't come to the hospital the family shouldn't be allowed to sue unless the death was caused by negligence. If you have the wrong leg cut of in surgery, yes sue the hell out of them! If a patient dies on the operating table, without gross negligence, no. If people are complaining that doctors make too much, they need to turn to the lawyers who make twice that. Our judges need to grow backbones and tell these sleasy lawyers to get out of their courtroom!

I'm sure that there are other aspects of healthcare that need reform, such as electronic medical records, that I have mixed feelings about. To me, these are at the top of my list on things to fix. Socialized healthcare is not the answer, and I pray that it doesn't go in that direction. It hasn't been the best thing for Canada. Some patients have to wait months to get treatments, and many of them are going out of the country as well. Not to mention that in our society, we would lose many doctors, and the rate at which we get new ones would decrease. Not only due to income but to the cost of school.

What else can you think of that needs to be changed? Or if you think that my suggestions are wrong, please inform me of your alternatives. We're all hoping for "change", so here's to "hoping" for the positive.

Victim, Culprit, or both?

2009-03-25T12:49:00.004-05:00

When it was announced that AIG executives received bonuses from tax payer money, the outrage shook the entire country. Now I am not one who thinks they should have done it, rather, they could have operated with much more discretion. Though I am not one who will allow those who permitted it (our wonderful Government) off the hook. Most of the members of the House and Senate and our President signed off on a bill that allowed them to release these bonuses. Now they have vehemently spit venom at these "horrible" executives. Some have called for their jobs, one Senator said they should follow the Japanese tradition and resign or commit suicide. Many of these executives have reported numerous death threats. All the while, there is and was another side of the story, one that I thought I would share and see what the members of Triskelos might say to his words posted in the NY Times as he resigned his position at AIG. Here is the letter:

DEAR Mr. Liddy,

It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.

I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”

That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”

Sincerely,

Jake DeSantis

Does this article change anyone's perspective on this particular issue?
Did the government act responsibly in their response to the AIG bonuses?
Is the government causing more harm than good by disincentivising profit making executives and giving them little alternative but to leave and protect their families?

The floor is yours Triskelos.

Article from: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

The Wrong Idea on Controlling the Budget

2009-03-18T12:43:00.005-05:00

I will admit, I am tired of my own focus on political issues. But there is yet another issue that concerns me on where our country is going. This one is related to talks of wounded veterans losing government support. Sadly, this topic is not getting much attention. The recent outrage over the AIG bonuses has gained the headlines while this important topic is forced to the back seat.

For clarification, this is not a policy set in motion but is a proposed policy to help cut costs. This plan would make the wounded veterans pay for the care of injuries obtained through their service to our country. The government would no longer take care of these men and women, rather they would have to seek healthcare through the private sector.

This is outrageous! There is already a huge discussion over the rising price of healthcare. Imagine how hard it would be for many of these men and women to obtain healthcare with a pre-existing condition. Veterans are responsible for any health conditions unrelated to their military service, but the government has always taken care of its service men and women if they were wounded on the job.

“Veterans of all generations agree that this proposal is bad for the country and bad for veterans,” said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. “If the president and the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] want to cut costs, they can start at AIG, not the VA.”

Thankfully, many in the House and Senate have opposed such a drastic approach with Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington describing it as "Dead in the water." My question is, why is this even a discussion? If Obama wants to cut costs, he can stop spending like a teenager with his or her first credit card. He can stop signing expensive spending bills loaded with pork. He can shift gears and stop bailing out companies who would otherwise fail wasting more and more tax payer money (and I do blame Bush for starting it). If this is Obama's idea of controlling government spending, we are all in for an interesting four years.

http://www.buffalonews.com/180/story/610029.html

The Devil's Algebra

2009-02-21T02:02:00.002-06:00

As most of you who know me well realize, I've always enjoyed a good thriller. The smarter, the better. And I'm even happier if you can mix a dash of noir into a modern thriller and get away with it. I've noted over the past few years a small but respectable list of films have been showing up in largely independent circles that have found ways to make very cerebral topics accessible to people while at the same time making them quite entertaining.

One particular vein has been a lineage of films dealing with mathematics or numbers. Now, there are a lot of these out there that aim quite high. A Beautiful Mind jumps out as obvious. But the films I've reviewed below take a more diabolical approach to the rather dry subject of numbers, and makes them the lynchpin of life and death.

Generally speaking, these are not gory or in any way obscene (though there are exceptions). None of them are horror, though they feature characters under rather extreme circumstances. Several are older films...some of which you have probably seen. But a few are quite recent, and deserve some special attention as I think they might be missed by the general moviegoer. Oh, and all are available for purchase or rental.

Fermat's Room

The first and most recent film is arguably the best on my list. I will warn you, it is a foreign film, which as I've said before isn't for everyone. However it is subtitled from the Spanish (Castilian Spanish, not Mexican Spanish), and I've always argued that watching a subtitled film is much less distracting than people who do not watch them realize. The film takes its name from the famous mathematician Pierre de Fermat, who is most well known for claiming to have written a proof (now lost) for one of the most difficult problems in mathematics. I will not bore you with what the conjecture was, other than to point out that it has recently been solved.

Our story does not involve this particular theorem, however, but a murder in progress. Four famous Spanish mathematicians are the sole individuals who correctly solve a puzzle they received by mail, which when solved invites them to a rare gathering of brilliant theorists who are promised to be presented with the chance to solve a most difficult mathematical enigma. They are each, upon solving their riddle, instructed to go by a pseudonym of a famous mathematician (i.e. Pascal, Galois, Hilbert, and Oliva) instead of by their real name. They are also required to leave their cell phones behind.

Upon arrival, they meet their benefactor, who goes only by the name of Fermat. After dinner, Fermat must excuse himself from the room briefly, and when the door is closed the guests find they cannot leave. They then begin to receive puzzles via a PDA left in the room for them. If they cannot solve each puzzle within a minute, the room begins to shrink until they enter a correct answer. They only have brief minutes between puzzles before the next riddle comes along, giving them about an hour before the room shrinks to less the size of an elevator. During the stress they begin to learn of connections they each have to one another, and piece together why they are in this situation. And they must solve this enigma in order to survive. As the tagline for this film indicates, "Think inside the box, or die".

Believers

The next film is one of the most original I've seen in a while. The Believers is the tale of a group of scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians (calling themselves the Quanta Group) who have become disciples of a man known as the Teacher because he has discovered "The Formula". This equation has, they claim, predicted with perfect precision the exact moments of the end of all life on earth, and the way to escape it. It is reminiscent of the famous (and real) Drake Equation, but in reverse. In terms of modern fiction, it is probably more akin to what has become a famous set of numbers produced by the mythical Valenzetti Equation which in the LOST universe predicts the extinction of our species.

In any case, this story centers on two paramedics who accidentally run across one member of the "cult" who is trying to escape. By being good Samaritans they end up getting kidnapped by other scientists-members who refuse to let them go. They do this because the fact they interacted with one another so close to the "event" may prevent the members of Quanta from escaping because they have now become accidentally entangled (a factual concept in quantum mechanics where two objects become irreversibly linked on the quantum scale). Now imprisoned in an abandoned underground missile complex, the paramedics face the choice of willingly joining the group or being left to die with the rest of humanity (or so the Teacher tells them).

What I find fascinating about this film is the high degree in which it is based on real quantum physics and a branch of mathematics known as Fractal Geometry. The cult's symbol (the Greek ψ) is even the real descriptor for calculating the wave function probability of the position of a particle or set of particles in any physical system. To describe one's ψ, you can determine where we are in reality. Of course the story pushes these real branches of learning into applications that are metaphysical in nature, but in ways that are very thought provoking. It does have a creepy edge to it, but I do recommend it for anyone who likes their sci-fi to have a hard edge of real science behind it.

Primer

Our next selection has won several awards (including two Sundance Awards) and just might be the smartest, under-recognized science fiction thriller of all time...especially when you find out it was made for about $7,000. I have watched it six or seven times, and I'm still catching new things I didn't see the first few times. Primer is about time travel. Now put away your misconceptions, because there is no whiz-bang, no blinking lights, and no special effects. This is all about the drama of the story, and about what happens when you can have absolutely anything you want. Esquire magazine said it best when they hailed Primer as "[t]he headiest, most singular science fiction movie since Kubrick made 2001." The same reviewer went on to say that "anybody who claims he fully understands what's going on in Primer after seeing it just once is either a savant or a liar." Kubrick's potential incarnation isn't everyone's fare…but he cannot be denied as a tension building, clockwork storyteller.

Our two main characters are part of a group of friends who have a small out-of-their-garage business where they build and sell small scale electronics for specialized needs. They have several side projects they work on in the process of trying to find the next big thing. Quite by accident, they make a device that has a very strange effect (which they explain very well in the film, but that is too lengthy to go into here), whereby they generate a field that oscillates in such a way that an object placed in it has a certain probability of exiting the field slightly out of sync with normal time. They don't realize this at first, until one of the things they are experimenting with is contaminated with a bacterium that grows at an impossible rate, at which point they deduce the only possible answer is that the field bends time. So they decide to make a bigger one…one large enough for a person.

The plot gets extremely dense at this point, as they deal with the first paradox-proof time travel theory I've ever seen. I still can't find any holes in the story, and the way the story unfolds is one part Hitchcock, one part The Usual Suspects. I wish this had been a book more than just about any movie I've seen. I highly recommend this, but I warn you that you won't get it all the first time you watch it.

The Cube

I believe most of my friends have probably seen this by now (and if my memory serves, Aeskepulus and I first watched it together). The Cube is as diabolical as it is brilliant. What I love about it is that when you strip away the special effects, it all amounts to a very small cast of characters in two rooms…the perfect ingredients for what would otherwise be a play performance.

I will be brief, because I imagine most people have watched this by now. But for those uninitiated, we have a group of people who wake up trapped inside a maze of cubes. Some cubes are "safe", while others are trapped with devices meant to kill. Each person was abducted, though they don't remember how, and each person was put in the Cube for a reason. There seem to be an endless succession of cubes, one after another, connected by hatches in all six faces. Their only differences are the color of the room and three three-digit numbers marking the entrance of each cube.

After some painful navigations and lost members, one character (the smart one) deduces that there is an underlying pattern to the numbers, and that not only can they tell her which rooms are trapped, but also how to get out of the Cube. It then becomes a race to the exit (and a fight amongst the group) before the maze closes on them forever.

11:14

Ok, I'm cheating a little with this one. This one isn’t as heavy into mathematics; it simply revolves vertiginously around a specific moment…11:14 PM. The story involves a bizarre confluence of circumstances whereby several people’s ordinary lives crisscross in unbelievable ways.

The story starts following one character and we see their perspective until 11:14, at which point the story rewinds and we then follow another character’s viewpoint until they reach 11:14.

However until you see the greater pattern you don’t realize how the entire story is collapsing on top of itself. I really loved the originality of how the various storylines interlace. It also has one of my favorite actors in it, so I am a little biased.

I highly recommend it anytime you want a movie full of those A-ha moments.

π

My final selection is one I know Aeskepulus and Harlequin have both seen. It features Darren Aronofsky’s first full-length film. You may know him from his controversial film A Requiem for a Dream, and his later existential piece, The Fountain. And of course his most recent film’s lead actor has an Oscar nomination this season. However π was an experimental film (and arguably still is). I hated it when I first saw it. But then again, I hated Donnie Darko the first time I saw it, and now I love both of them.

π follows a main character who is a mathematician obsessed with finding the overarching pattern in all of nature, with the aide of a supercomputer he’s built in his apartment named Euclid. He becomes obsessed with finding the underpinning pattern in everything, but his quest centers around the billions of data points generated by the stock market.

Later, he becomes convinced that there is a link to all patterns in nature if one uses Gematria, the esoteric science of assigning numbers to letters (specifically in Greek or Hebrew) and according to the Jewish practice of Kabbalah, finding layers of revelation. The protagonist accidentally stumbles upon the mathematical name of God (216 letters long), which is referenced in Exodus and is called the Shemhamphorasch (which is actually 72 names, and is linked to the holy Tetragrammaton).

Unfortunately, our protagonist discovers that he is meddling with things that have dire consequences. Fans of Phillip K. Dick’s adapted films will love this movie.

Confessions of a Shopaholic; A Sequel Already?

2009-02-18T13:12:00.003-06:00

Could the timing of this "chick" movie have come any more timely. I have not seen this movie, nor do I want to, but I thought the title was fitting. First, I would like to point out this is not JUST about Obama, Pelosi, Reed, or even the stimulus bill, although they do contribute significantly to the problem. Former President Bush was the one who really set the wheels in motion for higher spending and bigger government. His statements regarding saving the free market economy by suspending free market principles through government intervention was, and still is, ridiculous.

The current demobratic party's leadership is now sprinting with the policies Bush set in motion and are planning on putting our country in debt by another trillion dollars within 100 days of their leadership. This is highly hypocritical since they created a platform of criticizing our former president for creating such a large deficit.

Bush started with the bailout, which there may be some reasoning for in order to STABILIZE the banks. So far this money has not resolved anything productive except put us further in debt. The auto companies are even now asking for more money without much of any positive results from what they have been given. (On a side note, why the heck is Bob Nardelli still CEO of Chrysler? He dismantled Home Depot and now he is in charge of Chrysler in the midst of an economic crisis). Anyways, now there is the "stimulus bill" that is questionable with what it can actually produce.

Now, today I read an article on another $75 billion dollar foreclosure prevention plan. What? I could maybe understand this if they did this without the bogus stimulus plan, but really. Where is the money going to come from? The plans that began with the Bush administration and now have been taken up with vigor under the Obama administration are the ingredients for massive inflation, that is, unless Obama plans on paying for these plans by calling in the taxes his cabinet nominees have ignored paying.

Real Solution? Now that I have ranted about this lunacy and outrageous spending, here is a plan that is proven. This is not original to myself, of course, but comes from successful people like Steve Forbes and Newt Gingrich. If you want to stimulate the economy and create jobs, cut the labor tax. This would generate money overnight and put it in the hands of people who can actually make a difference in economic hardships. Individuals will instantly have more money in their pockets to spend on essentials and luxury items and employers would have more money to create jobs and growth. This is what the house promoted under the Clinton administration and it worked out well giving us one of the most financially prosperous times in our nation's history.

Does anyone really think the government will fix this problem otherwise? As a reminder, it was government run institutions that got us here in the first place (i.e. Fannie and Freddy). The government had the grand idea everyone should own a house even if they could not afford it. The government had the grand idea of paying for a stimulus package that did little or nothing to spark the economy. The government had the grand idea of a huge bailout and now the money is not being used to help citizens but the organizations themselves. The government now is going to spend more money on a bill that has little to do with stimulus and has more to do with bacon. Finally, the government is going to spend more money we do not have to help with the foreclosure crisis. Rather than fix this problem through significant intervention, they should rather put the money in our pockets and step back.

In the end, as above stated, I do not believe I have to see the movie "Confessions of a Shopaholic." All I have to do is tune into Washington.

Another 545 Miles...

2009-02-09T00:34:00.005-06:00

For those of you reading this blog for the first time, it is our hope here at Triskelos that you find the issues worthy of discourse and the causes worthy of support. As a physician with an interest in the infectious diseases, espcially HIV/AIDS, I am always supportive of anyone who contributes to the fight against and promotes awareness and education of HIV. As those of you who are citizens of Triskelos know, one of my dear friends, Ray, has over the past two years engaged in raising money for this cause by competing in the AID Lifecycle cycling event which involves hundreds of individuals cycling over 500 miles from San Fransisco to Los Angeles in an effort to raise money for HIV/AIDS awareness and treatment.

Recently Ray sent me an email requesting support. I know the current economic situation is difficult for many and while I don't expect anyone who reads this article to donate to this great cause, I would encourage all to at least consider it. Perhaps you can give up a weeks worth of starbucks or maybe forgoe your Friday night dinner and trip to the movie theater. Or perhas you can even do more. All I ask is that you consider it. As an incentive, I will match the total contributions from Triskelos up to $250.00. All I ask is that if and when you donate, you type in "Support from Triskelos" in the comment box on Ray's donation Website. For those of you who are wanting to know more, I'll let Ray tell you a little about what he's doing.

Dear Friends --Happy New Year! I hope this email finds you well. As you all know, last year I rode my bike 545 miles from San Francisco to LA to help in the fight to END AIDS. In June 2009 I am riding in Aids/LifeCycle [again]. Another 545 miles on my bike :) I do all the work, I just need your support. Once again this year I have set my goal at $5000...your generousity and support last year was overwelming and together the riders and roadies raised OVER $11.6 MILLION. I know that 2008 was a tough year for everyone and that money is tight after the Holiday season...but there are people our there worse off than us, that can't afford to buy the medicine that will keep them alive! This year I have formed Team Ralph Lauren -- there are 6 of us from RL riding for The LA Gay and Lesbian Center. The LAGLC provides treatment for thousands of people that would not survive without support from people LIKE YOU! No amount is TOO small. $5, $50, $500 and everything in between can help make someones life, well, worth living. Making a donation is easy...just visit http://www.tofighthiv.org/goto/rayoliver and click the "Donate to Support Raymond" link under my picture. You can make a one time donation or, even better, you can spread payment of your donation out for up to a year. So, for example, if you want to donate $100 but can't make a lump sum donation, you can have the LA Gay and Lesbian Center deduct $10 a month for 10 months out of your account! WOW! High tech! As always, thanks for your support! Ray

FACTS ABOUT HIV

In the United States...
An estimated 53,000 Americans will become infected with HIV this year.
Approximately 550,000 have died of AIDS since the epidemic's beginning. 1.2 million currently live with HIV, including 10,000 children. 25% are unaware of their status.
Half of all new STD infections (which include HIV) occur in individuals 25 years old or younger.
African Americans, although comprising only 12% of the population, account for 50% of new infections. Latinos, comprising only 15% of the population, account for 19% of new infections.
In general, racial and ethnic minorities account for 64% of those living with HIV, and 72% of AIDS deaths.

In the World...
An estimated 2.5 million people will become infected with HIV this year.
More than 20 million have died from AIDS since the epidemic's beginning. 33 million currently live with HIV, including 2.5 million children.
95% of those living with HIV reside in developing nations, predominately Africa.
50% of those living with HIV are women, 80% of whom are married or with one partner.
For every person starting antiretrovirals, 3 go without, and 3 more become infected.

Is America’s Healthcare System Going Up In Smoke?

2009-02-05T00:50:00.004-06:00

In the most recent article by Diakonou Euangellion, I referenced one of my favorite quotes by one of the former Surgeons General whom I most admire, Dr. Jocelyn Elders. Today while reviewing a random medical journal, I happened upon a comment by former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona, M.D. (2002-2006), which I found to be simplistically profound. In an editorial on the need for a shift in the health care paradigm in the U.S., Carmona wrote, “Smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death [in the United States]. Cigarettes are the only product legally sold that, when used as directed, will kill you over time, yet we continue to sell them.”

According to the most recent epidemiological data from the Centers for Disease Control, cigarette smoking is a major cause of cancer, heart disease, stroke, and emphysema. Smoking accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths and is implicated in almost 90% of all cases of lung cancer which is the most common form of cancer in the U.S. Additionally it is a major cause of oropharyngeal cancers. Taken together, each year about 443,000 people in the United States die from illnesses related to cigarette smoking. Cigarettes kill more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined.

When you consider that in spite of the scientific and medical evidence that links smoking to disease, the Centers for Disease Control estimates that nearly 20% of all Americans smoke and 30% of adolescents smoke. Of side note, there are more smokers in this country than there are uninsured. (60 million versus 42 million). Furthermore, The medical costs attributed to smoking average about $50 billion dollars each year and with additional losses in productivity the costs rise to approximately $97 billion.

So after reading former SG Carmona's comment in light of the epidemiological data, I was forced to ponder the implications of prohibition and the Eighteenth Amendment; and could not help but ask the following question: “Can making illegal the use of tobacco products, specifically cigarettes, be justified in a country where not only do we have certain rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Right, but also in a society where the health care system stipulates that patient autonomy is paramount.” Yet do we not already have similar measures in place? Heroin, cocaine, PCP, and LSD among others are completely illegal because we recognize their adverse effects. I realize that my questions are not novel, and have been contemplated, if not, verbalized by many health care advocates. Yet, if for no other conceivable reason than blatant disregard and denial, I have never heard any public official, either elected or appointed offer an answer.

I am very much a believer in individual and personal responsibility; however, in recent years much of the responsibility and repercussions of tobacco use has been taken off the smoker and placed on the manufacturers of cigarettes and tobacco products. While I think each are to blame in their own way, I place the largest responsibility on our public officials. Yet these individuals have been able to evade taking position on the issue as the health care system is this country is increasingly becoming a consumer driven system, where the "customer is always right." Consequently we as a country of consumers are fast approaching a breaking point in our health care system.

According to the Pew Research Center, a January 2009 survey indicated that 59% of Americans believe that reducing health care costs should be a top priority for the Obama Administration. Mr. Obama response to the "consumer's demand" during the campaign was a health care proposal, near universal in nature, which would cost between $50 to 65 billion once fully implemented. Ironically, the cost of Mr. Obama's plan is almost exactly that of the yearly cost of smoking to U.S. health care system.

There is no consensus on how to reform our nation's health care system. Even within the members of this forum, there is dissention as to the level of care Americans should be entitled to. But one thing is certain, very few people believe no intervention is necessary. So I say let's start with smoking. If we're going to be aggressive with solving this problem, then let's really address problems. Cigarettes kill. To say otherwise is criminal in my opinion. It's time for our public officials to acknowledge this fact. If they want to get serious about our nation's health, then I propose Mr. Obama, Mrs. Pelosi, and Mr. Reid lead the way and call for a complete and total ban on tobacco products in this country.

How do you like your pork? Fried, Baked, Grilled, or just well spent?

2009-02-03T14:05:00.005-06:00

As a fiscal conservative, I have issue with some of the aspects of the stimulus bill. Overall my concern is that the funds are used as judiciously as possible and utilized in the strictest manner thus minimizing unnecessary earmarks. CNN reported Monday that House Republicans reviewed the current stimulus bill in the Senate and compiled a list of what they considered to be wasteful provisions in the upper chamber version of the nearly $900 billion package. Some of these items I feel are extremely frivolous and thing the republicans should be commended for returning to the fiscal responsibility principles. Some however, I feel are justified, if not necessary, and can work to stimulate the economy. Consequently, I was wondering if everyone would take a look and identify any items you think the bill would would be 100% incomplete without, or conversely, should be defeated if they are left in place.

The provisions include:

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.

• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.

• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.

• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.

• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.

• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."

• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.

• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.

• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.

• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.

• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.

• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.

• $500 million for state and local fire stations.

• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.

• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.

• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.

• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.

• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.

• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.

• $850 million for Amtrak.

• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.

• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.

• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.

• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.

First Ethics, then Abortion?

2009-01-23T19:33:00.003-06:00

I am dumbfounded at the recent news of Obama's newest action: our tax dollars again funding international abortion. I know this is a sensitive issue to many and people have their opinions about the matter; however, this is more than just a matter of personal conviction (although this does have a significant role).

First, I find this ironic as this decision comes on the heals of his highly publicized decision to close down Guantanamo Bay and "restore American ideals." While the Guantanamo Bay debacle (a whole other argument) received plenty of attention and cameras, his decision to reopen the funding to other countries for the purpose of "family planning" received much less attention other than from those who oppose his decision. So in restoring American ideals, we are now further supporting the destruction of the unborn child.

Second, I find this ironic that in a time of economic crisis that, according to Obama himself, every government action to rectify the problem requires immediacy, he would then send even more money to help other nations perform abortions. This is an ethical issue and it is an economical one, especially in a time our country needs money. So now, our tax dollars not only fund abortions, excuse me, family planning, here in America, now they help people outside our borders kill unborn children. This is our tax dollars hard at work I guess and will surely guide us out of our current economic dilemma.

For those unaware of the circumstance, the policy is typically called "the Mexico City Policy," but is more conservatively explained as him overturning the ban on international family planning.

The Bush Legacy

2009-01-20T19:57:00.002-06:00

A friend of mine forwarded me this article and I thought I would pass it along to the voices of Triskelos. I found it interesting, insightful, and a discussion builder. Enjoy.

Whatever history's verdict on the Bush administration might be, it is likely to be very different from what we hear from the talking heads on television or read from the know-it-alls on editorial pages.

President Bush's number-one achievement was also the number-one function of government -- to protect its citizens. Nobody on September 11, 2001, believed that there would never be another such attack for more than seven years.

Unfortunately, people who are protected from dangers often conclude that there are no dangers. This is most painfully visible among those Americans who are hysterical over the government's intercepting international phone calls, in order to disrupt international terrorist networks.

Many, especially among the intelligentsia, are also obsessed with whether we are being nice enough to the cut-throats locked up at Guantanamo, some of whom have already been turned loose to resume a life of terrorism. The rights of the Geneva Convention do not apply to people who neither obey the Geneva Convention nor are covered by the Geneva Convention.

That a president of the United States protected us from deadly enemies may not seem like much of an accomplishment to some. But it may be more fully appreciated when we get a president who eases up on that protection, in order to curry favor at home and abroad.

We can only hope that it will not take the sight of an American city lying in radioactive ruins to wake people up to the dangers that George W. Bush protected us against, despite an unending chorus of carping.

No one in his right mind would say that the Bush administration was flawless. But many of their worst political mistakes were the kinds of mistakes that decent people often make when dealing with indecent people, both domestically and internationally.

The idea with which President Bush arrived in Washington, that he could gain bipartisan support by going along with the Democrats, and not vetoing any bills that Congress passed, ignored the fact that it takes two to tango.

Having proclaimed his goal as bipartisanship, it was he who was blamed when the bipartisanship failed to materialize. Wooing Ted Kennedy and going along with massive government spending did not stop Kennedy from getting up in the Senate and loudly proclaiming that Bush "lied, and lied and lied!" about Iraq.

Whatever the merits or demerits of going to war against Saddam Hussein, the question whether he had weapons of mass destruction immediately at hand makes a better talking point than a serious argument.

President Bush was not the only national leader who thought Saddam Hussein had such weapons, nor were such weapons the only reason why the Iraqi dictator posed a continuing danger that all diplomatic efforts, over more than a decade, had failed to extinguish.

This issue can be debated, and no doubt will be debated for years, if not generations, to come. But the irresponsible charge that "Bush lied" for some nefarious purpose -- to trade "blood for oil" or to generate business for Halliburton, for example -- is more than a slander against him. It undermines our whole nation and gives comfort to our enemies around the world.

Domestically, the Bush legacy leaves a lot to be desired. Going along with the McCain-Feingold bill restricting free speech was perhaps the Bush administration's biggest dereliction of duty. Maybe they figured that they could pass the problem along to the Supreme Court to stop it, since this bill so clearly violated the First Amendment to the Constitution.

But the Supreme Court was also guilty of a dereliction of its duty and let the McCain-Feingold bill stand.

Advocating amnesty for illegal aliens was another political disaster, especially when accompanied by denials of the obvious.

Although the Bush administration went along with the chorus of calls for promoting home ownership among people who could not afford home ownership, President Bush at least sounded a warning while others were still pushing lenders to lend to people who proved unable to repay their loans.

A mixed bag? Aren't we all? But an honorable man.

Article by Thomas Sowell

Let's Talk about Sex

2009-01-19T21:52:00.010-06:00

I stumbled across this article a year ago and had been saving it for an opportune time. Diakonou Evangelion's recent article regarding pornography and sexuality in general prompts me to post it now. Forgive the length; it is worth the reading. I would include the web address for the original article, but my internet connection is not working very well. If you are interested, I'm sure you can find it easily enough.

Note: In case there are any unlucky readers who may not be familiar with Wendell Berry or his works, Berry is a contemporary author, poet, and essayist. He writes firmly grounded in the soils of Kentucky and small areas everywhere. While I do not consider him a obscurantist or Luddite strictly-speaking, he is a confirmed agrarian with a realist's touch. He writes of fictional places like Port Arthur, KY, as real places with individuals attempting to figure out how to live and love in a world that neither welcomes or allows a place for them anymore. I would consider him most reminiscent of William Blake in his questioning of 'progress' for progress's sake only. Excellent read; I highly recommend.

Not Safe, Nor Private, Nor Free: Wendell Berry on Sexual Love and Procreation By Allan C. Carlson, Ph.D.

Allan Carlson is Editor of The Family in America and author, most recently, of Third Ways: How Bulgarian Greens, Swedish Housewives, and Beer-Swilling Englishmen Created Family-Centered Economies...And Why They Disappeared. This article is adapted from a lecture at the conference “The Humane Vision of Wendell Berry,” held October 20, 2007, in Louisville, Kentucky, and co-sponsored by The Intercollegiate Studies Institute, The Philadelphia Society, and The McConnell Center at the University of Kentucky.

A modest political-cultural tragedy occurred this past summer, without attracting much attention among the usual pundits. This was the announcement that Weekly World News would cease print publication. Like all good tabloids, Weekly World News also featured advice columns. A few years ago, one caught my eye: “Improve Your Sex Life Tonight—The Amish Way.” According to Dr. Milton Ayres...: “The best sex starts with getting down to the basics—and there are few societies on Earth more basic than the Amish.” [Here are] some of Dr. Ayres’ more specific advice to couples.

• “Turn off all the lights in your house. The Amish have no electricity, which means every sexual encounter takes place by romantic candlelight.”
• “Wear plain, modest clothing, which covers up most of your body. All the more to intensify the feeling of discovery when....”
• “Purchase some farm animals to keep around your yard. The Amish are constantly around farm animals that are reproducing. This reinforces the fact that sex is natural.”
• “Turn off all radios and TVs...so there’s no comparison between the ‘perfect’ media fantasy people and your own romantic partner.”
• And “[r]egularly read the Bible, a book which encourages a healthy sex life between husband and wife.”[1]

Now it is true that the sex-advice column is not a literary genre commonly associated with the contemporary poet, novelist, and essayist Wendell Berry. All the same, I suspect he would agree with most of these recommendations, notably: turning off the electricity and lighting candles; throwing out the radio and TV; viewing the procreative barnyard as the best and most natural form of sex education, for all ages; understanding that modesty is the surest prelude to sexual joy; and holding the Bible to be the most reliable sex manual. Still, these “basic” guides to agrarian reproductive behavior are fairly superficial. Fortunately, Mr. Berry does discuss sexual love and procreation with more depth and with some frequency in his fiction, non-fiction, and poetry. Recently, in fact, he has addressed sexual questions in two essays that some might call quixotic.

The first of these possibly quixotic endeavors is entitled “Rugged Individualism.” It initially appeared in Playboy. Mr. Berry’s intent, it seems, was to reach out to that almost mythical body of subscribers who actually do acquire the magazine to read the articles. His essay contrasts the “rugged individualism” of the political right with that of the left. On the right, the author says, the focus is on private property and “the presumptive ‘right’ of individuals to do [with it] as they please, as if there were no God, no legitimate government, no community, no neighbors, and no posterity.” Mr. Berry adds that this form of absolute individualism became worse as the great corporations received the status of “persons,” also leaving them free “to do whatever they please with their property.”The rugged individualism of the left focuses on the human body. As Mr. Berry elaborates, this approach holds that “the owners of bodies may, by right, use them as they please, [also] as if there were no God, no legitimate government, no community, no neighbors, and no posterity.” He finds this “supposed right...manifested in the democratizing of ‘sexual liberation.’” “The comedy begins,” Mr. Berry goes on, when these extreme forms of individualism meet. The rugged individualism of the right celebrates “family values” and condemns “lust,” but has nothing to say about the profits gained through advertising that exploits lust and the other six deadly sins. The individualism of the left, meanwhile, casts sin as a private matter and defends the environment. However, Mr. Berry explains, the left’s notion of “environment” excludes “the economic landscapes of agriculture and forestry” and their human communities, their children and families. This environmentalism also excludes “the privately owned bodies of other people,” all of which seem to have been turned over “in fee simple to the corporate individualists.” The common agenda of both “rugged individualisms,” he says, is a claim to be “free” to grab as much as they can of whatever they want, while ignoring any acts of kindness, caretaking, faithfulness, neighborliness, or peace.[2]

The second seemingly quixotic essay is a “Letter to Daniel Kemmis.” Mr. Kemmis is a former Minority Leader and Speaker of Montana’s House of Representatives, and a Democrat. Mr. Berry’s goal here is to salvage a Democratic Party held hostage to sexual radicalism, among other recent obsessions. “Why not just give up on the Democratic Party?” he asks himself, and answers: “Well, because of its name.” On social matters, the author blasts “the moral timidity or incompetence of the Democrats” in allowing Republicans to confine the “values” issues to evolution, abortion, and homosexuality.All the same, regarding the second of these issues—abortion—Mr. Berry is forthright in asserting “that I am opposed to abortion except as a last resort to save a pregnant woman’s life.” He continues: “[t]he crucial question raised by this practice is: What is killed? The answer can only be: A human being.” He wrestles with the language of a “woman’s right to choose,” and concludes that if this is a right, it is a very problematic and peculiar one. In contrast, Mr. Berry finds the “right to life” embedded in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and in “a ‘reverence for life’ to which we are called by much instruction.” This means that his opposition to abortion is parallel to, or consistent with, his opposition to capital punishment and to war, “especially the killing of innocent women, children, and old people.”

Concerning the third “values” issue, Mr. Berry concludes that the Democrats have been “further weakened by mishandling the issue of homosexuality.” He blasts the knee-jerk liberalism that gives “categorical approval” to any group which once faced broad disapproval. “[T]his is nonsense,” he declares, for some people in minority groups—just as some people in majority groups—behave in ways that should always face disapproval. Regarding cries for same-sex marriage, he becomes something of a libertarian, arguing that state “approval of anybody’s sexual behavior is as inappropriate and as offensive to freedom as governmental disapproval.” After endorsing equal “domestic partnership” benefits for all adults living in households—be they heterosexual, homosexual, widowed sisters, bachelor brothers, or friends—Mr. Berry adds: “Let sacraments such as marriage be the business of religion and communities.”[3]Summoning Playboy readers to social and sexual responsibility and calling on the 21st-century Democratic Party to reclaim the mantle of family protector, which it once proudly held: these are most worthy—if arguably futile—endeavors. Beyond them, though, Mr. Berry’s work carries rich insights into the nature and meaning of sexual love and procreation. Importantly, he rejects three assertions common to our era: sex can be safe; sex is a private matter; and sex should be free.

Mr. Berry responds:First, sex is not safe. As he writes in the splendid essay, “Sex, Economy, Freedom, and Community”: “Sex was never safe, and it is less safe now than it has ever been.”[4] Community customs, arrangements, and controls had existed “in part, to reduce the volatility and the danger of sex.” These controls would “preserve its energy, its beauty, and its pleasure” so that the sexual act would in turn bond husbands to wives, “parents to children, families to the community, [and] the community to nature.”[5] Whenever sex becomes “autonomous,” freed from communal restraints, and valued solely for its own sake, it also becomes “frivolous” and “destructive—even of itself.”[6]Mr. Berry considers modern sex education in the schools and concludes: “What we are actually teaching the young is an illusion of...purchasable safety, which encourages them to tamper prematurely, disrespectfully, and dangerously with a great power.”[7] Similar delusions, he contends, are found among adults. Men eagerly flock to the vasectomy clinics, convinced that the procedure is “simple” and “harmless.” For their part, infertile women desperately submit their bodies to doses of chemicals and other intrusions, oblivious to the risks involved while accepting their dangerous new status as “productive machines.”[8]

Second, sex is not private. Mr. Berry rejects the U.S. Supreme Court’s concept of a “right to sexual privacy.” He writes: “It is wrong to assume that sex carries us into a personal privacy that separates us from everything else. On the contrary, sex joins us to the world.”[9] As the foundation of the household, as the source of children, and as the primal social unit, the sexual bond of man and woman bears powerful and necessary communal obligations. The conjugal vows, for example, are said “to the community as much as to one another,” and the community comes to listen and wish the couple well “on their behalf and on its own.” In return, the community’s task is to see that these lovers “die” into their union with one another, becoming one flesh through a “momentous giving.” Mr. Berry adds: “If the community cannot protect this giving, it can protect nothing—and our time is proving that this is so.” The consequence is the squandering of “moral capital built up by centuries of community life.”[10] The unacknowledged victims of “sexual privacy” are children. He writes in "Another Turn of the Crank": I know of nothing that so strongly calls into question our ability to care for the world as our present abuse of our own reproductivity. How can we take care of other creatures, all born like ourselves from the world’s miraculous fecundity, if we have forsaken the qualities of culture and character that inform the nurture of children?

Mr. Berry muses that this indifference toward human children might be a by-product of the modern regard for productivity, since children are not very productive. Or it might be the fault of an economy that now commonly requires both parents to work outside the home. Or it might be a consequence of the broad commodification of family bonds. “Whatever the reason,” he continues, “it is a fact that we are now conducting a sort of general warfare against children, who are being aborted or abandoned, abused, drugged, bombed, neglected, poorly raised, poorly taught, and poorly disciplined.”[11] Mr. Berry also qualifies the claims of privacy relative to the body. While acknowledging the obvious “right of any person to control his or her own body,” he focuses on the limits of this right. Referring specifically to abortion, he states: “if you can control your own body only by destroying another person’s body, then control has come much too late.” On the same issue, he acknowledges the argument that the fetus is not a child until it can live outside the womb, yet responds: “every creature is surrounded by such questions of dependence and viability all its life. If we are unworthy to live as long as we are dependent on life-supporting conditions, then none of us has any rights.”[12]More broadly, Mr. Berry concludes: “In dealing with our own fertility and its consequences, we are not just carrying on personal or private ‘relationships.’ We are establishing one of the fundamental terms of our humanity and our connection to the world.”[13]

And third, sex is never free. “Sexual liberation is as much a fraud and as great a failure as the ‘peaceful atom,’” Mr. Berry declares.[14] He is equally dismissive of the idea of sex as “recreation,” or more properly “re-creation”; he writes: “thinking to claim for [sex] ‘a new place,’” advocates “only acknowledge its displacement from Creation.”[15] Free and recreational sex actually feed into the matrix of the industrial economy, where the result is superficiality. As Mr. Berry notes in a recent essay: “This is an economy, and in fact a culture, of the one-night stand. ‘I had a good time,’ says the industrial [just as the recreational] lover, ‘but don’t ask me my last name.”[16] Rather than freedom, the disintegration of the household through “sexual liberation” has produced a novel form of bondage. The new overlords, Mr. Berry says, are the sexual specialists—sex clinicians and pornographers—“[b]oth of whom subsist on the increasing possibility of sex between people who neither know nor care about each other” and who also “subsist on our failure to see any purpose or virtue in sexual discipline.” American culture grants to these “technologists of fertility” the “powers of gods and the social function of priests,” despite their scorn for community ties and cultural responsibilities.[17]

Mr. Berry’s work highlights other themes that explore sexual love and procreation. Notably, he stresses the close bond between human and agricultural fertility. An early poem, “The Broken Ground,” tells of the fertility initiated by the plow in the soil:

The opening out and out,
Body yielding body:
the breaking through
which the newcomes,
perching above its shadow....
bud opening to flower
opening to fruit opening
to the sweet marrow
of the seed.[18]

Mr. Berry underscores that physical love is not enough to sustain an intimate relationship. In order to last, human sexual life “must enflesh itself in the materiality of the world—produce food, shelter, warmth or shade, surround itself with careful acts, well made things.” True sexual love also binds these lovers into “the cycles of fertility and the seasons,” into “life and death,” where they find the “deepest solemnity” and the “highest joy.” More broadly, just as “agricultural fertility is...the survival of natural process in human order,” natural human procreativity finds its ordered setting on the small, function-rich farm.[19] Sexual love, Mr. Berry adds, also expresses the wild side of human nature. Sex is “part of the world’s wilderness; it is part of our wildness. To say that we must be careful of it is not to say that we must make it tame, but rather that we must not damage it or ourselves by ignorance or foolishness.” Put another way, this physical wildness of humans needs to be recognized, channeled, and cherished as part of our being.[20]

...

I left out the remainder of the article for brevity's sake. However, it is a cogent and accurate assessment, I believe, of how recent generations have plundered and squandered both our inheritance and posterity related to human sexuality.

Questions to fellow Triskelians:

(1) Is Berry correct in his assessment of the human sex nature?

(2) Are his assessment of the problems, their causes and solutions, correct?

(3) Do you agree/disagree that human sexuality intersects with political, societal, and economic life and, as such, not simply a private exercise between consenting individuals? Why?

Who Would Jesus Smack Down?

2009-01-12T14:27:00.002-06:00

One of my new favorite pastors to read and listen to is Mark Driscoll, a pastor in Seattle. He is a pastor who refreshingly talks about what it means to be a man while still following Jesus. On one level he teaches freedom and permissability for his church members, while on the other, he uncompromisingly preaches the Bible-no debate. His church started as a small Bible study and did not receive a salary for three years; now he pastors a church of 7,600 with multiple locations. The New York Times recently published an article about him (title above) and I thought I would include it here.

Is it refreshing to hear of Jesus in a masculine way?
Is the freedom his church promotes what our culture needs in light of the traditional view of church?
Does his stance on Calvinism weaken or strengthen his message, or D. None of the Above?

It may also be necessary to listen to some of his sermons or read some of his works.

Begin Article:
Mark Driscoll’s sermons are mostly too racy to post on GodTube, the evangelical Christian “family friendly” video-posting Web site. With titles like “Biblical Oral Sex” and “Pleasuring Your Spouse,” his clips do not stand a chance against the site’s content filters. No matter: YouTube is where Driscoll, the pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, would rather be. Unsuspecting sinners who type in popular keywords may suddenly find themselves face to face with a husky-voiced preacher in a black skateboarder’s jacket and skull T-shirt. An “Under 17 Requires Adult Permission” warning flashes before the video cuts to evening services at Mars Hill, where an anonymous audience member has just text-messaged a question to the screen onstage: “Pastor Mark, is masturbation a valid form of birth control?”

Driscoll doesn’t miss a beat: “I had one guy quote Ecclesiastes 9:10, which says, ‘Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might.’ ” The audience bursts out laughing. Next Pastor Mark is warning them about lust and exalting the confines of marriage, one hand jammed in his jeans pocket while the other waves his Bible. Even the skeptical viewer must admit that whatever Driscoll’s opinion of certain recreational activities, he has the coolest style and foulest mouth of any preacher you’ve ever seen.

Mark Driscoll is American evangelicalism’s bête noire. In little more than a decade, his ministry has grown from a living-room Bible study to a megachurch that draws about 7,600 visitors to seven campuses around Seattle each Sunday, and his books, blogs and podcasts have made him one of the most admired — and reviled — figures among evangelicals nationwide. Conservatives call Driscoll “the cussing pastor” and wish that he’d trade in his fashionably distressed jeans and taste for indie rock for a suit and tie and placid choral arrangements. Liberals wince at his hellfire theology and insistence that women submit to their husbands. But what is new about Driscoll is that he has resurrected a particular strain of fire and brimstone, one that most Americans assume died out with the Puritans: Calvinism, a theology that makes Pat Robertson seem warm and fuzzy.

At a time when the once-vaunted unity of the religious right has eroded and the mainstream media is proclaiming an “evangelical crackup,” Driscoll represents a movement to revamp the style and substance of evangelicalism. With his taste for vintage baseball caps and omnipresence on Facebook and iTunes, Driscoll, who is 38, is on the cutting edge of American pop culture. Yet his message seems radically unfashionable, even un-American: you are not captain of your soul or master of your fate but a depraved worm whose hard work and good deeds will get you nowhere, because God marked you for heaven or condemned you to hell before the beginning of time. Yet a significant number of young people in Seattle — and nationwide — say this is exactly what they want to hear. Calvinism has somehow become cool, and just as startling, this generally bookish creed has fused with a macho ethos. At Mars Hill, members say their favorite movie isn’t “Amazing Grace” or “The Chronicles of Narnia” — it’s “Fight Club.”

Mars Hill Church is the furthest thing from a Puritan meetinghouse. This is Seattle, and Mars Hill epitomizes the city that spawned it. Headquartered in a converted marine supply store, the church is a boxy gray building near the diesel-infused din of the Ballard Bridge. In the lobby one Sunday not long ago, college kids in jeans — some sporting nose rings or kitchen-sink dye jobs — lounged on ottomans and thumbed text messages to their friends. The front desk, black and slick, looked as if it ought to offer lattes rather than Bibles and membership pamphlets. Buzz-cut and tattooed security guards mumbled into their headpieces and directed the crowd toward the auditorium, where the worship band was warming up for an hour of hymns with Bruce Springsteen’s “Born to Run.”

On that Sunday, Driscoll preached for an hour and 10 minutes — nearly three times longer than most pastors. As hip as he looks, his message brooks no compromise with Seattle’s permissive culture. New members can keep their taste in music, their retro T-shirts and their intimidating facial hair, but they had better abandon their feminism, premarital sex and any “modern” interpretations of the Bible. Driscoll is adamantly not the “weepy worship dude” he associates with liberal and mainstream evangelical churches, “singing prom songs to a Jesus who is presented as a wuss who took a beating and spent a lot of time putting product in his long hair.”

The oldest of five, son of a union drywaller, Driscoll was raised Roman Catholic in a rough neighborhood on the outskirts of Seattle. In high school, he met a pretty blond pastor’s daughter named — providentially — Grace. She gave him his first Bible. He read voraciously and was born again at 19. “God talked to me,” Driscoll says. “He told me to marry Grace, preach the Bible, to plant churches and train men.” He married Grace (with whom he now has five children) and, at 25, founded Mars Hill.

God called Driscoll to preach to men — particularly young men — to save them from an American Protestantism that has emasculated Christ and driven men from church pews with praise music that sounds more like boy-band ballads crooned to Jesus than “Onward Christian Soldiers.” What bothers Driscoll — and the growing number of evangelical pastors who agree with him — is not the trope of Jesus-as-lover. After all, St. Paul tells us that the Church is the bride of Christ. What really grates is the portrayal of Jesus as a wimp, or worse. Paintings depict a gentle man embracing children and cuddling lambs. Hymns celebrate his patience and tenderness. The mainstream church, Driscoll has written, has transformed Jesus into “a Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ,” a “neutered and limp-wristed popular Sky Fairy of pop culture that . . . would never talk about sin or send anyone to hell.”

This reaction to the “feminization” of the church is not new. “The Lord save us,” declared the evangelist Billy Sunday in 1916, “from off-handed, flabby-cheeked . . . effeminate, ossified, three-carat Christianity.” In 1990 a group of pastors founded the Promise Keepers ministry dedicated to “igniting and uniting men” who were failing their families and abandoning the church. In recent years, mainstream megachurches — the mammoth pacesetters of American evangelicalism that package Christianity for mass consumption — have been criticized for replacing hard-edged Gospel with feminized pablum. According to Ed Stetzer, the director of LifeWay Research, a Southern Baptist religious polling organization, Mars Hill is “a reaction to the atheological, consumer-driven nature of the modern evangelical machine.”

The “modern evangelical machine” is a product of the 1970s and ’80s, when a new generation of business-savvy pastors developed strategies to reach unbelievers turned off by traditional worship and evangelization. Their approach was “seeker sensitive”: upon learning that many people didn’t go in for stained glass and steeples, these pastors made their churches look like shopping malls. Complex theology intimidated the curious, and talk of damnation alienated potential converts — so they played down doctrine in favor of upbeat, practical teachings on the Christian life.

These megachurches, like Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church in Houston and Bill Hybels’s Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois, have come to symbolize American evangelicalism. By any quantitative measure they are wildly successful, and their values and methods have diffused into the evangelical bloodstream. Yet some megachurches have begun to admit what critics maintained all along: numbers are not everything. In the fall of 2007, leaders of Willow Creek sent shockwaves through the evangelical world when they announced the results of a study in which churchgoers reported feeling stagnant in their faith and frustrated with slick, program-driven pastors. “As an evangelical, I would say this tells us something,” Stetzer says. “The center is not holding.”

Mars Hill has not entirely dispensed with megachurch marketing tactics. Its success in one of the most liberal and least-churched cities in America depends on being sensitive to the body-pierced and latte-drinking seekers of Seattle. Ultimately, however, Driscoll’s theology means that his congregants’ salvation is not in his hands. It’s not in their own hands, either — this is the heart of Calvinism.

Human beings are totally corrupted by original sin and predestined for heaven or hell, no matter their earthly conduct. We all deserve eternal damnation, but God, in his inscrutable mercy, has granted the grace of salvation to an elect few. While John Calvin’s 16th-century doctrines have deep roots in Christian tradition, they strike many modern evangelicals as nonsensical and even un-Christian. If predestination is true, they argue, then there is no point in missions to the unsaved or in leading a godly life. And some babies who die in infancy — if God placed them among the reprobate — go straight to hell with the rest of the damned, to “glorify his name by their own destruction,” as Calvin wrote. Since the early 19th century, most evangelicals have preferred a theology that stresses the believer’s free decision to accept God’s grace. To be born again is a choice God wants you to make; if you so choose, Jesus will be your personal friend.

Yet Driscoll is not an isolated eccentric. Over the past two decades, preachers in places as far-flung as Minneapolis and Washington, D.C., in denominations ranging from Baptist to Pentecostal, are pushing “this new, aggressive, mission-minded Calvinism that really believes Calvinism is a transcript of the Gospel,” according to Roger Olson, a professor of theology at Baylor University. They have harnessed the Internet to recruit new believers, especially young people. Any curious seeker can find his way into a world of sermon podcasts and treatises by the Protestant Reformers and English Puritans, whose abstruse writings, though far from best-selling, are enjoying something of a renaissance. New converts stay in touch via blogs and Facebook groups with names like “John Calvin Is My Homeboy” and “Calvinism: The Group That Chooses You.”

New Calvinists are still relatively few in number, but that doesn’t bother them: being a persecuted minority proves you are among the elect. They are not “the next big thing” but a protest movement, defying an evangelical mainstream that, they believe, has gone soft on sin and has watered down the Gospel into a glorified self-help program. In part, Calvinism appeals because — like Mars Hill’s music and Driscoll’s frank sermons — the message is raw and disconcerting: seeker insensitive.

Most people who attend Mars Hill do not see themselves as theological radicals. Mark Driscoll is just “Pastor Mark,” not the New Calvinist warrior demonized on evangelical and liberal blogs. Yet while some initially come for mundane reasons — their friends attend; they like the music — the Calvinist theology is often the glue that keeps them in their seats. They call the preaching “authentic” and “true to life.” Traditional evangelical theology falls apart in the face of real tragedy, says the 20-year-old Brett Harris, who runs an evangelical teen blog with his twin brother, Alex. Reducing God to a projection of our own wishes trivializes divine sovereignty and fails to explain how both good and evil have a place in the divine plan. “There are plenty of comfortable people who can say, ‘God’s on my side,’ ” Harris says. “But they couldn’t turn around and say, ‘God gave me cancer.’ ”

Though they believe that God has already mapped out their lives, Calvinists have always been activists. Ye shall know the elect by their fruits, not by their passive acceptance of fate. When it comes to wrestling with life’s challenges, however, they reject the “positive thinking” ethos that Norman Vincent Peale made famous in the 1950s. That philosophy still dominates the Christian self-help market in books like “Your Best Life Now” by Joel Osteen, which promises readers that everything from a Hawaiian vacation house to a beauty-pageant crown is within their grasp if only they “develop a can-do attitude.” Marianne Esterly, a women’s counselor at Mars Hill, says she tries to help women resist the desperation that can come with forgetting that man’s chief end is to glorify God, not to obsess over earthly problems. “They worship the trauma, or the anorexia, and that’s not what they’re designed to worship,” she says. “Christian self-help doesn’t work. We can’t do anything. It’s all the work of Christ.”

Calvinism is a theology predicated on paradox: God has predestined every human being’s actions, yet we are still to blame for our sins; we are totally depraved, yet held to the impossible standard of divine law. These teachings do not jibe with Enlightenment ideas about human capacity, yet they have appealed to a wide range of modern intellectuals, especially those who stressed the dangers of human hubris in the wake of World War I.

Driscoll found his way into this tradition largely on his own. He recently earned a master’s degree through an independent-study program he arranged at a seminary in Portland, Ore. Years ago, paperback reprints of old Puritan treatises in the corner of a local bookstore piqued his interest in Reformation theology. He came to admire Martin Luther, the vulgar, beer-swilling theological rebel who sparked the Reformation. “I found him to be something of a mentor,” Driscoll says. “I didn’t have all the baggage he did. But you can see him with a quill in one hand and a drink in the other. He married a brewer and renegade nun. His story is kind of indie rock.”

Driscoll disdains the prohibitions of traditional evangelical Christianity. Taboos on alcohol, smoking, swearing and violent movies have done much to shape American Protestant culture — a culture that he has called the domain of “chicks and some chickified dudes with limp wrists.” Moreover, the Bible tells him that to seek salvation by self-righteous clean living is to behave like a Pharisee. Unlike fundamentalists who isolate themselves, creating “a separate culture where you live in a Christian cul-de-sac,” as one spiky-haired member named Andrew Pack puts it, Mars Hillians pride themselves on friendships with non-Christians. They tend to be cultural activists who play in rock bands and care about the arts, living out a long Reformed tradition that asserts Christ’s mandate over every corner of creation.

Like many New Calvinists, Driscoll advocates traditional gender roles, called “complementarianism” in theological parlance. Men and women are “equal spiritually, and it’s a difference of functionality, not intrinsic worth,” says Danielle Blazer, a 34-year-old Mars Hill member. Women may work outside the home, but they must submit to their husbands, and they are forbidden from taking on preaching roles in the church.

“It’s only since women have been in church leadership that this backlash has come,” says the Seattle pastor Katie Ladd, a liberal Methodist who holds that declaring Jesus a “masculine dude” subverts the transformative message of the Gospel. But New Calvinists argue that traditional gender roles are true to the Bible, especially the letters of Paul. Moreover, embedded in the notion of Adam as the “federal head” of the human race is the idea of man as head of the home.

Nowhere is the connection between Driscoll’s hypermasculinity and his Calvinist theology clearer than in his refusal to tolerate opposition at Mars Hill. The Reformed tradition’s resistance to compromise and emphasis on the purity of the worshipping community has always contained the seeds of authoritarianism: John Calvin had heretics burned at the stake and made a man who casually criticized him at a dinner party march through the streets of Geneva, kneeling at every intersection to beg forgiveness. Mars Hill is not 16th-century Geneva, but Driscoll has little patience for dissent. In 2007, two elders protested a plan to reorganize the church that, according to critics, consolidated power in the hands of Driscoll and his closest aides. Driscoll told the congregation that he asked advice on how to handle stubborn subordinates from a “mixed martial artist and Ultimate Fighter, good guy” who attends Mars Hill. “His answer was brilliant,” Driscoll reported. “He said, ‘I break their nose.’ ” When one of the renegade elders refused to repent, the church leadership ordered members to shun him. One member complained on an online message board and instantly found his membership privileges suspended. “They are sinning through questioning,” Driscoll preached. John Calvin couldn’t have said it better himself.

Most members, however, didn’t join Mars Hill in order to ask questions. Damon Conklin, who is 41 and runs a tattoo parlor, says he joined Mars Hill because Driscoll made his life make sense — and didn’t ask him to pretend to be someone he wasn’t. “I decided to stop smoking crack and drinking every day,” Conklin says. “I had to find some kind of God in order to do that.” He hated the churches he visited: “I would show up looking as mean as possible, with my Afro blown out, wearing a wife-beater, and then I’d say, ‘Why don’t they like me?’ Then I went to Mars Hill, and I believed Mark.”

Driscoll’s theology “changed how I view women,” Conklin says. He quit going to strip clubs and now refuses to tattoo others with his old specialty, pinup girls (though he still wears two on one arm, souvenirs from earlier, godless days). Mars Hill counts four of the city’s top tattoo artists among its members (and many of their clientele — that afternoon, Conklin was expecting a fellow church member who wanted a portrait of Christ enthroned across his back). While other churches left people like Conklin feeling alienated, Mars Hill has made them its missionaries. “Some people say, ‘You’re pretty cool and you’re a Christian, so I guess I can’t hate all of them anymore,’ ” he says. “I understand where they’re coming from.”

Mars Hill — with its conservative social teachings embedded in guitar solos and drum riffs, its megachurch presence in the heart of bohemian skepticism — thrives on paradox. Critics on the left and right alike predict that this delicate balance of opposites cannot last. Some are skeptical of a church so bent on staying perpetually “hip”: members have only recently begun to marry and have children, but surely those children will grow up, grow too cool for their cool church and rebel. Others say that Driscoll’s ego and taste for controversy will be Mars Hill’s Achilles’ heel. Lately he has made a concerted effort to tone down his language, and he insists that he has delegated much authority, but the heart of his message has not changed. Driscoll is still the one who gazes down upon Mars Hill’s seven congregations most Sundays, his sermons broadcast from the main campus to jumbo-size projection screens around the city. At one suburban campus that I visited, a huge yellow cross dominated center stage — until the projection screen unfurled and Driscoll’s face blocked the cross from view. Driscoll’s New Calvinism underscores a curious fact: the doctrine of total human depravity has always had a funny way of emboldening, rather than humbling, its adherents.

Paging General Gupta

2009-01-06T19:43:00.006-06:00

Ironically, one of Barack Obama’s most recent and one of his highest profile appointments is for what is considered by most in Washington to be an impotent position. Today it was reported on CNN that Emory University Neurosurgeon and CNN Chief Health Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, MD will be Obama’s choice for Surgeon General of the United States.

While I cannot attest to Dr. Gupta’s political beliefs, I do feel that he was an excellent choice for the country’s top healthcare post. He is a renowned clinician and has prior experience in healthcare related politics, being selected as White House fellow and advisor to then First Lady Hillary Clinton, during the Clinton Administration. I had an opportunity to meet Dr. Gupta in Washington, D.C., when he hosted the National Obesity Summitt where I served as a delegate.

His selection is being praised because given the healthcare crisis in America he is expected to elevate the obscure role and become an important advocate for health in our country.

I’d like to pose some questions:

1. Do you feel the Surgeon General’s role is mainly symbolic, or do you feel past Surgeons General have played a fundamental role in shaping the health of the nation to this point?

2. Should the Office of the Surgeon General carry more authority with it? Do you think it should be elevated to Cabinet level rank?

3. Is Dr. Gupta a good choice for the office, or is he simply another nod by the Obama team to “Hollywood” and the liberal media elite?

There Are Consequences To Being Chosen

2009-01-02T03:21:00.004-06:00

What if all through your life, you had met or crossed paths with people, and never gave it a second thought. What if your life were normal, or you were running from somthing, or you were simply on a trip...when your life as you know it ended. And by chance, or by fate, you were one of a handfull of people who survived a massive accident, stranding you on an island that for inexplicable reasons cannot be charted or found by the outside world.

What if the island seemed capable of all sorts of things. People who were sick begin to heal. Some people vanish without a trace. Strange animals that have no good reason to be there are. A strange, persistent entity is always watching. Things are found that testify to a long-waged war for the island between two ruthless groups of people, who will stop at nothing to take or to protect it.

And what if the lives of the people you meet there were somehow connected to your own...often in ways you may never understand. What if you were all the final pieces to a puzzle, one that is very nearly unlocked.

But there are those who will kill you for being there, or for trying to leave, or for who you are. There are consequences to being chosen. And you must come to understand that some things are more important than life itself. Even if that something is for many, just an island.

In 19 days, the premiere episode of LOST begins. It has for me been the best television series I have ever watched, and yes, that is me comparing it to Battlestar Galactica (though a very close second), all the incarnations of Star Trek, the X-Files, and a panopoly of dozens of other shows that have kept me guessing and watching over the years. But LOST is different. It is arguably the most complex, fully-realized mythology ever aired on television. And there are two seasons left. The creators knew where they were going from the beginning, and nothing is as satisfying as a tale that begins with the ending in mind.

I have watched dozens of trailers for season 5 online, and have selected three below that are, I think, the best out there. One is an official trailer, while two are made by fans. I selected them (and the order in which I placed them) for the uninitiated, as they reveal quite a bit, but the viewer who hasn't watched LOST won't realize the significance of what they are seeing, other than hopefully to get a taste of the scale of the story.

Seasons 1 - 4 are available for purchase, rent, or via abc.com's full-length episode database here. You have 19 days to catch up, or just to get started...as you can always watch the season 5 episodes online after the season starts.

For those who know me best, I would say the only thing that comes close is reading Stephen King's Dark Tower or J.K. Rowling's tales of Harry Potter.

Pornography: A Growing Epidemic

2008-12-16T12:13:00.003-06:00

This is a very different post from the political dialogue I usually engage in. What is involved in this article is a very personal topic and will highly depend on individual convictions. The first question I will raise is, is pornography a problem in our society. My answer is a quick yes. Here are some startling statistics
(http://wsr.byu.edu/content/view/2591/).

Size of the Industry $57.0 billion world-wide - $12.0 billion US
Adult Videos $20.0 billion
Escort Services $11.0 billion
Magazines $ 7.5 billion
Sex Clubs $ 5.0 billion
Phone Sex $ 4.5 billion
Cable & Pay Per View $ 2.5 billion
Internet $ 2.5 billion
CD-Rom $ 1.5 billion
Novelties $ 1.0 billion
Other $ 1.5 billion
-Porn revenue is larger than all combined revenues of all professional football, baseball and basketball franchises.
-US porn revenue exceeds the combined revenues of ABC, CBS, and NBC (6.2 billion)
-Child pornography generates $3 billion annually

Internet Porn Statistics
-Pornographic websites 4.2 million (12% of total websites)
-Pornographic pages 372 million
-Daily pornographic search engine requests 68 million (25% of total search engine requests)
-Daily pornographic emails 2.5 billion (8% of total emails)
-Average daily pornographic emails/user 4.5 per Internet user
-Monthly Pornographic downloads (Peer-to-peer) 1.5 billion (35% of all downloads)
-Daily Gnutella “child pornography” requests 116 thousand
-Websites offering illegal child pornography 100 thousand
-Sexual solicitations of youth made in chat rooms 89%
-Youths who received sexual solicitation 20%
-Worldwide visitors to pornographic web sites 72 million annually

Children's Exposure to Pornography
-Average age of first Internet exposure to pornography 11 years old
-Largest consumer of Internet pornography 12-17 age group
-15-17 year olds having multiple hard-core exposures 80%
-8-16 year olds having viewed porn online 90% (most while doing homework)
-7-17 year olds who would freely give out home address 29%
-7-17 year olds who would freely give out email address 14%
-Children's characters linked to thousands of porn links 26 (including Pokeman and Action Man)

Adult Internet Porn Statistics
-Men admitting to accessing pornography at work 20%
-US adults who regularly visit Internet pornography websites 40 million
-Promise Keeper men who viewed pornography in last week 53%
-Christians who said pornography is a major problem in the home 47%
-Adults admitting to Internet sexual addiction 10%
-Breakdown of male/female visitors to pornography sites 72% male - 28% female

Women and Pornography
-13% of Women admit to accessing pornography at work.
-70% of women keep their cyber activities secret.
-17% of all women struggle with pornography addiction.
-Women, far more than men, are likely to act out their behaviors in real life, such as having multiple partners, casual sex, or affairs.
-Women favor chat rooms 2X more than men.
-1 of 3 visitors to all adult web sites are women.
-9.4 million women access adult web sites each month.

The porn industry is a thriving business. It not only affects men as is commonly thought; it also affects women and children. This is a growing worldwide epidemic. Many may disagree with me. I am not here to brow beat anyone with the Bible, etc. What I would like to do is offer a discussion to hear others thoughts on it.

Pornography is a manipulation of reality; it is very deceptive. It perverts the minds of people into thinking sex is a particular way. In fact, there is a growing correlation with internet pornography and divorce. www.infedilityassistance.com states, "Spouses who get hooked on Internet porn are a growing complaint among spouses filing for divorce, according to a survey of 350 divorce attorneys. 'If there's dissatisfaction in the existing relationship, the Internet is an easy way for people to scratch the itch,' said lawyer J. Lindsey Short, Jr., president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, which conducted the study."

Pornography, I believe, is very harmful. If one would simply look at the state of the industry itself it should not be hard to figure it out. Shelley Luben, a former Porn actress, is now trying to help people better understand what is like and is trying to help performers get out of the industry. In her article "Ex-Porn Star Tells the Truth About the Porn Industry," she cites some very disturbing information. STD's are rampant. She gives the statistics that "among 825 porn performers screened in 2000–2001, 7.7% of females and 5.5% of males had Chlamydia and 2% overall had gonorrhea. Dr. Sharon Mitchell confirms the STD prevalence in an interview with Court TV, in which she states: '66% of porn performers have Herpes, 12-28% have sexually transmitted diseases and 7% have HIV.'" Most porn stars are also heavily involved in prostitution and escort services where they are further exposed to STD's and are often abused.

Drug abuse is also very prevalent for the performers. "Porn actress Erin Moore admits, 'the drugs we binged on were Ecstasy, Cocaine, Marijuana, Xanax, Valium, Vicodin and alcohol.'" This is also largely due to the abuse many of them face. "In one study 100% of the strippers reported some kind of physical or verbal abuse on their jobs. Verbal abuse by customers is extremely common with 91% reporting incidents. They were routinely called degrading names. Besides the verbal abuse, all endured some type of physical abuse on the job. Despite the fact that it is illegal to touch a stripper, strippers reported that customers grabbed them by the arm (8%), grabbed their breast (73%), or their buttock (91%). Customers at strip clubs often assault the women. Customers pulled their hair (27%), pinched them (58%), slapped them (24%), or bit them (36%). They are often attacked in the strip club in front of bodyguards and other audience members." Tanya Burleson, formerly known as Jersey Jaxin, says, “Guys are punching you in the face. You get ripped. Your insides can come out of you. It’s never ending. You’re viewed as an object—not as a human with a spirit. People do drugs because they can’t deal with the way they’re being treated.” For the full article see: http://www.covenanteyes.com/blog/2008/10/28/ex-porn-star-tells-the-truth-about-the-porn-industry/

This is a very violent and degrading industry. It is from things like this where women are viewed, and some men I guess, as objects to fulfill sexual fantasies. In reality, women could never actually look like many of these performers nor would they or could they act like many of these performances. As a result, marriages and relationships calapse because an actual person could never fulfill expectations developed. Too often, men find more fulfillment in virtual than they do their own wives. Not only this, but there is also a lot of violence that stems from such imagery. My first example is stated above in the abuse many of these performers experience.

Second, sadly, most women who enter into prostitution or some sexually related field have been abused as children. 90% of women who go into prostitution were molested as children (The Prostitution of Women and Girls By Ronald B. Flowers). The statistic is the same for strippers. I have heard one person put it, if you view a woman who is unclothed and she has a tattoo saying "Daddy's Girl," that may very well be true. This person also stated, rather than view this person as an object of lust, instead ask if it was the girl's father or uncle? Let's try and call the situation as it is.

Third, I provide an extreme case from an interview James Dobson had with Ted Bundy, the executed serial killer who beat, raped, and murdered more than 30 girls. He states in this interview that it started with pornography. Here are some excerpts:
Ted: Before we go any further, it is important to me that people believe what I'm saying. I'm not blaming pornography. I'm not saying it caused me to go out and do certain things. I take full responsibility for all the things that I've done. That's not the question here. The issue is how this kind of literature contributed and helped mold and shape the kinds of violent behavior.

James Dobson (JCD): It fueled your fantasies.

Ted: In the beginning, it fuels this kind of thought process. Then, at a certain time, it is instrumental in crystallizing it, making it into something that is almost a separate entity inside.

JCD: You had gone about as far as you could go in your own fantasy life, with printed material, photos, videos, etc., and then there was the urge to take that step over to a physical event.

Ted: Once you become addicted to it, and I look at this as a kind of addiction, you look for more potent, more explicit, more graphic kinds of material. Like an addiction, you keep craving something which is harder and gives you a greater sense of excitement, until you reach the point where the pornography only goes so far - that jumping off point where you begin to think maybe actually doing it will give you that which is just beyond reading about it and looking at it.

JCD: How long did you stay at that point before you actually assaulted someone?

Ted: A couple of years. I was dealing with very strong inhibitions against criminal and violent behavior. That had been conditioned and bred into me from my neighborhood, environment, church, and schools.

I knew it was wrong to think about it, and certainly, to do it was wrong. I was on the edge, and the last vestiges of restraint were being tested constantly, and assailed through the kind of fantasy life that was fueled, largely, by pornography.

JCD: Do you remember what pushed you over that edge? Do you remember the decision to "go for it"? Do you remember where you decided to throw caution to the wind?

Ted: It's a very difficult thing to describe - the sensation of reaching that point where I knew I couldn't control it anymore. The barriers I had learned as a child were not enough to hold me back from seeking out and harming somebody.

JCD: Would it be accurate to call that a sexual frenzy?

Ted: That's one way to describe it - a compulsion, a building up of this destructive energy. Another fact I haven't mentioned is the use of alcohol. In conjunction with my exposure to pornography, alcohol reduced my inhibitions and pornography eroded them further.

The rest is history. This is not a glorified industry like so many people think. Instead it is a tragedy. I know this is a very personal topic and much of it depends on a person's personal convictions. I am not saying that the government needs to regulate this for all people, although they should help find ways to extinguish child exposure, but I would like to try and appeal to each person's conscience.

So, my first question, is pornography a problem?

Second question, if it is a problem, then what are some solutions? I will save the rest of my thoughts for now.

How Will Obama Lead?

2008-12-16T12:10:00.004-06:00

Thus far, Obama has interacted with a number of world leaders, mainly concerning economic issues and climate control. At the same time, even many of the United States' enemies has expressed goodwill towards our new President. So, I wonder: how will Obama discern between those who are truly expressing goodwill and cooperation and those who will try and exploit the new President and take advantage of his new station and inexperience? The inexperience I refer to is not so much a slam but also a reality.

While many may applaud him for bringing more acceptance of the US in the world's view, a fair question can be asked as to the intent of these interactions. New leadership opens the door for new opportunities to establish relations with the US. I pray that Obama's desire for peace and cooperation does not compromise what we should stand for as a country. His desire for better relationships with the world is both commendable and dangerous. While his desire is appropriate, he must operate with caution that other world leaders do not take advantage of his own good will.

Are You Watching?

2008-12-08T01:07:00.001-06:00

Here is the latest version of the trailer for the upcoming Watchmen movie.

Enjoy...

The Clinton Consideration-Obama Puts His Pieces in Play

2008-11-15T21:36:00.005-06:00

I wanted to stay from politics for a while, but I had to address this if only in brief. It has been rumored by a leak in the Obama camp that Hillary might be offered the position of Secretary of State. This brings up an interesting conversation. First of all, despite the Clinton’s campaigning for Obama, I would venture a guess that it was more about party loyalty than anything else. After the aggressive debate between Clinton and Obama it is hard to imagine Clinton actually wanting to be a direct subordinate for Obama or settling for the position of Secretary of State.

Assuming she is offered the position (it hasn’t happened yet, or rather it hasn't been confirmed to my satisfaction), I considered the following:

1) She says no, and may be it’s offered to Bill Richardson. I think he would be a good choice. Then I consider that if Sen. Clinton accepted any Cabinet position it would have to be Sec. of State. I think she would consider anything else to be beneath her.

2) She says yes, and may be Obama can offer Richardson another post. I like this idea, because it offers the possibility of setting up his administration with an all-star cast.

I can understand her unwillingness if the position is offered. She obviously has higher aspirations. Then again, she is 61 years old. If Obama does well then he may run again. If not, she may still have to contend with Biden. She may never get to run again. If she does, wouldn’t this be nice to add to her resumé?

The main talking point I would bring up is this:

Obama is our president-elect, and he may very well call on her for this position. I am not implying that her patriotism is in question, because she would still be a senator with an excellent record of service. However, I think if she says no it would be a testament to Clinton pride. I really respect Senator Clinton. I am one of her biggest fans, but if she were to turn down a post worthy of her talent (I think Secretary of State is just such a post), I would be more than disappointed. The bottom line is that when your president calls on you then you better have a legitimate reason for saying no.

Your thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15obama.html?em

Smart and Smarter

2008-11-11T00:10:00.007-06:00

Smart and Smarter:
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and
The Privileged Planet
Call for Free Academic Inquiry

“Admitting our biases is the best way toward rational discussion…which I welcome.” Scientist interviewed by Stein in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

I read Gonzalez’s and Richard’s The Privileged Planet this summer and hope to do it more justice in a later article. However, having just completed the inimitable Mr. Stein’s documentary/propaganda piece (according to your persuasion), I wanted to jump-start this topic.

The kernel of both pieces is that science, particularly a vigorous observation and analytical-based version, demands freedom of inquiry, the ability to look at all possible answers. This obviously doesn’t preclude religiously-motivated or oriented answers, or so ID proponents argue. In addition, the authors and producers of these pieces propose that there is much to be gained from not setting faith as a dichotomy against science but to see the two as complementary and mutually dependent on understanding the ultimate purpose and workings of life.

Ben Stein acts as the supporter-come-late to the ID (intelligent design) movement, meeting with a coterie of distinguished scientists, primarily biologists it seems, who live on both sides of the Darwinian evolution-ID issue. His dead-pan delivery and seeming disinterested questioning of scientists around the world give the viewer the opportunity to process their comments.

I especially found fitting the examination, even if only cursory, of the proposed logical outcomes of Darwinism in social settings. Looking at the writings and actions of Hitler and Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood), among others, it was telling to see these individuals’ ideas coming home to roost in the devaluing, sterilization, and murdering of millions of people in the US, Germany, and elsewhere—with at least the ostensible reason of natural selection as the goal. Stein’s visit to Dachau and a mental infirmary in Germany (where 15,000 handicapped people were gassed, 70 at a time, Monday through Friday, under the Nazis) were chilling.

The following two quotes, one from a Nazi propaganda film and the other from Darwin’s Descent of Man (you guess which is which), were both given as examples of how the National Socialist agenda was at least partially indebted in its philosophy and practice to Darwin and his supporters.

With savages, the weak in body and mind are soon eliminated; and those that
survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the
other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums
for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our
medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last
moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands who,
from a weak constitution, would formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the
weak members of civilised society propagate their kind.

No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt
that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon
a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a
domestic race; but, excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so
ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an
incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as
part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered in the manner previously
indicated more tender and more widely diffused. Nor can we check our sympathy,
even without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature ... We must,
therefore, bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and
propagating their kind.’ [Only the first paragraph was included in the film; I
found the rest online to put the first paragraph more in context.]
And then, our second entry:

All that is non-viable in nature invariably perishes. We humans have
transgressed the law of natural selection in the last decades. Not only have we
supported inferior life forms…We have encouraged their propagation. The
offspring of these sick people [flashes to pictures of mentally-handicapped
people] looked like this. Individuals who were lower than animals.

Kind of hard to tell which is which, eh?

Granted, the documentary isn’t the most solid perhaps in setting all of the fact and conversations on the table. Maybe some or all of the interviews were not done as honestly as possible (check out http://www.expelledexposed.com/ for the National Council of Science Education’s, an energetic foe of ID and creationism, version of the movie). I do give kudos, however, to the producers of this movie for at least getting on tape the comments that these guys made. I can’t resist; here’s a couple of others dealing with the apparent absolute divide between religion and science/sanity.

--“Religion is just fantasy basically…[chuckles] and is evil as well.” Dr. Peter Atkins, Professor of Chemistry, Oxford

--“Religion is an idea that gives some people comfort…like knitting. We’re not going to take away their knitting needles. We’re not going to take away their churches. What we need to do is to get it the level where it [religion] should be treated, something that is fun, that people get together to do on the weekend, and that doesn’t affect much as it has so far.” Dr. PZ Myers, U of Minnesota Morris professor and producer of the noted Pharyngula blog. Once wrote, “Screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.” http://web.archive.org/web/20070420142719/http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/perspective/

--“It [religion] starts to give up an active deity. Then it gives up the hope of any life after death. When you give those two up, the others follow relatively easy. You give up the hope of imminent morality…You can’t hope for any free will…any deep meaning in life. You’re here today and gone tomorrow. That’s all there is to it.” Dr. W.B. Provine, professor of history and biology at Cornell (originally raised in fundamentalist TN), in describing his personal, logical steps of conversion to atheism from Christianity. I thought that it was fascinating that in the film’s introduction, he termed ID as “incredibly boring.” And this is his alternative--nothing?

--When I discovered Darwinism…this magnificent explanation killed off my religious faith.” Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and candid L’enfant-terrible of the atheist camp

Basically, I came away with a lot more confidence that Darwinism’s days are numbered and is only still around because its proponents’ careers, reputations, and worldview systems are rooted in it. Just as science has had to shift in other areas with new discoveries, I believe that the life sciences are not too far from this precipice as well. However, as one aged, Israeli scientist poignantly noted (as Stein and another experienced scientist strolled next to the remains of the Berlin Wall), “There’s a boundary to what science [academia] will accept right now…There is academic freedom as long as you are on the right side [of the wall]. If you aren’t, you lose tenure, and that’s a guarantee. To which the other scientist later replies, “It would be nice to let the scientific establishment lose some of its power.”

I’m not going to post much here about The Privileged Planet here except to mention that its interviewed author, Gonzalez, is noted as having experienced living on “the other side of the wall.” His case has given him somewhat of a celebrity status in some circles as having been denied tenure for somewhat dubious reasons at Iowa State. (I actually had a friend working on his legal case last year before Gonzalez exhausted his final appeal.) There were the usual reasons (given for most ‘persecuted’ ID academics) that he hadn’t published enough articles, work had been substandard, and that his dismissal had been procedural and perfectly justifiable. It is hard, however, to argue when the pro-Darwinian scientific establishment writes all of the rules and holds all of the cards, including controlling virtually all peer-reviewed, nationally and globally-recognized publications and grants. And it is supposed to be surprising when Gonzalez’s publications begin tapering off after his ID-supporting The Privileged Planet was published? Please.

In closing, here are a few talking points that I’m posing for discussion:

1. Should Intelligent Design be given a hearing in academia as well as secondary and primary education? Why or why not.

2. Is Darwinian evolution (defined here as the changing of life forms from one species into a new one, or, taken from Darwin’s magnum opus, the origin of all living organisms from a single, initial cell) a sacrosanct, scientifically-proven theory (defined here as fact) and beyond question? Or, should it be held up to the same rigors as the theories of Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, Harvey, Newton, Einstein, Hubble, Watson/Crick?

3. What ramifications do the ideas of Darwinian evolution/ID have on greater society, if any?

4. How does one reconcile one’s faith (which presumably cannot be proved scientifically) with science (which presumably cannot explain faith)?

5. Should Ben Stein stick to giving away his money and setting up Jimmy Kimmel for future stardom?

Here are a few of the sites that I checked for facts and information. Each has links to other sites as well. You can also find a lot just by googling the names of the more prominent individuals on either side of the debate.

http://www.academicfreedompetition.com/ (hosted by the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed people)

http://www.expelledexposed.com/ (funded by the NCSE, a foil to ID’ers and Expelled film)

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/ (links to conversations about ID)

A Loser's Thoughts

2008-11-04T22:59:00.002-06:00

So, I cannot say I am not disappointed with the outcome of our election. I will not be one of those Republicans who think this is the end of our country as we know it. Our country has faced some tremendous leaders and some of the worst; yet, through both high and low our country has persevered.

So here are some thoughts, from a conservative on what this means and could mean for our country. I have questions I think are worth discussing as well. So here goes.

First, I hope the label of racism can be put to rest in our country. I am not saying our country is completely void of racism, sadly that will probably never happen. However, our country has clearly spoken tonight that the fact a man is an African American does not disqualify him from serving our country in the highest office it holds. Both white, black, hispanic, asian, jewish, etc. made their voices heard. Sadly, I have already heard many comentators comment on how Obama would have won more states if it were not for racism. Please let us put this to rest.

Second, for those of democrat views, you have what you wanted: a Democrat as President and a majority in Congress. This will come with much joy, but also a tremendous amount of responsibility for those in office. No longer will Bush be there to blame for the issues of our country (although I am sure he will get it some how). The fact of the matter is they will virtually have control of our country and the results of what is produced SHOULD fall on their shoulders. On a similar note, I wonder how Obama will be praised when the economy does pick up, because whether or not McCain or Obama had won, the economy will recover because we are America!!! This is what the economy does. We make mistakes and rebound. I hope Obama is able to be successful as he does seek to turn the economy around though. I hope I am wrong and people like Harlequin, Aiden, and Gaius are right. Because if Obama's change is not the right kind of change, will we be able to right the ship? Time will only tell. I say this for the good of our beloved country.

Third, I am curious about the developments of this election. I know Bush has not been a great President, but Democrats have also ruled Congress for the last 6 years. They in fact have the lowest approval rating in our country's history.

Here is a link to an article discussing this: http://www.gallup.com/poll/107242/congress-approval-rating-ties-lowest-gallup-records.aspx.

Now, I understand that Congress' approval rating usually trails the President's, but the Democratic party has successfully convinced the people that the problems in our country are Republican problems. I acknowledge that they have contributed, but where is the blame of the Democrats? Now the Congress with the lowest approval rating (tied with the lowest) in our nation's history has no Republican President to balance the scale. Does this concern anyone? Our country is now led by leaders Palosi, Reed, and Obama. This does bring me great concern.

These are a few brief thoughts that run through my mind as the leadership of our country goes through this drastic change. I am not a fan of Barak Obama. I strongly disagree with his policies he is planning to apply to our country, especially his plan for national healthcare (this just simply has not worked in other countries, i.e. Canada). Although this is the case, I will say is that it is still amazing to witness the first African American President of the United States. I have enjoyed our discussions throughout this election and have learned a lot about defending my position as well as respecting and challenging the thoughts of others. I am sure we will continue to discuss many of these issues as they turn from promises into practices.

On another note, my heart breaks for President Obama as his grandmother was not there to witness what I am sure she longed to see. My thoughts and prayers go to his family.

Ladies and gentlemen, the election is finally over. May God continue to bless our country so that we can be a blessing to others.

Election Day!

2008-11-04T08:50:00.006-06:00

Today is the day to exercise your right to vote if you have not already! It is finally here! If you want to know my opinions about the election, I wrote an article on my Mars Hill blog. That blog is on this site's blog roll (Check it out!).

I apologize for not writing in the past few weeks. I have been having some technical difficulties in posting articles. I am very happy that today is election day. I will be interested to see how this blog evolves once the dust settles in this election. What is my prediction?

Obama: 338 (squeaks by in Ohio and Florida to win handily in the electoral college)

McCain: 200 (losing Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Florida puts the nail in the coffin, Missouri loses its bellweather status)

I will see you on the other side of the election!

Is McCain a True Capitalist?

2008-10-24T09:37:00.005-05:00

We have had some healthy discussion on capitalism and socialism. Diakonou and Kade have both interjected concerns that Obama is socialist while Aiden and myself feel that is a gross over-generalization. Below I have submitted an article that discusses how McCain's is quick to call Obama a socialistwhen some of his own tendencies haven't been much different. To name a couple:

1)McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts claiming that the middle class was more deserving of help. That is pretty much Obama is saying now, but McCain, in an effort to reach to the fartherest of right voters, has changed his opinion.

2)McCain's $5,000 tax credits go to families regardless of their employment status. That is socialist by McCain's standard, and also very much like welfare.

I am primarily concerned with the first point. Why is it that Obama is supporting the same thing McCain supported under Bush looked upon so differently now?

MCCAIN'S 'SOCIALIST' FALLACY
by

Kirsten Powers

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10242008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/mccains_socialist_fallacy_135043.htm

ONCE the McCain campaign said Barack Obama was a ter rorist sympathizer, we should've have known "socialist" was next.

Ever since Obama told "Joe the Plumber" that we should "spread the wealth," John McCain and Sarah Palin have taken to blasting Obama's tax plan as a socialist plot.

Socialism involves collective ownership of the means of economic production and similar institutional "sharing of the wealth." Nothing Obama has proposed comes close to that. (Instead, the Bush administration is virtually nationalizing the banks.)

What McCain calls socialism is actually just old-fashioned progressive taxation - taxing the wealthy at higher rates than the poor. It underlies most of US tax policy - so mainstream that one of its biggest defenders has been . . . John McCain.

Debating in Michigan during the 2000 primaries, McCain warned: "There's a growing gap between the haves and have-nots in America, and that gap is growing, and it's unfortunately divided up along ethnic lines."

That same year, McCain said on "Meet the Press": "Many studies have indicated that . . . the people who need . . . the relief most are working middle-income Americans and that's what I want to give to them." In an ad, he promised: "There's one big difference between me and the others - I won't take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy." Socialist!

In fact, McCain is such a socialist that he voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, complaining that they unfairly favored the rich "at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief."

The McCain campaign has also bizarrely begun calling Obama's tax credits "welfare." For example, Obama's refundable tax credit for mortgage payments originally went to everyone, even if they didn't work. Responding to the "welfare" charge, Obama has added a work requirement - so now retirees won't benefit from the tax credit. Thanks, Sen. McCain.

It also looks like McCain is pushing a little "welfare" of his own: The centerpiece of his health care plan is a $5,000 tax credit to families. This goes to people regardless of their employment status. Socialist!

Sure, the credit just replaces today's break for employer-provided insurance - but it does potentially go to people who don't pay income tax. Why isn't that socialism?

Conservatives are also calling Obama's health-care plan "socialized medicine." Yet Henry Aaron, a top health-policy expert at nonpartisan Brookings Institution, laughed at this characterization.

He calls Obama's plan "exceedingly moderate," noting that it builds incrementally on existing insurance programs. It won't tell private insurers what benefits they must cover beyond a basic package.

In fact, liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman attacked Obama's plan as overly modest (compared to Hillary Clinton's) several times during the primaries.

Unlike places like Britian, which does have socialized medicine, Obama wouldn't put doctors to work for the government. If you like your current policy, you could keep it.

If Obama's plan is "socialist" because it means a bit more government involvement in health care, than America already has socialized medicine for the elderly (Medicare) and the poor (Medicaid).

Maybe all this is why the "socialist" attack doesn't seem to be working. In the most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, Obama led on "better on taxes" 48-34. A month earlier, McCain was ahead 41-37.

Could the taunt of "communist" be far behind?